You're viewing a single thread.
Seems like a good spot for this:
Nonviolence works the same way: if you're engaging with someone / some group who isn't violent, there's an expectation that you'll also remain nonviolent. If they pull a gun on you and you happen to be packing (and a quick shot) and shoot em dead, that does NOT bring you down to their level.
From the German constitution:
Anyone who abuses the freedom of expression, in particular the freedom of the press (Article 5 para. 1), the freedom of teaching (Article 5 para. 3), the freedom of assembly (Article 8), the freedom of association (Article 9), the secrecy of letters, mail and telecommunications (Article 10), the property (Article 14) or the right of asylum (Article 16a) to fight against the free democratic basic order, forfeits these fundamental rights. The forfeiture and its extent are pronounced by the Federal Constitutional Court.
Exactly. I don't get why this simple concept is so hard to understand. I've had many people claim Germany doesn't have freedom of speech since you are not allowed to salute Hitler. By invading other's rights, you give up yours. It's not hard to comprehend.
Based
There also is this section:
Parties that, according to their goals or the behavior of their supporters, aim to impair or eliminate the free democratic basic order or to endanger the existence of the Federal Republic of Germany are unconstitutional.
God bless Germany
to fight against the free democratic basic order,
Wold be nice if "liberal democracy" consisted of anything that can be called democratic with a straight face - perhaps then Germany wouldn't be one of Israel's most vitriolic genocide enablers.
What exactly are you referring to?
You did know there's a western-backed genocide being perpetrated in Palestine right now, right?
I’m asking what the war in Gaza has to do with the democratic order in Germany
You mean... apart from the fact that Germany is funding, supporting and enabling Israel's genocide?
But what does this have to do with democracy? If the elected parties fund a war, morally correct or not, it is still democracy as they were chosen. There are multiple German parties who oppose Israel, but they weren’t elected
But what does this have to do with democracy?
I hate to be the one to break it to you - "liberal democracy" is about as "democratic" as the Soviet Union was "socialist." Liberalism, capitalism and imperialism is violently incompatible with any society that can be described as democratic with a straight face - and always has been.
If the elected parties fund a war, morally correct or not, it is still democracy as they were chosen.
Did Germans collectively agree to this genocide that is being funded in their name? Do they even really know what is being done in their name?
No?
Then there's absolutely nothing democratic about it, is it?
Not all Germans have the same opinion, but a complete consensus isn’t needed, as long as there is a majority. And in Germany this majority is not that of a referendum but the elected parties, as it is unrealistic to have a referendum for every single decision and most countries have not learned how to handle referendums, but one can still make their own party, in fact that just recently happened, the party (BSW) was founded, got 6 percent in the election (which in Germany can actually get you in the government) and AFAIK they oppose non humanitarian aid completely. I don’t think there’s any country where the population knows exactly what the government is doing, so it’s unrealistic to ask that everyone knows what is happening (although this is a problem). There have been multiple demonstrations against Israel’s actions and I personally know people who oppose these actions, about as much how support them but the big majority of people I know don’t care that much. Also the second biggest party (which never was part of a government) thinks that (and it’s one of their main points) that the Islam is the biggest threat to the existence of Germany so you could probably find a lot of people who think that Palestine should be blown up.
Also one question, are you actually from Germany or have you just read these things? Because the politics, mentality and economics are a lot different to for example the USA so maybe something’s appear differently than they would look to a German.
as it is unrealistic to have a referendum for every single decision
Oh, there was no decision here... Germany has been supporting Israel's ongoing genocide for a very, very long time now. Enabling Israel's white supremacist genocide is no less a matter of policy in Germany than it is in the US - and none of you will ever get to vote on it, just like USians don't get to vote on it in any way, shape or form.
Let us be very clear... knowingly enabling genocide is no different than perpetrating genocide oneself - and Germany endorsing Israel in their genocidal project makes it blatantly clear that Germany is as fundamentally white supremacist and imperialist today as Germany was when it perpetrated it's first genocide in Namibia. It doesn't matter that the people signing the papers are wearing overpriced designer-label suits instead of grey uniforms, and it doesn't matter that the politicians are flashing liberal pretend-smiles for the cameras instead of throwing fascist tantrums from a podium. It's all the exact same white supremacism still at work.
There have been multiple demonstrations against Israel’s actions
Yeah... I saw. And the fascist goon squads were there, too - to perform their true function and ensure that actual democracy doesn't threaten the precious status quo while it's hard at work enabling genocide.
lot of people who think that Palestine should be blown up.
Isn't it an amazing coincidence that the biggest parties in every (so-called) "liberal democracy" are almost always regurgitating the exact same narratives that rich people themselves want regurgitated?
It's almost like... actual democracy isn't compatible with a society where a small, rich elite gets to dictate what everybody believes, eh?
Also one question, are you actually from Germany
No. I'm from South Africa... if you must know.
It's all well and good until you end up like the US or the DPRK. Any clown fiesta can be touted as "democracy" as long as the people doing it don't have any meaningful resistance to doing so. Objective truth is a myth in the real world.
Any system can be undermined with enough criminal energy.
People often argue against certain laws that they can be abused if judges collude with the executive.
But if the separation of power between executive, legislative and judiciary and the related mutual controls break down then the actual laws don't matter anymore anyway.
Does the paradox of tolerance even exist?
If you tolerate a group that hates a group of people, there are people that hate a group of people, meaning the society is intolerant to that group of people until those people are gone
If you dont tolerate a group that hates a group of people, there are people that hate the group that hates a group of people, meaning the society is intolerant to that group that hates the group of people until those people are gone
Because there is no way to become a tolerant society until one of the 2 groups is gone, the easiest way to become a tolerant society would mean getting rid of the easiest group you can get rid of.
Which group would be easiest to get rid off:
- Jews, communists, slavic people, Romani people, all races but one, people with mental and physical illnesses, LGBTQ+ people and poor people Or
- People with a specific ideology
Anything else wouldnt matter since the society will remain intolerant
PS: by "get rid off", i mean remove people from the group, not specifically kill
Does the paradox of tolerance even exist?
If you tolerate a group that hates a group of people, there are people that hate a group of people, meaning the society is intolerant to that group of people until those people are gone
Exactly: there is no paradox there if you don't think of tolerance as an absolute. This blog post put it pretty well:
Tolerance is not a moral absolute; it is a peace treaty. Tolerance is a social norm because it allows different people to live side-by-side without being at each other’s throats. It means that we accept that people may be different from us, in their customs, in their behavior, in their dress, in their sex lives, and that if this doesn’t directly affect our lives, it is none of our business. But the model of a peace treaty differs from the model of a moral precept in one simple way: the protection of a peace treaty only extends to those willing to abide by its terms. It is an agreement to live in peace, not an agreement to be peaceful no matter the conduct of others. A peace treaty is not a suicide pact.
Love that, thank you.
If they pull a gun on you and you happen to be packing (and a quick shot) and shoot em dead, that does NOT bring you down to their level.
What if they start by shouting "He's got a gun!" and then pulling a gun and firing at you? And then what happens if the news media reports the killing as "Brave hero defends neighborhood against armed criminal" while encouraging other people to behave in a similar fashion? And then what happens if the people shouting "He's got a gun!" and shooting, as an excuse to engage in a kind of localized ethnic cleansing or social repression, are members of and friends with the local police department?
How do you resolve the paradox of tolerance when you aren't in a position physical, social, or political of dominance?
A take on the paradox of tolerance that I really like is that tolerance is not a moral absolute: tolerance is a peace treaty and not a suicide pact, so its "protection" is only afforded to those who abide by the treaty and it doesn't mean tolerating everyone no matter what. Here's a blog post on this, and a relevant quote:
Tolerance is not a moral absolute; it is a peace treaty. Tolerance is a social norm because it allows different people to live side-by-side without being at each other’s throats. It means that we accept that people may be different from us, in their customs, in their behavior, in their dress, in their sex lives, and that if this doesn’t directly affect our lives, it is none of our business. But the model of a peace treaty differs from the model of a moral precept in one simple way: the protection of a peace treaty only extends to those willing to abide by its terms. It is an agreement to live in peace, not an agreement to be peaceful no matter the conduct of others. A peace treaty is not a suicide pact.