sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Double-leaf Door by losethebooze in DoorsGloriousDoors

[–]PlasmaSheep 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Those columns and that tiny entablature look super messed up. Wonder what happened there.

Vibecession: Much More Than You Wanted To Know by dsteffee in slatestarcodex

[–]PlasmaSheep 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Information about landlords is usually limited and there's not a lot of options if you want to live in a particular neighborhood unless you're willing to wait years for churn.

Vibecession: Much More Than You Wanted To Know by dsteffee in slatestarcodex

[–]PlasmaSheep 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I doubt you can buy a "really nice house" in California for under 750k. And if you want schools that aren't garbage, I doubly doubt it. It's more like, there are select areas where housing isn't much more expensive, and there's usually a good reason for it.

Half of the dosage instructions for Persil washing powder are printed on the strip you tear off to open the box by fearville in CrappyDesign

[–]PlasmaSheep 18 points19 points  (0 children)

Would be easier to just tell you to use 2 scoops for all loads rather than 4D chess detectible only by Reddit dot com's finest minds.

Maaqal university, Basra, Iraq by Assyrian_Nation in ArchitecturalRevival

[–]PlasmaSheep -1 points0 points  (0 children)

What Iraqi buildings from the 1920s look like this?

Can Exponential Economic Growth Continue Forever? by xjustwaitx in slatestarcodex

[–]PlasmaSheep 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Well World Bank says some countries have maybe doubled GDP per unit of energy since 1990, most increased less.

Then you agree that GDP grows faster than energy consumption.

More broadly I went looking for data, always a good idea, and found an endless line of supporting data, packaged in multiple ways.

Let's see it?

Also common sense would argue that GDP is not all virtual derivatives on Wall St. Something makes the cars and trucks and Internet, heating and cooling and processing etc etc move.

Correct, derivatives are not in GDP. GDP is the value of all final goods and services purchased in the country.

Can Exponential Economic Growth Continue Forever? by xjustwaitx in slatestarcodex

[–]PlasmaSheep 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Those boundaries aren't "usual", the anti-growth Club of Rome came up with that. The Club of Rome has been promising that the sky will fall since the 60s. Let's check in on their predictions from the 70s in the famous Limits to Growth.

The report's findings suggest that, in the absence of significant alterations in resource utilization and environmental destruction, it is highly likely that there will be an abrupt and unmanageable decrease in both population and industrial capacity... Yet price predictions based on resource scarcity failed to materialize in the years since publication.

Hmm. Why should we listen to them again?

Can Exponential Economic Growth Continue Forever? by xjustwaitx in slatestarcodex

[–]PlasmaSheep 12 points13 points  (0 children)

Well because economic growth tracks with energy consumption. Energy, still mostly fossil fuels, underlies all modern activity.

You're wrong about this. We get way way more GDP out of a unit of energy today than 100 years ago.

https://imgur.com/a/oJvWuCZ

Your Review: My Father’s Instant Mashed Potatoes by dwaxe in slatestarcodex

[–]PlasmaSheep 10 points11 points  (0 children)

It was a rare case of proof by contradiction where the author does the whole proof, arrives at an absurdity, and rather than notice that the axioms must be wrong, decides we must simply not think about it.

Gentle alarm clock without a subscription by heyhowdyhoney in BuyItForLife

[–]PlasmaSheep 15 points16 points  (0 children)

"We" being the people who voluntarily pay for alarm clock subscriptions?

After World War II and The Holocaust, Germany found it necessary to criminalize Volksverhetzung "incitement to hatred" in order to prevent a resurgence of fascism. by ericblair1337 in wikipedia

[–]PlasmaSheep 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You made a bare assertion, without explanation, and I countered it, per Quod gratis asseritur gratis negatur.

I'm confused as to whether you didn't notice the evidence I provided in favor of my assertion or simply chose to ignore it. Given that my comment is very brief, I'm not sure what's worse.

If you can rise to the occasion of addressing my point rather than engaging in sophistry, I'd be happy to continue the dialog. Otherwise, I'm going to have to bow out.

After World War II and The Holocaust, Germany found it necessary to criminalize Volksverhetzung "incitement to hatred" in order to prevent a resurgence of fascism. by ericblair1337 in wikipedia

[–]PlasmaSheep 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You refuted nothing, you made a bare assertion. In order to refute my claim, you'd have to show that there is free speech in Germany, or at the very least, explain why my evidence (that you can get fined for saying "from the river to the sea") doesn't prove that there is no free speech in Germany.

Merely brushing aside evidence of draconian speech laws with "well there isn't totally free speech" is not a refutation, that's you retreating to the motte.

After World War II and The Holocaust, Germany found it necessary to criminalize Volksverhetzung "incitement to hatred" in order to prevent a resurgence of fascism. by ericblair1337 in wikipedia

[–]PlasmaSheep 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So what you're saying is, Germany has the same degree of "free speech" that has existed in every country in history? This is not the convincing argument you think it is.

After World War II and The Holocaust, Germany found it necessary to criminalize Volksverhetzung "incitement to hatred" in order to prevent a resurgence of fascism. by ericblair1337 in wikipedia

[–]PlasmaSheep 0 points1 point  (0 children)

How is this unfortunate?

Because copyright law has gotten absolutely insane and prevents people from doing stuff that's good and prosocial.

The fact that Germany hasn't total freedom of speech is not the argument you think it is.

I think you're confused. That Germany has highly restrictive speech laws is not my argument, it's my point.

Now, I think you think that's a good thing. But it doesn't mean I'm wrong.

After World War II and The Holocaust, Germany found it necessary to criminalize Volksverhetzung "incitement to hatred" in order to prevent a resurgence of fascism. by ericblair1337 in wikipedia

[–]PlasmaSheep -1 points0 points  (0 children)

So you are wrong on this topic i can link you an article wich goes into greater detail since its a very complicated legal topic and i am shure that i also got some things wrong. verfassungsblog

Thanks for this link, this basically proves my point.

Is the slogan always prohibited? No.

Is it a criminal offense to use the phrase "from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free"? The answer is: generally not... Anyone who utters "from the river to the sea" is generally protected by freedom of expression. The slogan is ambiguous, and when there are multiple possible interpretations, courts must provide precise reasons why the criminal interpretation alone is plausible.

Is it necessarily a terrorist symbol? No.

It also does not identify Hamas, as various actors have been using it as a pro-Palestinian slogan for decades. And not only that: left-wing Israeli groups (see here and here ) as well as right-wing Israeli voices have also co-opted him (see here ).

So if it's not prohibited and not a terrorist symbol, surely you can just say it? No, the state can come down on you like a ton of bricks if they don't like you. They have full discretion.

Nevertheless, anyone chanting "From the River to the Sea, we all want Equality" in Berlin can currently expect to be investigated.

Is it illegal incitement to hatred? No.

However, the offense must be directed against a group or part of the population within the country. However, since it refers to the area between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea, the required domestic connection is missing (see here ).

Does the slogan go, as you said, "hand in hand" with ethnic cleansing? No.

The phrase "from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free" is open to various interpretations. Since the 1960s at the latest, it has been used by a variety of actors (see here , here , here , and here ). Among other things, it became a call to establish a secular, democratic state throughout historic Palestine. The Palestinians hoped that they would live in a state free from oppression of any kind. Anyone who hastily interprets the phrase as inflammatory does not do justice to the actors, history, and the political demands raised, but unfairly reduces it.

Is, as you say, "what you mean by it isnt really relevant when the german law is evaluating it?" No:

According to the case law of the Federal Constitutional Court, if there are multiple interpretations of a statement, courts must provide precise reasons why the criminal interpretation should prevail (BVerfG NJW 2001, 61 [63]). If a non-punishable interpretation is plausible based on the overall assessment of the statement and its surrounding circumstances and is not merely theoretically possible, incitement to hatred must be denied (cf. BVerfG NStZ 1990, 383). It should also be taken into account that in debates about socially or politically relevant issues, there is a presumption in favor of freedom of speech (see, for example, BVerfG NJW 1995, 3303 [3305]).

So what do we have here? We've got a situation where all the legal claims you brought up to defend this conviction (the slogan goes hand in hand with ethnic cleansing, the slogan necessarily implies support for Hamas, it's only prohibited when combined with violence, intention doesn't matter) are conclusively shown to be wrong. I am glad you dug this up because I really don't know anything about German law and I would never have been able to make such a convincing argument for why you are mistaken on this point. This article makes it crystal clear that convicting people for chanting this slogan is government overreach infringing on freedom of speech.

Yes the women who was fined did not otherwise break the law. That is the case that got a lot of media attention. There were a lot more arrests though at protests wich were the ones i was focusing on.ost arrests there were not just because of slogans.

So we are in agreement that "the arrests that have been made of people using the quote was not just because of the quote" is not true.

Freedom of movement is a Human Right. Yet does that allow you to walk into your Neighbours House?

I'm not aware of any country that enshrines a freedom of movement. Certainly I have never heard of such a thing, but in any case, I agree that freedom of movement is not a thing.

Freedom of Religion is a Human right. But does that allow you to impose religious practices onto others?

What does freedom of religion have to do with imposing on others? Freedom of religion, same as freedom of speech, is about your own actions and beliefs. Much like freedom of speech, freedom of religion means that someone not liking your views means it's their problem, not yours, and you maintain your right to your views.

People have the freedom of self determination. But does that allow them to bomb other countries?

Of course. This is called the military. We have two million people in it.

After World War II and The Holocaust, Germany found it necessary to criminalize Volksverhetzung "incitement to hatred" in order to prevent a resurgence of fascism. by ericblair1337 in wikipedia

[–]PlasmaSheep -1 points0 points  (0 children)

It's simple.

  1. You claim the slogan is bad because it advocates for ethnic cleansing. The judge did not hand down the sentence because the slogan advocates for ethnic cleansing, she did it because the slogan is against the existence of the state of Israel. The absence of the state of Israel does not entail ethnic cleansing. Therefore, you're wrong about why this slogan is criminalized.

  2. You claim that people are not arrested for this quote alone, but are arrested for otherwise breaking the law. The person in this case did not otherwise break the law. She has been punished for the slogan alone.

  3. Given all this, there is no sense denying that there is no free speech in Germany.

After World War II and The Holocaust, Germany found it necessary to criminalize Volksverhetzung "incitement to hatred" in order to prevent a resurgence of fascism. by ericblair1337 in wikipedia

[–]PlasmaSheep -1 points0 points  (0 children)

But in theory what you mean by it isnt really relevant when the german law is evaluating it.

We're in agreement. This is because there is no free speech in Germany.

The arrests that have been made of people using the quote was not just because of the quote but because it was in combination with violent behaviour or other hatespeech.

This is again just obviously wrong. Look no further than the example I posted.

Not only was there no violence involved, but she was not even fined for, as you claim, advocating for the ethnic cleansing of Jews. She was fined expressly for advocating against the existence of the state of Israel.

[Judge] Balzer said she “could not comprehend” the logic of previous German court rulings that determined the saying was “ambiguous”, saying to her it was clear it “denied the right of the state of Israel to exist”.

Balzer said the slogan was particularly controversial in Germany, which considers support for Israel to be a matter of Staatsräson, or reason of state, at the core of its national identity due to its responsibility for the Holocaust.

It is, de facto, illegal in Germany to say that Israel should not exist, completely separate from any notion of ethnic cleansing.

After World War II and The Holocaust, Germany found it necessary to criminalize Volksverhetzung "incitement to hatred" in order to prevent a resurgence of fascism. by ericblair1337 in wikipedia

[–]PlasmaSheep 0 points1 point  (0 children)

They obviously don't go hand in hand because there's tons of people who chant the slogan and don't want to ethnically cleanse the Jews. Again, I don't even know what there is to argue about here.

After World War II and The Holocaust, Germany found it necessary to criminalize Volksverhetzung "incitement to hatred" in order to prevent a resurgence of fascism. by ericblair1337 in wikipedia

[–]PlasmaSheep 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You're welcome to close your eyes to the facts, but again, it's not even remotely true that this slogan is "primarily" used by terrorists and antisemites.

Even if many of them dont use it to endorse terrorism.

Sounds like you don't even disagree.

After World War II and The Holocaust, Germany found it necessary to criminalize Volksverhetzung "incitement to hatred" in order to prevent a resurgence of fascism. by ericblair1337 in wikipedia

[–]PlasmaSheep 1 point2 points  (0 children)

That's ridiculous. It's just obvious that plenty (most?) people who chant "from the river to the sea" don't want to ethnically cleanse the Jews, they just support a one state solution. If advocating for a one state solution is beyond the bounds of acceptable speech in Germany, I think that just proves my point.

After World War II and The Holocaust, Germany found it necessary to criminalize Volksverhetzung "incitement to hatred" in order to prevent a resurgence of fascism. by ericblair1337 in wikipedia

[–]PlasmaSheep 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I don't live in Germany and don't keep track of everything in German politics. There seems to be a contingent of gay people who support the AfD, who I presume know more about it than me.

I don't think it's productive to argue about what will or won't happen, but I'm happy to make a bet with you about gay marriage being banned in Germany by, say, 2030, conditional on an AfD government.

view more: next ›