How do you expect me to join a revolution when I’m lying in bed, too depressed to move?

Being able to “cope”, or survive, within horrible circumstances isn’t oppressive. Oftentimes it’s absolutely necessary to even begin to change your circumstances for the better. The alternative is unnecessarily cruel and to be clear helps absolutely zero with the status quo.

Was genau würde das bringen? Sachsen-Anhalt wird das neue Texas.

Und kann ja sein dass das mittelfristig wichtige Überlegungen wären, aber ich glaube die ersten Maßnahmen sollten solche sein, die auch wirklich direkt was verbessern. Beim Steuersystem wäre mir zum Beispiel viel wichtiger, wer wie viel zahlt, als welche Instanz das dann letztendlich einzieht. Wir brauchen z.B. definitiv eine faire Steuerprogression, Vermögenssteuer, Erbschaftssteuer auch für Unternehmenserben und weniger Schlupflöcher für die oberen 0,5%. Weniger unregulierten Kapitalismus, weniger Wirtschaftsverlierer, weniger gesellschaftliche Ungerechtigkeit. Weil das wichtige Gründe sind, wegen derer sich viele radikalisieren. Da muss man ran.

Die Überschrift hat ehrlich gesagt nicht so wahnsinnig viel mit dem Interview zu tun, es geht viel mehr um die Abwägung, wie man die AfD am besten von der Macht fernhält - mit oder ohne Brandmauer.

Recht hast du trotzdem, das ist echt ne furchtbare Richtung, in die es sich momentan entwickelt.

Die beiden Herren im Interview haben jeweils verschiede Ideen davon, wie man dem begegnen sollte, und das Interview gibt als Ganzes auch keine abschließende Antwort. Ich fand die Unterhaltung der beiden darüber aber spannend.

Ich selber glaube, wir brauchen absolut eine harte innergesellschaftliche Grenze gegen faschistische Tendenzen (aka Brandmauer), aber genauso dringend gute Politik, die denen, die sich sonst an Rattenfänger dranhängen, was anbieten. Und zwar nicht Abschiebungen und Aufrüstung - sondern günstige Mieten, Aufstiegschancen, soziale Absicherung, Bildung und ein stabiles Gesundheitssystem.

Sehr interessantes Doppel-Interview mit zwei Politikwissenschaftlern, die verschiedene Positionen zum Thema Brandmauer vertreten.

Köstlich!

Coming from OfficeWord and having recently switched to LibreWriter, I almost deinstalled again after failing to move a table, though.

Working with tables in general is a bit of a pain. I will stay with Libre, mainly for idealistic reasons :P but I really can’t say that it’s the better program based on my experiences so far.

Erst war ich zu faul, aber das ging mir jetzt die letzten Tage echt nach ;) Ist korrigiert. Danke Brudi

Warum nicht?

And to add to that: It would make the winter mornings so, so much darker.

I don’t think many people consider how that would affect them.

But a restaurant should be allowed to sell me a veggie burger. Why on earth should we call it a burger for beef patties, chicken patties, veal patties and fish patties, but not for bean patties, veggie patties or plant based meat patties like impossible? The only thing different to a “burger” are ingredients which are already swapped out for different ones on a regular basis.

And blood sausage is a very good example to show that “sausage” is an established appendix to show the shape of something, while specifying what it’s made of with a term beforehand. Pork sausage. Beef sausage. Turkey sausage. Blood sausage. This works so well that I can invent words of artificial things and still convey what I mean by that: Paper sausage. Ice sausage. Cloth sausage. Glass sausage. …Chickpea sausage. Broccoli sausage. Bean sausage.

It’s a non-brainer. The legislators are being deliberately obtuse here.

Don’t really care about steaks, but burgers, sausages and many others are really established with their veggie and vegan variants. It’s completely nonsensical to ban them.

Why?

I want something vegan that looks and tastes like sausage. I want to have an easy time finding such a product in the store. I look for a product that says “I’m basically a sausage, but vegan”. I buy a vegan sausage.

What’s the problem with that?

calling every homophobe a queer in denial is literally placing the blame of bigotry on the targets of hate

You do realize that queer people aren’t one homogeneous blob of people, but a bunch of individuals? Obviously I’m not blaming myself, and neither am I blaming other bi and gay people for homophobia. I’m blaming the initiators of bigotry (the homophobes, queer or not) and their behavior (homophobia and bigotry) against their victims (the “targets of hate”, aka other queer people) - different human beings, mind you.

all while providing a convenient smokescreen for every genuinely straight homophobe

But how? What kind of smokescreen? I’m still calling out homophobes. At the end of the day it doesn’t matter if they’re queer or not - it’s not like straight homophobes get a pass. The problematic thing about homophobia is still just their behavior, not their sexuality. You act like straight homophobes somehow profit from the belief that a significant portion of homophobes are bi- or homosexual, but if anything it would annoy them, which is always good in my book.

Please show me how this opinion actually harms queer people or benefits homophobes in any way and I swear I will change my mind. After all, I personally should be affected by this.

No, it’s about the misunderstanding that it might be meant this way. I don’t think most commenters here are actually homophobic.

But look, obviously I can’t know for sure how other people mean it when they say it, but I can when I’m the one talking.

I’m bisexual. Bisexuality is a normal and beautiful part of the spectrum of human sexuality, and anyone who has something against it is a certified moron.

I personally think that many homophobic people are bisexual (or gay) and in horrible, hateful denial.

I don’t think their queerness is to blame, but specifically their harmful behavior. I don’t think their queerness is the reason either, but nothing but good old sexism and heteronormativity. I still think that their queerness is part of an explanation, since it leads them to this horrible internal misunderstanding that sexuality is a choice. I don’t think all homophobes are queer, obviously some are straight, but I think it’s a significant portion of the most spiteful and publicly active ones. And again, them being (allegedly) queer is not what’s problematic about them in the slightest. It’s their homophobic behaviour.

I’ve yet to see an example of someone who actually blames homosexuality or the queer community for homophobia in this argument, just people claiming that this is what’s somehow happening.

Maybe you and I are having different conversations then. I’ve never experienced it being taken this way.

As a queer person I never understood this

They are not being attacked for being gay. They are specifically attacked for being homophobic.

TERFS are also not being attacked for being women, nor is attacking TERFS an attack against all women either.

Attacking someone who’s bi or homosexual in denial and overcompensating that with hatred says absolutely nothing about gay people as a whole, or implies in any way that being gay is problematic.

And to be completely honest here, it feels kinda presumptuous the way this is being argued. Almost like it shouldn’t be allowed to criticise someone gay for any reason at all. Queer people are a very diverse group of people and obviously we have assholes, too. It’s not doing anyone a favor if we act like that’s impossible.

Fands auch gar nicht so leicht zu finden, hier: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Löschkandidaten/4._Mai_2020 Auf der Seite STRG+F drücken und den Namen “Reiner Strangfeld” eingeben.

Kann man, hab ich eben gemacht.

Kurzzusammenfassung: Jemand hat die Löschdiskussion aufgrund formaler Gründe angestoßen nachdem der Spiegel kritisch über die AfD-Spende berichtet hatte, andere User haben sich darüber geärgert und die Frage aufgeworfen ob das eine Trotzreaktion ist, der Antragsteller hat mit Sealioning geantwortet und ein Mod hat schlussendlich den formalen Gründen zugestimmt und den Artikel gelöscht.

Das kann man bewerten wie will, aber ich persönlich denke, wenn jemandem die Aufmerksamkeit auf das Thema nicht unwohl gewesen wäre, hätte die Löschdiskussion gar nicht erst stattgefunden. Offizielle Begründung: Nicht relevant genug für eine Enzyklopädie.

Ich persönlich würde gerne etwas über den Mann lesen, von dem die höchste bekannte Einzelzuwendung für eine Partei in der Geschichte unseres Landes stammt, aber das sah der Mod leider anders.