They won’t, in no small part because the AfD has enough seats to block the attempt.
They cannot block a decision of the federal constitutional court, don’t be ridiculous. Germany has measures in place exactly for this scenario, and they are about to be enforced. They cannot be vetoed away, it’s a legal matter.
Can you ban a party that’s got a plurality of seats in the Parliament? Or will they be the ones banning you?
Of course. And it’s nonsensical to claim we cannot ban them, while worrying they could ban us. We can and we should, based on what you yourself wrote:
If you pass a law but never enforce it, the law does nothing.
We have laws against undemocratic parties, so we should enforce them.
I mean, by all means, feel free to give it a shot. But it seems like you’re asking an elected government to do a thing it isn’t designed to do.
But it is designed to do exactly that. That’s like a core mechanism of our democracy.
The only way to argue we shouldn’t ban the AFD is if you claim that they somehow should be exempt from our mechanisms against fascism. They were enforced before, they will be enforced again. And the AFD fits the bill in every way.
That rather speaks for banning the AfD though. We have a law for banning fascist parties, so we should enforce it, or it truly would mean nothing.
Some of us are convinced this measure does nothing
Nothing? How can it do nothing? You could argue that it doesn’t do enough or not the right things, but if nothing else banning the party would obviously keep them out of the government at least for the next few years.
Killing the head of a terrorist organization won’t help if you don’t fix the underlying issues.
And yet we don’t allow terrorist organizations to campaign for office, officially and supported by tax money, in our societies.
banning it won’t make the people who vote for it and run it any less, well, fascist.
Correct. But it’s no supposed to do that. Banning a fascist party doesn’t solve every problem of a divided society, but it prevents the worst (a fascist party seizing power) and gives us time (and the chance!) to solve some of the others.
There’s basically no other option. Either a society has effective rules against fascism in place or it will stand idly by while being undermined. And if it has these effective rules, it must abide by them. ‘Fascists should not be allowed to rule the country’ seems to be a reasonable lower limit.
Don’t know what’s there to be so smug about. “Oh you would rather ban them in a constitutional process than to wait for them to seize power and fight a bloody civil war, or worse?” Yes please! I hope we all much prefer the first option.
Which goes to show that it being heavily criticized for being woke has nothing to do with quality. It’s not a “symptom” of a bad game, like you wrote earlier.
If Dragon age flops it will do so because it’s a bad game, not because it’s woke - the people who actually give games bad ratings for that are thankfully always a very small minority, no matter what a conservative bubble, right wing influencers, or some random internet shit storm might suggest to you. Your original comment simply missed the point.
Citation: Cyberpunk 2077, Baldur’s Gate 3, I can even put Stardew Valley in this list, though not as vocal as others. I didn’t see anyone bash these games as being woke, or maybe they are a minority if there are.
You have spend zero time in game forums talking about Baldur’s Gate 3 if you think it wasn’t criticized for being woke. The best game of the year by every metric, and conservatives got batshit insane about a slider for gender that contained “non-binary” as an option. The first year or so every second steam discussion was about that topic.
You’re missing the point here entirely.
Is Fahrenheit intuitive? No, proven by the fact that it can’t be used without prior understanding, as shown in my example.
The rest is sealioning.
ok, so you genuinely think, that people who use celsius cannot experience the sensation of “hot” and “cold” without a number referencing the temperature directly in front of them? Specifically that of the celsius system?
No and that’s not what I claimed. What I’m saying is that if you tell someone accustomed to Celcius “it’s 42F° outside, oh by the way fahrenheit goes from 0=really cold to 100=really hot”, they have no idea about the actual weather. The points of 0 and 100 Fahrenheit are way to arbitrary to be understood without having experienced them.
“Really cold” and “really hot” are completely subjective. They depend on the climate you’re used to and come down to personal preference even. Your “really cold” might be my “pleasantly chilly”. And even if I knew what 0F° and 100F° were in C° I’d have no idea how that relates to the (probably much more common) values between them. Percentages of subjective temperature tell me nothing. 20F° would basically have to be 20% warmer than “really cold”, right? Intuitively I would have guessed somewhere around 7°C (nice autumn morning), turns out 20F° is still way below the freezing point. The idea of 0F° and 100F° does not, in fact, help me interpret these values “with no prior understanding”.
It’s simply not an intuitive frame of reference - except if you have at one point learned what the numbers mean. And at this point it’s exactly as useful als Celcius.
and this is generally the case. I’m sure if you were to sample the opinion of people randomly, this is roughly what you would get back.
Only if you asked people accustomed to Fahrenheit. People who aren’t used to it cannot use it without prior understanding at all. To think otherwise just proves your confirmation bias again.
I may have said that it was an intuitive feature of fahrenheit, and it is, and so is the 0-100 scale of water freezing/boiling in celsius, but that’s irrelevant aside from the fact that it’s intuitive
Then what should “intuitive” even mean if not “intuitive to use”? Because it certainly isn’t that.
Originally you replied to me, replying to someone else claiming fahrenheit was “a 0-100 scale of how hot it is outside” and required “no prior understanding to use it as such”. This was never about Celsius being intuitive or not, it was about Fahrenheit. If you didn’t disagree with me there, your replies to me were pointless. Since then you seem to be arguing against a straw man.
I never claimed Celcius to be intuitive, in fact I claimed the opposite - neither scale is intuitive. Therefore Fahrenheit and Celcius are equally useful in measuring the weather and the idea of Fahrenheit being especially suitable is incorrect, based on the confirmation bias of those who are already used to it. That’s the only argument I’m making here.
i mean, fundamentally that’s what that statement would have to mean, unless you’re referring to a rock being more intuitive or something.
ultimately yeah, neither system is more intuitive than the other.
¯_(ツ)_/¯
“Fahrenheit isn’t more intuitive” doesn’t not mean “Celcius is more intuitive”. You’re mistaken if you think that’s what’s being argued here.
Neither one is intuitive. Intuition isn’t a useful metric here anyway. After all we could ask: Which one is more intuitive - kilometers or miles? Kilograms or pounds? Do we have to change how me measure time (base 12) to a base 10 as well, would that be more intuitive?
Answer is no. All those units have to be learned and filled with experience anyway. Nobody can interpret temperature scales intuitively, neither Fahrenheit nor Celsius.
Fahrenheit simply has no advantage over Celcius. And it doesn’t have to. Some people are used to it, so keep using it by all means. Don’t argue that it’s superior and we’re all good.
arguing that celsius is “more intuitive”
Nobody is arguing that though.
Yeah, which is why most people here in favor of Celcius argue that Fahrenheit isn’t, in fact, more intuitive and therefore more suited to describe the weather. Both are arbitrary, both can be learned and used very easily, the only difference is what you’re used to.
If your example cannot be proven on any existing person I’d argue it’s hardly relevant to our reality.
°F most definitely isn’t intuitive enough for people who aren’t accustomed to it to use. If it is more intuitive at all, it’s not to any meaningful degree.
But the intelligent world will keep using both.
Lol
Read the article. It’s already happening.
You don’t seem to know a lot about the German constitution. The opposite is true. Unppular fringe groups are not banned because they are not actually a danger to democracy, as long as government positions are not in reach for them. That’s exactly how the german federal constitutional court has argued in the past. Successful bans ever only targeted actually successful parties.
The core mechanism of democracy is to protect itself, and first and foremost that means protecting itself from facism. A political organisation that’s threatening democracy should obviously not be allowed, so it will be banned.