zipfelwurster

I have mixed feelings about this.

We as the west point to Russia and China frequently, lamenting the closed-off nature of their Internet.

Now we are publicly pushing towards further fragmentation of the Internet.

I find it hard to see major differences between blocking TikTok here and China blocking Facebook over there. I assume, the process here is a little more publicly discussed whereas in Russia or China, things are quietly blocked by government agencies, but I might even be wrong about that.

Wichtige Grundsatzentscheidung aus Münch*in /s

Die aus dem Glas, oder? Hab mich paar Mal an Kichererbsen versucht aber bisher sind wir noch nicht Freunde geworden.

Stimmt.

Die tagespost hat hier einen Artikel der plausibel klingt: https://www.die-tagespost.de/politik/es-ging-nie-um-modernisierung-art-248972

Da steht grob dass viel öffentliche Kritik im Vorfeld des Referendums laut geworden ist weil

1. die Verantwortung für die Pflege von Angehörigen in der Familie verankert wird. Da gibt es wohl aktuell einen Fall vor Gericht wo es um die finanzielle Hilfe bei so einem Pflegefall geht. Die vorgeschlagene Gesetzesänderung würde dem entgegenstehen, da das dann Aufgabe der Familie ist.
2. "andauernde Beziehungen" schwach definiert sind und das erst teuer und langwierig juristisch geklärt werden muss.
3. beim Referendum allgemein viel gemauschelt und politischer Druck ausgeübt wurde.

Ich bin gerade mit einem Iren unterwegs und wir haben uns zufällig zu dem Referendum unterhalten. Er hat sich nicht an dem Thema Frauenbild gestört, sondern daran, dass dann eine dauerhafte Beziehung als Familie gelten solle.

Er meinte dass komplett ungeklärt ist was eine "dauerhafte Beziehung" letztendlich bedeutet. Auf Rückfragen von Journalisten an Politiker, wen die Formulierung jetzt genau einschließt, kam dann wohl die lapidare Antwort dass das die Gerichte in Zukunft schon klären würden. Technisch könnte das einen Sohn der seine Mutti pflegt oder eine langjährige 2er-WG einschließen. Ist ein bisschen an den Haaren herbeigezogen, aber ist schon denkbar dass es da Graubereiche gibt.

Es klingt so als ob hier eine womöglich gut gemeinte Änderung überstürzt in die Verfassung eingebaut werden soll ohne dass geklärt ist, wen es einschließt und warum es nötig ist.

Ist jetzt alles rein anekdotisch aber halte es für denkbar dass der Spiegel hier seine Hausaufgaben nicht gemacht hat.

Ah, interesting. Well, if you create a bug report, post the link here and I'll vote it up for visibility :)

I believe it's because firefox's UI is placed on the bottom of the screen per default. To account for that, I believe they adjust the viewport's height to either exclude the bottom of the screen (when the symbol bar is displayed) or include it (when you scroll down and the symbol bar is hidden).

Because they use a slide-out animation based on scrolling within the web page, the viewport changes a million times in height and causes elements fixed to the bottom of the viewport to jump and adjust a lot, causing weird behavior. And nobody tests for that.

All of thse are my assumptions by the way, please test for yourself, I might well be wrong.

If it really bothers you, try placing the symbol bar above and see if it works. It's in the settings.

I really hope the EU won't release the money Hungary hasn't received due to EU sanctions to have the deal pass.

Hungary has seen a tremendous amount of corruption by Orban and his family. It is a country whose leadership is incompatible with the EU ideas and managed to keep its power due to a stream of money from the EU while at the same time denouncing the EU.

Many of Orban's changes, among them abolishing free media, funneling money out of EU-funded projects, cutting LGBTQ rights, rightfully caused EU sanctions.

Having talked to a lot of Hungarian friends and acquaintances, most of them want the EU to stop handing out money to Orban. They believe that only then their leadership's corruption and incompetency will become apparent to the broad population and political change could become possible.

I respect you for admitting you were wrong. That takes courage.

Also maybe it wasn't smart leaving that part out of my reply.

Unfortunately it's hard to tell trolls apart from real people in here.

It somewhat reminds me of the height of covid in online discussions - people turn off their brains and fall back on basic emotions and empty phrases.

This is objectively false.

Habeck says in the video that he has seen a terrifying growth in antisemitism in Germany where members of the Jewish faith are scared to leave the house on their own or publicly display religious symbols due to open hostility. He talks about a responsibility of Germans due to the central role in the holocaust but also how the Islamic world has not distanced itself enough from the atrocities committed by the hamas. He even remarked that one doesn't have to agree with some of Israel's politics - even explicitly naming the settlements in the Gaza / West Bank region - but that this should not be any excuse for antisemitism.

I will say again what I said in another comment - The video is an appeal to human decency and respect. Shame on you for willfully and stubbornly ignoring that and derailing the conversation to incite further hate.

If anyone else comes here - go watch the posted video but stay away from this comment section.

I have absolutely no idea how such a level-headed and well-put-together speech appealing at human decency and respect towards each other devolved into such a vile comment section.

I assume most of the commenters either didn't watch the video or purposefully ignored its content to instead incite more hate.