311–320 of 324 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can only move so 'fast and break things', when failure can land you and your family in jail or get you killed. That being said, the timeline is remarkably short for such a hardware project.
They originally wanted to make a helicopter. (Not kidding)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The fascists were everywhere in the DDR: just called members of the party or as part of the Stasi. And I take the definition of fascists as anyone who prioritizes their political system, State or political view to a point of depriving any other citizen of their basic freedom.
Authoritarianism isn't the same thing as fascism.
- What capitalists did in 6 months that communists didn't manage in 50 years? - Make communism look good. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_nostalgia
Communism and socialism have always looked good when compared to the principles of other economic and political doctrines: - No poor people; everyone supported by the State; Everyone works for the common good; shared resources no matter how lucky or unlucky you are… From an intentional and moral perspective, nothing can beat it. However it fails and will always fail because of a couple of important reasons: - it requ…
In the end there is an awkward question. What separates Communism from a bronze age god-king's palace economy where everyone is a slave of the ruler?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Any source showing people being imprisoned or fined merely for expressing an anti-left opinion then? Which specific law were they convicted under? The claim that Germany has "no constitutional protection against double jeopardy" is false. Art. 103(3) of the constitution embodies ne bis in idem. The German criminal procedure allows legal remedies (appeals), including Revision (appeal on points of law), which can be br…
You're doing exactly what I said you'd do. Zero shame. Morality is not just a matter of opinion. > the issue was not "criticizing COVID authoritarianism" as such, but the use of a banned symbol under 86a StGB Of course it was the issue. German media puts swastikas on things without any legal problems when they are government aligned. https://www.amazon.de/-/en/SPIEGEL-Nichts-gelernt-Jahre-Bund... It's only people cri…
I'd be interested in how you arrive at that conclusion.
> Of course it was the issue. German media puts swastikas on things without any legal problems when they are government aligned.
Are we talking about the use of swastikas or your statement that people are imprisoned or fined for voicing anti-left opinions? I'm happy to do both, but it feels like those are two different things.
The use of swastikas (and other symbolism of banned organizations like the NSDAP) is prohibited in Germany if there is no clear rejection of the NS tied to it or if the rejection cannot unequivocally be derived from the context.
Using swastikas is therefore somewhat risky in any context, since it is a matter for the courts to decide whether a specific case qualifies as allowed use or not. It is far more probable that the use of a swastika in an anti-left statement will not qualify, since it is challenging to add value to an anti-left statement by using a swastika while still clearly rejecting the NS at the same time.
Again, happy to talk about § 86a StGB, but I would first be interested in how you come to the conclusion that this is being used to suppress anti-left opinions. I.e., how is using a swastika necessary or even helpful when voicing an opinion?
CJ Hopkins said he wanted to warn the public of a 'newly rising totalitarianism'. He posted a picture of a corona mask with a visible swastika and the caption 'Masks are symbols of ideological conformity' and a quote from the then minister of health stating 'Masks also always send a signal'.
Pretty much all of that is legal, also when looking at § 188. The only real issue is the use of the swastika. Using common symbolism like 'OBEY' instead would immediately remove any legal doubts.
> Germany forbids insulting politicians, and German politicians use it extensively.
True, Germany also forbids insulting anyone. This is not restricted to politicians, and there is no difference in which insults are punishable for politicians and non-politicians. This is very different from how things are in the US, where insults are not punishable offenses per se. § 188 mostly refers to the degree of penalty possible when directing an insult towards any politician and what's necessary for a different degree of penalty to apply.
However, this is used by politicians across the whole political spectrum alike, including the far-right. The same reports you mentioned with regard to Robert Habeck exist for Alice Weidel, who filed hundreds of complaints under §§ 185 and 188. This is regardless of ongoing criticism of this paragraph voiced by the far-right, liberals, and others alike.
How is this specifically targeting anti-left opinions?
> You're doing exactly what I said you'd do. Zero shame.
Meta: Reading this, it feels like you don't particularly enjoy this conversation. So let me say this: I'm really happy we are having this discussion. It is something completely different to read about other opinions in the paper versus actually talking to someone with a different perspective. I'm genuinely interested in your opinion, and my questions are serious questions, not rhetorical ones.
I don't feel any animosity towards you, and I hope you can also gain something from this. If you don't share that sentiment, I'm completely fine with leaving this thread as is and accepting that we won't reach any agreement right now.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> yet the only option for citizens of the GDR and other communist states yawns https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1970s_Soviet_Union_aliyah
The Soviet Union had almost no legal emigration prior to the 1970s, and limited, targed emigration quotas after. The US, by contrast, prior to 1965, had strict quotas limiting immigration (based on national origins).
There were a lot of things in the USSR but leaving by "escape and defection" was not the only option.
Disney made a movie about this called Night Crossing in the early 1980s. More recently, there's a 2018 German movie about it called Balloon. [0] https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0082810/ [1] https://www.imdb.com/title/tt7125774
They have the 2018 movie free to watch on Fandango At Home, which doesn't even require you to login to watch it: https://athome.fandango.com/content/browse/details/Balloon/1...
> East Germany immediately increased border security, closed all small airports close to the border, and ordered the planes kept farther inland.[6] Propane gas tanks became registered products, and large quantities of fabric suitable for balloon construction could no longer be purchased. Mail from East Germany to the two escaped families was prohibited.[12] > Erich Strelzyk learned of his brother's escape on the ZDF…
The GDR seems to be forgotten/misunderstood by many people. Which is a pity because it serves a warning about mass public surveillance plans that keep rearing their ugly head, even in Germany.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That makes sense to me. Authoritarian government is not inherently abusive of citizens, even though it often gets used in rhetoric as though that was the case. It's just that there are no guard rails against the whims of the people in charge, so you better hope you manage to keep good people in charge forever (and that is obviously not going to happen).
I read a quote somewhere that said democracy does nothing to promote good leadership. The point of democracy isn't to elect a good government, the point is to quickly get rid of a bad government
Perhaps it would be better to pick the government at random and then have much more frequent votes with the only choice being whether to pick a new random government or not.