CLPadvocate

crossed swastika would still be considered distribution of Nazi symbols. there was already a criminal case many years ago where (if I'm remembering it correctly) a student putting "no nazis"-stickers with a crossed swastika had to defend himself at the court.

but nevertheless - claiming to be victim of censorship is such a common trope nowadays, so maybe the author even reported himself to get some publicity. he is actually a pretty crappy - or let's say controversial - historian and is not really interesting enough for anyone to purposefully discredit him.

there is an old story that exists in numerous variants and goes roughly like this:

A town’s electricity generator failed and various engineers were unable to fix it, so an elderly electrician was summoned. He examined the generator carefully, then tapped it lightly once with a hammer, and power was instantly restored. He submitted his bill for $1,000 and as he was asked for the explanation, answered: “Tapping — $1. Knowing where to tap — $999.”

This is basically bullshit.

First of all - most people also in the US obviously don't know that there are exceptions from the First Amendment, excluding certain categories of speech from protection. Second, the First Amendment at the time it was created had a much more limiting interpretation of this freedom - e.g. insults were actually punishable.

Additionally - freedom of speech has never been absolute - it was limited in Ancient Greece, where it originated, it was limited as it was declared in the French Revolution (which was used as the template for the First Amendment), and in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights - which provides the internationally valid definition of freedom of speech, its scope is also limited.

As opposed to the US, in Germany, the legal system is built consistently from the most generally valid principles to the most specific ones. The most universally valid principle is the one of the human dignity - this is why it's prominently placed in the first sentence of the German Basic/Fundamental Law. Everything else is more or less directly derived from the First Law, making them subordinate to it - thus if freedom of speech violates someone's dignity, the dignity is more important and has to take precedence, limiting the freedom of speech.

And this is consistent and concordant with the international definition.

where did you get this bullshit from?

by every definition of democracy, Iran is very close to the worst end of the scale - just as an example https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/democracy...

Yet many people persist in calling aluminum foil "tinfoil."

We chemists get annoyed at things like that.

Now, about aluminum foil.

Actually, most chemists are profoundly annoyed at the Americans' inability to spell aluminium properly...

from Indoeuropean "gwen" over scandinavian "kvinna" = Woman

and this is called systematic discrimination against Israel. maybe someone should teach the UN high commissioner basics of law.

sure - GBU-57 are roughly half a million per piece, with express home delivery.

it would be scary, if Apollo wouldn't be a famous right-wing "alternative news" outlet known for absolutely fabricated stories and campaigns.

i really don't know how comments like this one can be tolerated here. it's not about flagging or banning - it's really should be about legal actions.

this is exactly what other countries do since ages - US, UK, France - just to name a few - they all have territories under their control, but not integrated into the state itself, with population having different, but usually lesser rights than the population of the state proper.

on the other hand, the situation in so-called palestinian territories is completely different. Gaza strip was officially annexed by Egypt, West Bank was officially annexed by Jordan - so the official government would be these countries, and if we're talking about Apartheid, then it would be committed by these countries.

they don't even want it - because otherwise you can't play the victim card and blame jews for everything. their entire "economy" is based on that.

jews are the indigenous population. at least from all existing people, jews have the oldest and most substantial historical rights to the modern-day Israel.

here is the entire story: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/11/04/bbc-arabic-bias-...

Didn't you forget to mention the genocide of the so-called "palestinians" on jews, lasting for nearly 80 years?

Or would you rather prefer to discuss it in the context of 1300-year-long Arab occupation of the lands they absolutely do not belong to?

Or maybe you want to know why even using the word "Palestine" contributes to a 2000-year-long genocide on the jewish population of Israel?

It's not a legal site according to German law (crucial parts are missing). And its terms of use are insane. And the creator needs a German language course - there are many mistakes on the site.

some time ago, IBM was not only AN AI company, it was THE AI company of their time (with Deep Blue, then with Watson).

Regardless of intention, it is a test where intelligence helps you perform.

PISA is just testing if you learned some set of information at specific point in time. It has basically nothing to do with intelligence - it's a test of standard compliance.

You probably mean to say some specific interpretation of IQ scores is unscientific.

No - I mean that IQ is NOT MEASURING HUMAN INTELLIGENCE AT ALL. It may have some correlation with some aspects of intelligence, or maybe rather have some correlation with human's performance in specific situations which some other people may consider as "acting intelligently", but it's not guaranteed to be the case. So maybe it's rather some kind of an indicator of the current mental and body fitness (oxygen level, nutrition, sleep / exhaustion, focus, or whatsoever), but no more.

You can't, e.g., claim that IQ is bullshit, and also that Jews are overrepresented in influential positions because of their high IQ.

which i never did in my entire life.

Just FYI: PISA was never meant to test intelligence. And IQ in general is unscientific bullshit.

it's not France - it's a poor little man, who has basically no support in his own country, and who pathetically tries to appear important to the world.

It's actually pretty consistent - they knew back then that the entire Red Scare was a complete bullshit, used only for oppression of dissidents - and now they are just using new methods for the same goal.

You wish. Basically 90% of German nazis stayed in Germany and were completely unharmed by any form of persecution. Most of them had even kept everything they stole from all the murdered people, including companies, homes, and items of value. A large share of the later West German Lawyers and Politicians had NS background, in the DDR it was slightly less. Of the rest - many were flown to the US to contribute to the American weapon programs, roughly similar share were taken to the UdSSR for the same reasons. "Burnt, buried, or escaped to South America" is the smallest part of them.

most obvious things are often enough the mostly wrong ones - this is why everyone was sure for centuries that the Earth is flat or that the Sun and stars are orbiting the Earth. and this is why people invented specific protocols to ensure (or at least come close to) correctness of theories. these are called proofs.

and, for example - if you are using one specific LEGAL definition of a genocide then you have to prove LEGALLY, following the regular process. if you're not doing it, then it's per definition not a proof.

there are a couple of problems with these "international organisations": first and foremost - they are created by the few former colonial powers who were never hold accountable for their own war crimes - but instead gave them the additional power to judge over their former victims (and the rest of the world).

the second point is - these organisations are used to cement the status quo - which is also created by the colonial powers and has absolutely nothing to do with the reality in the world - thus on one hand making all conflicts unavoidable and on the other hand mostly illegal.

the third point is - the rules are not applied to all countries in the same way - e.g. Turkey occupied half of Cyprus and displaced a large part of its population, Turkey is bombing innocent people in Syria, Turkey keeps refugees that originally headed to Europe under very inhuman conditions - not only there are no sanctions for that, Europe is basically funding all of this. As Russia occupied Georgia and annexed parts of it, there were no investigations, no sanctions, nothing. As China occupied Tibet, there were no sanctions but huge investments instead. And there are many more examples.

If you want to have an accepted legal system then it may not be biased and has to apply to everyone without exceptions - what we have at the moment is not even a joke. It's the opposite of a legal system.

Are you kidding me - of course it's not a proof. It's already in the description - they are not claiming that they have proven something - they just say it looks like something. It's not even an opinion.

Not a single one of these is even close to be a proof. All of them are just opinions of specific groups of people - most of them have their own agenda, so they can't even be considered to be unbiased opinions.

If we're talking about legal evaluation, then there is a strict formal procedure that collects and evaluates the evidence from both sides controlled by lawyers. And after the court comes to a final conclusion including appeals or whatever steps are provided by the legal system, then you may claim that something was proven.

For a scientific proof, the procedure is much more complex - basically you start with a claim and then you have to disprove or invalidate EVERY SINGLE opposite claim, fact or evidence. And there is actually no time limit here - scientists are still trying to disprove theories from the 17th century.

This is how things work in real world.

Not really - it may be sufficient for you to develop an opinion, but it definitely not a legal proof.

It's actually the case since decades. All the Palestinian organisations, Huthis, Hezbollah, and Iran OFFICIALLY ANNOUNCED genocide on Israel as their main reason d'etre and did their best to accomplish it - and UN didn't care.

The UN's anti-Israel stance gets especially clear in the dealing with the so-called refugees - here, UN is adopting a completely different definition of "refugee", compared to every other country in the world, leading to ever-multiplying numbers of "refugees" that would at some point basically annihilate Israel as a country.

The UK has people in prison for tweets and saying mean words. We do not have that; the first amendment is not a myth.

US seems not to understand yet, how fast words become deeds. Every oppression starts with words.

You called me a dilettante, I claim that is hate speech. It meets all the (current) criteria for hate speech.

He/She actually didn't. He/She called ALL Americans dilettantes, not you personally. In the latter case, you may TRY to sue, which would with nearly 100% probability be dismissed by any court, since it's not really an insult.

Do you think that the government should be able to silence or punish you because I was offended by your insult? A world where that is true is a world where freedom and democracy die.

The government has absolutely nothing to do with it. And yes, absolutely and definitely, every single person should be able to defend himself against insults. Why should you have the right to insult other people? Are you somehow better than them? Not in a country where law is respected and where every person is equal.

Language is context dependent and requires interpretation. I can easily take someone’s words out of context and they become hate speech, I can also easily misinterpret someone’s words and they become hate speech. What is fine one day can become hate speech the next under a different administration.

And this ist exactly where it gets wrong - you don't decide anything. You MAY think that something is hate speech, you MAY think that someone insulted you - so you are allowed to fill a complaint, but there is INDEPENDENT JUSTICE that decides if you have the point or not. And they would dismiss any claims that have no substance. So if someone was fined (most usually somewhere about 1000-2000 Euros) then it was really an insult, if someone was imprisoned (pretty uncommon) then it was someone who repeatedly insulted other people (and was convicted multiple times) or was so incredibly offensive that it crossed the boundaries of civilised behaviour by so far that he had to be isolated from the society. I actually have no examples where people were imprisoned for the first-time insult or even for the first-time hate speech.

There is absolutely no danger to democracy if the laws apply to all people equally and if people are forced to communicate in civilised ways.

Robert Habeck would not get in trouble, because it's extremely improbable that he would ever use inappropriate language. But in general, every politician insulting any other person could face legal action. It happened before and it would happen again. But, of course, the offended person needs to take action and fill a complaint.