SomeLemmyUser @ Jean_le_Flambeur @discuss.tchncs.de

Posts

9

Comments

286

Joined

2 yr. ago

Well kinda yes and kinda no. The US constitution speaks of "the people" which is not defined legally, while some interpret this as "all people in the world", some interpret it as "all people with significant connection to the US" and some "all people of the political community, e.g. citizens"

While certainly better then Germany's version with "all Germans have the right..." Which is clearly more restrictive, its is not as clear cut in the US either - thus maga supporters label immigrants or dissidents as "aliens" which are in their interpretation not part of "the people"

https://harvardlawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/vol126_the_people_in_the_constitution.pdf

While I am certainly in favor of the first definition of "the people" you clearly don't interpret it that way in the fourth amendment (see US military in basically every war):

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Also

" When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.

"

It does, but with a similar Problem as the US one: it garuantees freedom of speech and freedom of assembly, but only to CITIZENS. Cause what does a politician care about people who can't vote for him anyway -.-

https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/gg/art_8.html

Exactly. IMHO they should not be deported at all, but brought before a judge and, if breaking of law is confirmed, put into jail like any other person, deporting someone to a place where they get starved, shot or lynched should not be permitted in a civilized nation, but deported without a trial? This is just plainy not a fair democracy in any kind of sense, not even a rightwing one. This is Willkür

Universal declaration of human rights:

"Article 20

Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association. "

This in combination with art. 19 gives us the right to protest:

"Article 19

Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

"

Source: https://www.ohchr.org/en/human-rights/universal-declaration/translations/english

Yeah and thats what i meant.

I didnt assume you want to prevent ALL protest. This would be literally one of the worst dictatorships in existens, few of them actually forbid all and every protest.

Trying to exclude people without papers from democracy while not giving those people a fair chance to get papers is still the closest thing to racial segregation the international court allows

Oh wait, international law art.20 Nr. 1 actually sets protests as a universal human right.

So we better repress all political activism because it might be far right? The far right would applaud this concept and wouldn't need outside supporters if you fight for their cause.

EDIT: Also most palestians living here can't become a permant resident because they would need certification from their state but Germany doesn't recognize their state as one.

Such a disgrace for our country, its news like these where Luxemburg's "socialism or barbarism" is really obvious

Live to love in my ass (Lol)

öffi is really good.

[https://f-droid.org/packages/de.schildbach.oeffi/](öffis on f-droid)

You can select the source of the info (for example set to your local provider api or just use default) and I like the schedule view very much.

I am not a software expert, but it is Foss and doesn't require strange permissions.

YSK: When having "open links in private tabs" enabled in your default Browser, pixelix login will not work but load endlessly.

If you deactivate the option in your default browser it will work the second time you try it:

0. Deactivate "open links in private tabs" in default browser
1. Log in, get redirected to your normal profile (but no prompt to authorise the app)
2. Close pixelix
3. Open and log in again
4. Now you get the prompt to authorize the app

Trying to get teamspeak hotkeys to work in arch wayland - tinker with system for 2 hours - give up and try to revert the changes for 2 hours - give up and load btrfs snapshot - still got bugs you didn't have before - give up and install Debian.

Also interesting because in German progressive/queer feminist groups use the term

"Weiblich gelesen" (literal: read female, meaning: assumed to be female)

If we want to refer to someone who looks like a women by conservative standards but about whom we don't know if they actually identify as a women.

"Weib" (degrading term for "women/wife" derived from the word "weiblich" (female)) on the other hand is considered very rude and only used by conservative/sexist people.

Just find it interesting which words are differently connotated in which language.

Where is the meme?

Okay I understand.

So "books with female protagonists" would be okay (because large group referenced) "Bus with female passengers" would be considered rude, because small group referenced, you would rather say "Bus with women and girls as passengers" ?

Honest question from a non native: what is wrong with the term female?

And what word could you use for the sex girls and women are part of where people wouldn't imagine you look like a space neolib?

Russels teapod is a good example imho

EDIT: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot

Real in the sense of this being a real screenshot and not edited

Thats a strawman you arguing against. I never said anything about supporting zionists. My point is and was that throwing out Hamas supporters and being okay with genocide (slaughtering and starving innocent civilians) are two different things.

The same as throwing out supporters of the the right wing Israeli government would not be the same as being okay with slaughtering or kidnapping of innocent civilians.

I am not arguing that the action of throwing Hama's supoorters out is good or bad, or justified or unjustified, I argue that its a different question from if you support the warcrimes the Israelis commit or not.

Is this real? If so,does someone have the link to the original?

Commented under a post with the headline "genocide is no longer a red line for the left party of Germany"

Content was: they kicked out a Hamas supporter who denied Israels right to exist.

Now am Banned from .ml because I said it can be argued whether its the right thing to kick hamas supporters who deny Israels right to exist from the left party of Germany or not, but framing this as "genocide is no longer a red line for the left party of Germany" seems a bit populistic.

Apparently that's racism (rule 1)

Don't mind the tankies there, you don't miss out on anything :)