If only there was a way to look at the actual study, but oh no
Landslide7648
joined 11 months ago
It’s never good to compare one genocide to the other. If you did and applied consequence to it, the current situation in Gaza would come show up somewhere in the middle of all ongoing atrocities, behind Sudan and Yemen.
Instead, efforts should be made to stop all of these wars regardless of location and political ideology.
That guy sure is afraid of his wife.
“We” didn’t do shit. People in 1776 did, today’s Americans wouldn’t reject it out of fear for consequence to personal comfort.
It’s a multiple choice question. Also the headline is false. The question is:
“What action relating to the state of Israel is prohibited in Germany?"
The correct answer is “publicly calling for the destruction of Israel".
That headline is false. You do not have to affirm Israel’s right to exist.
You have to know that it’s illegal to call for the destruction of the state of Israel. That’s not the same.
You call them police proceedings, but it’s the public prosecutor’s office (Staatsanwaltschaft) that is calling the shots. Regardless, the article also states that two of the highest courts called the Verwaltungsgerichte have decided that the phrase isn’t illegal per se.
Of course it is illegal in the context of glorifying Hamas terrorism, as it should be. That also puts a responsibility on organisers of protests to make sure that they distance themselves from people who are ambiguous in their distancing from hamas, that’s a positive thing in my opinion.
I’m not denying my privilege, but I’d argue that I’m more aware of my biases than you appear to be
Nope, not true. Stop spreading misinformation just because you want to get public praise.
You will not automatically get deported, but it will be made easier to deport foreigners who are praising terrorism. There’s a big difference. You always have legal recourse against this.
That’s important because the phrase “from the river to the sea” is not illegal praise of terrorism in Germany, even if you may have heard so from your equally misinformed bubble. While its use shows that the person saying has a big problem with accepting that a complex situation will certainly not be reflected in a catchy sentence, and that it may be time for that person to just excuse them from a discussion they are very likely not a part of, it is not illegal.
Why? Because courts will have to make the decision whether its use in a specific context was illegal, and more often than not it won’t be.
You’re missing the point. It doesn’t matter what you or I believe, if a person has accepted that a big corporation knows everything about them and use this as a reason not to take action or prevent them from knowing more, then the Doctorow quote doesn’t apply.
It’s okay to say lazy. Not everything is ADHD. You’re just lazy.