Pippipartner

edgy teenage bullshit argument

Yeah Support is horrible work, I don't maintain anything, but I ask stupid questions, which I don't know are stupid until I get the answer and than die of shame.

I don't know if AI can fix that and most maintainers I had to ask for help were really helpful and friendly, but maintainance like keeping software compatible with used libraries, helping users and such is invisible work.

Ah the Linux help desk where you get helpful directions like "You have a problem with your dual monitor setup in your naively installed Ubuntu setup? Have you considered installing a rust micro kernel from an abandoned GitHub repo? After cherry picking some patches from a mailinglist? Also boon plep Ubuntu looser."

Well reading what's actually is there and not what I already concluded to be there has never been my strong suit. The proposal feels like sidestepping the actual problem, that the rise of the far right must be countered, by putting a weak barr on political discussion and political discours to mitigate broader problems. Which to be fair is the politics of center parties.

I don't argue for the implementation of the legal changes discussed in the article, I argue that we already have the required means.

I argue for using these means to protect from fascism.

The better political means would be to enact changes that fix stuff for people so they don't get the feeling the only party that cares for them are fascist, but the topic is legal means.

As I wrote before, the infringement of human rights can be justified to protect others human rights. Barring people from voting for the prospect of genocide is a balanced approach I fully support.

How these legal instruments are used in practice is a different topic from what they are meant for.

Oligarchs are a societal problem which exists independent of constitutional balance of power. Since I try to argue within the idea of legal systems this seems to me as an unrelated, while still very real problem. But that must be dealt with outside of the question of the legality of political parties. To underline my intent here, I believe that the problem of oligarchy can be fixed by parties which adhere to the humanitarian political playing field which the constitution describes. This includes for example radical leftists that use the constitutional legal construct of seizing property in the name of the state (means of production aka money) from those who abuse the property.

Democracies don't die because they restrict political speech based on a constitution which in the case of Germany is pretty solid, they die because they disservice their population while spouting nationalist or other BS and declaring everyone else the enemy and shifting the legal framework to dismental the rule of law.

The idea of cutting these parties and movements of from gaining political traction seems blatantly obvious to me.

Libertarian BS is not the same as Libertarism. People arguing for free speech which allows for speech which is anti-humanist is libertarian BS. Libertarism in itself is a problem because it advocates for the freedom of the individual over the freedom of the collective. Which some find attractive and I myself egoistic. But that is not the the point I'm trying to make here.

In a working legal system, in a constitutional framework of sperated powers within a democratic society we cannot allow BS in the political discours, because it aims to dismental the political discours. Similarly to playing chess with a geese, you will get bit.

The only political discussion I'm willing to have with fascists is over the barrel of a gun, but since the societal contract we are born into asks of me to give my ability to exercise violence in the the hands of the state so it excersises violence in the most just way possible I demand the legal ability and the application of those means to barr fascists from everything.

And that is the point here. Fascism is not a valid political opinion, it's a crime. Other political or mixtures of religious and political thought qualify as well and I don't want them anywhere near a parliament.

The point I don't understand and that might be due to my mental limitations, is why would anyone want these in a political discussion. Why give those free speech that want to abolish it?

The abuse of these legal frameworks is a problem, and that is real, but their existence is required to have a line of defense against anti-humanist BS. And towards the point that you are arguing in favor of civil rights and not for the AfD, it's still an argument that allows for the AfD and I won't accept that as a basis for discussion of fundamental legal frameworks of a society.

Niemals wieder is not only a phrase it must be the very spirit of any serious democratic framework and rule of law.

Why are you arguing in favor of parties that want to infringe on people's human rights?

I fail to see how any movement of change within the spectrum of a constitution based on human rights would be negatively affected by the deligtimisation of anti-humanist factions.

What do oligarchs have to do with that anyway?

How does any of that lead into dictatorship?

What about separation of power?

What about other means of political influence, like wide spread worker strikes, those wouldn't be affected by the dismantling of political parties.

Why the fuck are people spouting libertarian nonsense in defense of fascism?

And pertaining to the gulag: no you.

No. The tolerance paradox generally is interpreted to mean that any tolerant society that tolerates intolerance destroys itself. See Wikipedia first paragraph tolerance paradox. Any serious democratic constitution bases itself on humanism and the idea that human rights cannot be infringed on except to protect the human rights of others. Allowing participants in political discussions who question that is outright fucking stupid. They must be excluded, deconstructed, and fought in the streets if necessary. Using the US as an example for anything democracy related is on the same level as using China as an example for well implemented communism.

That's astonishing bullshit. There is already a process for ban political parties with political alignments incompatible with the constitution, which has to be initialized by o e of the two chambers of parliament and decided by the constitutional court. Having a political instrument in addition to that will automatically reduce the hurdle of dismantling political movements, for blurry definitions of "sufficient amount of extremists in a party".

Nah, that's the paradox of tolerance. A democracy cannot allow fascists to run without dismantling itself. Also fascism and other "political views" that dehumanize are not a political view, they are chargeable criminal offenses in many countries.

Which one? The one that blow up or the other which also blow up?

Transparent Windows are like scifi where they print stuff on see through foil. How the fuck is anybody even able to read this?