Summary

German lawmakers are debating whether to pursue a ban on the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD), but many fear the move could backfire ahead of the Feb. 23 national election.

The proposal, backed by 124 lawmakers, seeks a court review of whether the AfD is unconstitutional.

Critics, including Chancellor Olaf Scholz, warn a failed attempt could strengthen the party, which is polling at 20%.

The debate underscores concerns over the AfD’s extremism but also the risks of fueling its anti-establishment narrative.

  • Snot Flickerman
    link
    fedilink
    English
    918 days ago

    Welp, their inability to make a decision almost ensures they will follow the same technocratic/autocratic path as the US.

    Who’d have thought the thing to kill democracy would be Admin rights being tantalizing to techbros as a stand in for authoritarianism.

    • Ogmios
      link
      fedilink
      English
      68 days ago

      technocratic

      I was unaware this was a feature of society unique to the political far right.

      • Justin
        link
        fedilink
        English
        228 days ago

        technocracy != Elon Musk as president

        technocracy is when you have political scientists and engineers as politicians, not billionaires and lawyers.

        • Ogmios
          link
          fedilink
          English
          -58 days ago

          In common usage, I’d argue it just means a society which is run by technology rather than people, which everyone is trying to do these days.

          • @FooBarrington
            link
            English
            57 days ago

            That might be what people think the word means when they first hear it, but that doesn’t mean we should use it that way.

            • Ogmios
              link
              fedilink
              English
              -2
              edit-2
              7 days ago

              Well if you actually want to communicate with others outside of academia, you’re going to have to get used to attempting to understand people rather than constantly trying to “fix” them.

              • @FooBarrington
                link
                English
                57 days ago

                So we should just do away with definitions, and go with whatever people think a word means the first time they hear it? Why?

                • @[email protected]
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  16 days ago

                  If one person or a few people have a definition wrong, that’s a thing that can be corrected.

                  If the majority of people think that’s the definition, and it’s been that way for decades, then you have the definition wrong.

                  • @FooBarrington
                    link
                    English
                    16 days ago

                    Do you have data to show that a majority of people have been missing “technocracy” for decades?

                • Ogmios
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  -2
                  edit-2
                  6 days ago

                  The point is that you have to make a good faith effort for communication to be possible, which you are not doing here. Language evolves organically, not by the dictate of a legally mandated authority.

                  • @FooBarrington
                    link
                    English
                    26 days ago

                    When the “good faith effort” requires changing definitions, it’s not a good faith effort from the other side.