this post was submitted on 30 Jan 2025
216 points (98.6% liked)

World News

40061 readers
2010 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News [email protected]

Politics [email protected]

World Politics [email protected]


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 day ago (2 children)

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

[–] Mnemnosyne 1 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 17 hours ago

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

[–] ogmios -2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 23 hours ago (1 children)

When the "good faith effort" requires changing definitions, it's not a good faith effort from the other side.

[–] ogmios 1 points 15 hours ago* (last edited 15 hours ago)

That's exactly my point. If you come into a conversation and start declaring the definitions have to be different from how the speaker uses their own words, because people they've never even met said so, that's not a good faith effort.