Nonviolence works the same way: if you’re engaging with someone / some group who isn’t violent, there’s an expectation that you’ll also remain nonviolent. If they pull a gun on you and you happen to be packing (and a quick shot) and shoot em dead, that does NOT bring you down to their level.
Anyone who abuses the freedom of expression, in particular the freedom of the press (Article 5 para. 1), the freedom of teaching (Article 5 para. 3), the freedom of assembly (Article 8), the freedom of association (Article 9), the secrecy of letters, mail and telecommunications (Article 10), the property (Article 14) or the right of asylum (Article 16a) to fight against the free democratic basic order, forfeits these fundamental rights. The forfeiture and its extent are pronounced by the Federal Constitutional Court.
Exactly. I don’t get why this simple concept is so hard to understand. I’ve had many people claim Germany doesn’t have freedom of speech since you are not allowed to salute Hitler. By invading other’s rights, you give up yours. It’s not hard to comprehend.
Parties that, according to their goals or the behavior of their supporters, aim to impair or eliminate the free democratic basic order or to endanger the existence of the Federal Republic of Germany are unconstitutional.
Any system can be undermined with enough criminal energy.
People often argue against certain laws that they can be abused if judges collude with the executive.
But if the separation of power between executive, legislative and judiciary and the related mutual controls break down then the actual laws don’t matter anymore anyway.
Wold be nice if “liberal democracy” consisted of anything that can be called democratic with a straight face - perhaps then Germany wouldn’t be one of Israel’s most vitriolic genocide enablers.
But what does this have to do with democracy? If the elected parties fund a war, morally correct or not, it is still democracy as they were chosen. There are multiple German parties who oppose Israel, but they weren’t elected
I hate to be the one to break it to you - “liberal democracy” is about as “democratic” as the Soviet Union was “socialist.” Liberalism, capitalism and imperialism is violently incompatible with any society that can be described as democratic with a straight face - and always has been.
If the elected parties fund a war, morally correct or not, it is still democracy as they were chosen.
Did Germans collectively agree to this genocide that is being funded in their name? Do they even really know what is being done in their name?
No?
Then there’s absolutely nothing democratic about it, is it?
If you tolerate a group that hates a group of people, there are people that hate a group of people, meaning the society is intolerant to that group of people until those people are gone
If you dont tolerate a group that hates a group of people, there are people that hate the group that hates a group of people, meaning the society is intolerant to that group that hates the group of people until those people are gone
Because there is no way to become a tolerant society until one of the 2 groups is gone, the easiest way to become a tolerant society would mean getting rid of the easiest group you can get rid of.
Which group would be easiest to get rid off:
Jews, communists, slavic people, Romani people, all races but one, people with mental and physical illnesses, LGBTQ+ people and poor people
Or
People with a specific ideology
Anything else wouldnt matter since the society will remain intolerant
PS: by “get rid off”, i mean remove people from the group, not specifically kill
If you tolerate a group that hates a group of people, there are people that hate a group of people, meaning the society is intolerant to that group of people until those people are gone
Exactly: there is no paradox there if you don’t think of tolerance as an absolute. This blog post put it pretty well:
Tolerance is not a moral absolute; it is a peace treaty. Tolerance is a social norm because it allows different people to live side-by-side without being at each other’s throats. It means that we accept that people may be different from us, in their customs, in their behavior, in their dress, in their sex lives, and that if this doesn’t directly affect our lives, it is none of our business. But the model of a peace treaty differs from the model of a moral precept in one simple way: the protection of a peace treaty only extends to those willing to abide by its terms. It is an agreement to live in peace, not an agreement to be peaceful no matter the conduct of others. A peace treaty is not a suicide pact.
If they pull a gun on you and you happen to be packing (and a quick shot) and shoot em dead, that does NOT bring you down to their level.
What if they start by shouting “He’s got a gun!” and then pulling a gun and firing at you? And then what happens if the news media reports the killing as “Brave hero defends neighborhood against armed criminal” while encouraging other people to behave in a similar fashion? And then what happens if the people shouting “He’s got a gun!” and shooting, as an excuse to engage in a kind of localized ethnic cleansing or social repression, are members of and friends with the local police department?
How do you resolve the paradox of tolerance when you aren’t in a position physical, social, or political of dominance?
A take on the paradox of tolerance that I really like is that tolerance is not a moral absolute: tolerance is a peace treaty and not a suicide pact, so its “protection” is only afforded to those who abide by the treaty and it doesn’t mean tolerating everyone no matter what. Here’s a blog post on this, and a relevant quote:
Tolerance is not a moral absolute; it is a peace treaty. Tolerance is a social norm because it allows different people to live side-by-side without being at each other’s throats. It means that we accept that people may be different from us, in their customs, in their behavior, in their dress, in their sex lives, and that if this doesn’t directly affect our lives, it is none of our business. But the model of a peace treaty differs from the model of a moral precept in one simple way: the protection of a peace treaty only extends to those willing to abide by its terms. It is an agreement to live in peace, not an agreement to be peaceful no matter the conduct of others. A peace treaty is not a suicide pact.
Seems like a good spot for this:
Nonviolence works the same way: if you’re engaging with someone / some group who isn’t violent, there’s an expectation that you’ll also remain nonviolent. If they pull a gun on you and you happen to be packing (and a quick shot) and shoot em dead, that does NOT bring you down to their level.
From the German constitution:
Exactly. I don’t get why this simple concept is so hard to understand. I’ve had many people claim Germany doesn’t have freedom of speech since you are not allowed to salute Hitler. By invading other’s rights, you give up yours. It’s not hard to comprehend.
Based
There also is this section:
God bless Germany
Removed by mod
Any system can be undermined with enough criminal energy.
People often argue against certain laws that they can be abused if judges collude with the executive.
But if the separation of power between executive, legislative and judiciary and the related mutual controls break down then the actual laws don’t matter anymore anyway.
Wold be nice if “liberal democracy” consisted of anything that can be called democratic with a straight face - perhaps then Germany wouldn’t be one of Israel’s most vitriolic genocide enablers.
What exactly are you referring to?
You did know there’s a western-backed genocide being perpetrated in Palestine right now, right?
I’m asking what the war in Gaza has to do with the democratic order in Germany
You mean… apart from the fact that Germany is funding, supporting and enabling Israel’s genocide?
But what does this have to do with democracy? If the elected parties fund a war, morally correct or not, it is still democracy as they were chosen. There are multiple German parties who oppose Israel, but they weren’t elected
I hate to be the one to break it to you - “liberal democracy” is about as “democratic” as the Soviet Union was “socialist.” Liberalism, capitalism and imperialism is violently incompatible with any society that can be described as democratic with a straight face - and always has been.
Did Germans collectively agree to this genocide that is being funded in their name? Do they even really know what is being done in their name?
No?
Then there’s absolutely nothing democratic about it, is it?
Does the paradox of tolerance even exist?
If you tolerate a group that hates a group of people, there are people that hate a group of people, meaning the society is intolerant to that group of people until those people are gone
If you dont tolerate a group that hates a group of people, there are people that hate the group that hates a group of people, meaning the society is intolerant to that group that hates the group of people until those people are gone
Because there is no way to become a tolerant society until one of the 2 groups is gone, the easiest way to become a tolerant society would mean getting rid of the easiest group you can get rid of.
Which group would be easiest to get rid off:
Anything else wouldnt matter since the society will remain intolerant
PS: by “get rid off”, i mean remove people from the group, not specifically kill
Exactly: there is no paradox there if you don’t think of tolerance as an absolute. This blog post put it pretty well:
Love that, thank you.
What if they start by shouting “He’s got a gun!” and then pulling a gun and firing at you? And then what happens if the news media reports the killing as “Brave hero defends neighborhood against armed criminal” while encouraging other people to behave in a similar fashion? And then what happens if the people shouting “He’s got a gun!” and shooting, as an excuse to engage in a kind of localized ethnic cleansing or social repression, are members of and friends with the local police department?
How do you resolve the paradox of tolerance when you aren’t in a position physical, social, or political of dominance?
A take on the paradox of tolerance that I really like is that tolerance is not a moral absolute: tolerance is a peace treaty and not a suicide pact, so its “protection” is only afforded to those who abide by the treaty and it doesn’t mean tolerating everyone no matter what. Here’s a blog post on this, and a relevant quote: