nobody on the top really believes their own ideology

Source?

But the perception of being silenced

They are constantly invited to talk shows, news interviews, get frontpages of national magazines etc. and they are still convinced they are silenced.

The article talks about income (the headline seems a bit confusing), the wiki about net worth?

Even if that is “the propaganda” (which I have not seen in this thread btw): your counterproposition is not to dispose of the whole one-dimensional “which atrocity is worse” bullshit, but instead formalizing it by speaking of tiers and arguing that the holocaust wasn’t that bad. That’s dehumanizing, has no value at all (it’s not like a “tier 2 genocide” it somehow more okay) and instead opens the doors for Nazi apologia and antisemtism and derails the discussion.

I don’t know how else to say it, but: the unique aspects of the Holocaust are what makes the Holocaust unique.

Making up “tiers” of mass murder or genocide is dehumanizing. There is no point in trying to compare these atrocities - except of course if someone wants to say e.g. “Well, the holocaust wasn’t that bad”.

You need to provide sources. For example: most Germans knew about concentration camps and the mass murder (source).

“Lynching is an extrajudicial killing by a group.” Wikipedia (content warning - prominently displayed picture of a lynching victim)

It honestly felt like watching a rational adult deal with his children complaining they can’t have a sleepover or something.

Except the children’s behavior will also get a lot of people killed and possibly a whole nation enslaved.

You have (at least) two groups of people with traumatic experiences from mutual violence continuing for generations and you think there is a simple solution?

It’s interesting how the headline makes it sound like this was a new demand from Netanyahu. But apparently it was part of the deal and Hamas did not send the list due to “technical difficulties”.

Apparently, that was some other Zuckerberg project: https://www.metro.us/everything-to-know-about-facemash-the-site-zuckerberg-created-in-college-to-rank-hot-women/

I agree with the sentiment, but I don’t think being “ashamed” is the way to go - I only feel shame for things I have done.

But otherwise I agree. They just held their party convention with the speaker being flanked by 8 German flags on the left on 8 on the right - so 88. And held up signs “Alice for Deutschland” (one of their leaders was convicted for using the SA slogan “Alles für Deutschland”). So yeah, they’re fascists and ~20% of voters want to vote for them. It’s disgusting.

Politicians are afraid it might make them unpopular among the racist part of the population.

Are German prisons as scary as US (from what I’ve seen on TV) prisons or South African Prisons?

Nope, not even close from what I hear about the US prison system. It still sucks obviously and we just had a scandal in Augsburg where inmates have been tortured (beatings, not enough water provided, forced to stay naked, sleep on the floor etc).

I get the sentiment that the Russian people are responsible for their government. But repression in Russia goes far beyond “a couple of arrests and beatdowns” - they are openly killing people, torturing them, putting them in labor camps and throwing them behind bars for years or decades for very minor stuff.

You are much quicker to attack the OP, the article, me than the commissioner.

OP makes a claim, I asked for a source. That’s not an attack.

And how is on the other hand “he is very wrong with this statement (addendum: and in his job)” and “shitty and besides the point of any valid criticism,” and “he obviously tried to weasle himself out of his shit take” not an “attack” against the commissioner?

edit: anyway, I have spend enough time on this.

Thanks!

I think “vorgeblich” has some more nuance, as it does not say the claim is necessarily wrong (https://de.wiktionary.org/wiki/vorgeblich). But like I said in the other sub-thread: he is very wrong with this statement (addendum: and in his job). It’s still a different picture than one might imagine when hearing “German government officials are deciding whether you are jewish enough” (which you didn’t write, but apparently was understood like that by other commenters).

Your reading is very generous to him.

Probably. My point is that I was very confused by the original claim (officials deciding whether people are jewish or not) and the following comments drawing comparisons to Nazi Germany.

I don’t have time to learn German to read your source, in an English based discussion.

Understandable. But when the discussion is about German law, German sources are to be expected.

It is not relevant that it is wrong.

If it’s not relevant, then why quote it? In any case it tells me something about the quality of the article.

The commissioner tried to use it to defend his position that they are ostensibly Jewish. Actually being wrong makes it worse as he should know better or he is lying.

Yes, as I said: the “Jewishness” of the people should not matter when you’re attacking their arguments. And yes, he is very obvioulsy trying to defend this instead of admitting that he shouldn’t have said that.

Thanks. So he explicitely was not talking about whether individual persons are jewish or not.

Instead he was questioning if an organisation (that mobilized to a “Glory to the resistance” demonstration on 7th of October 2024) is actually involving a significant amount of people from jewish communities. Which is still shitty and besides the point of any valid criticism, but also different from trying to decide if individual people are jewish or not. And he obviously tried to weasle himself out of his shit take.

The last paragraph is factually wrong though. There are religious communities who are Öffentlich-rechtliche Religionsgesellschaften, but you don’t have to adhere to these regulations.

It’s not a source for a quote if the quote does not show up in the link.

edit: the fact that this gets downvoted really says a lot about the quality of the discussion :D

Ctrl+F didn’t turn up any results for your quote (“alleged”/“allegedly”) , and I’m not going to read the whole article searching for what you might have meant instead.