13 ms·

I recall reading the other day about Germany making deadnaming a crime..

• peterashford 3y ago
  From an outsider's perspective (NZ) Germany's democracy looks a lot healthier than the US's.
  • yanderekko 3y ago
    Well, right now there's a odd vogue to think that a healthy democracy does things like ban political parties (currently an active debate regarding the AfD in Germany), or embrace indigenous apartheid movements (NZ, Australia), or to cede sovereignty to unaccountable transnational elites that promise to protect you from the ravages of political misinformation (the EU as a whole.) I don't think these notions will stand the test of time, but we'll see.
    • cycomanic 3y ago
      For those of people who are wondering about the "indigenous apartheid", the poster is talking about co-governance, i.e. giving certain "typically local", economic and political powers to indigenous organizations. This has become recently become on-vogue to call "apartheid" in right circles. I guess the people opposing co-governance are not very fond of following contracts, because at least in NZ the founding document/contract the treaty of Waitangi guaranteed a co-governance (and arguably the commonwealth for a long time ignored those obligations).
      • aydyn 3y ago
        Its not “co-governance”. Its privileging a demographic with greater power under the law based on skin color. Thats apartheid.
        • andrei_says_ 3y ago
          Is t the case that this “privilege” is an attempt to balance oppression and / or the existing privileges of others?
          • huggingmouth 3y ago
            Two wrongs do not make right. It's fascinating that we live in an age where this needs to be said out loud.
            • deleted 3y ago
              [deleted]
            • EliRivers 3y ago
              "Two wrongs do not make right." That's quite a strong statement to just present as an axiom without even any evidence or premises leading to it. Can you justify this statement, or do we have to just accept it as an axiom?
              • aydyn 3y ago
                lol nice trolling
              • carlosjobim 3y ago
                It's one of the most common divide in philosophy and morals, and I think nobody is capable of changing their opinion, because this one question is fundamental in how a person sees the world. Should you punish the children for what the fathers did wrong? Because whoever wronged the people are dead since long. The people who were wronged are dead since long. Do the children inherit the sins or the victimhood of their ancestors? Some say yes. They say to the youth: "Look how bad these people were treated long before you were born! Now it's your responsibility to settle the score and pay back." Others say no. They say that nobody can be held responsible for the wrongs that other people have done, even if those people were their ancestors, or are considered their ancestors by modern measurements. The question is if somebody is to be seen as an individual and judged as an individual, or seen as a member of some tribe and judged as a member of that tribe. It's worth to mention that things are usually seen in another way. What we're seeing right now is the end of christian morality, where a victim is held in high regard. This is not common through history or through the world. Once these kind of victim-revering morals don't exist anymore, the attitude will instead be: "Your ancestors were slaves, therefore you deserve to be a slave" or "My ancestors conquered your ancestors, therefore we have the right to treat you as we wish" and such awful things.
      • refurb 3y ago
        I think they mean apartheid in the sense of South Africa - separate and unequal. Look at the NZ approach of taking race into consideration when prioritizing medical care. https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/auckland-surgeons-must-now-consider-ethnicity-in-prioritising-patients-for-operations-some-are-not-happy/ https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/auckland-surgeons-must-now-con...
        • foldr 3y ago
          Comparisons with apartheid South Africa are not to be made lightly. Anyone who makes the comparison in this case is either extremely ignorant or simply trying to stir up pointless controversy. Any serious argument against the policy described in the linked article can only be weakened by such an absurd comparison.
          • zx8080 3y ago
            Does it basically mean "don't compare because it's different"?
            • foldr 3y ago
              It's like a schoolboy calling their teacher a Nazi for putting them on detention. There's an abstract point of comparison (authoritarian behavior), but the differences in scale, severity and underling motivation are so vast that the comparison is absurd. If someone seriously wants to argue against this particular form of affirmative action – and knows what South African Apartheid actually was – then they don't make this comparison. (Similarly, if you think a teacher is being too authoritarian with their students, you won't make your case any more convincing by making comparisons with crazed dictators.)
          • fallingknife 3y ago
            You could have saved a lot of words there by just writing "your opinion isn't valid because I say so"
            • foldr 3y ago
      • hatefulmoron 3y ago
        If many people believe that co-governance is undemocratic, what does "following contracts" have to do with anything? Frankly, why should New Zealand be forever bound by the treaty? Parliament is supreme, if they didn't want to follow the treaty they don't have to.
        • throw0101b 3y ago
          > Parliament is supreme, if they didn't want to follow the treaty they don't have to. If they don't want to follow a treaty they should rescind it. Until then it is the law of the land and it should be followed. * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_New_Zealand https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_New_Zealand
          • hatefulmoron 3y ago
            > If they don't want to follow a treaty they should rescind it. Until then it is the law of the land and it should be followed. Or not, as parliament is free to decide. I think my previous statement on parliamentary supremacy stands for itself. If you have something specific to talk about from that Wikipedia page, it's best that you spell it out for us.
        • ben_w 3y ago
          How many steps between that and the Māori having a casus belli to engage in open warfare? Stuff like this may have a certain level of "might makes right" (similar question for Hawaii, although there it's obvious who would win in a fight) but not always (Irish independence at close to the peak of the British Empire, the Cod Wars, that the US didn't keep all of Mexico after the war, just Texas, Arizona, California, etc.)
          • barry-cotter 3y ago
            > How many steps between that and the Māori having a casus belli to engage in open warfare? Of course they have a casus belli. They’d lose if there was a war though so there’s that.
          • 3y ago
      • voldacar 3y ago
        You're just doing Russell conjugation.
        • vixen99 3y ago
          I'd not come across this term before. Odd (for me) to see a special term used to describe something that I see in almost any story reported across a range of publications on any one day.
    • zirgs 3y ago
      I see no problems with banning Nazi and Communist parties after what they did to my country.
      • swayvil 3y ago
        What if the billionaires behind those parties, who funded those "nazi" or "communist" parties, funded a party and gave it a different name. Would it be ok then?
        • zirgs 3y ago
          The ideologies themselves have been banned. You can call those parties whatever you want - you will still have to talk to the alphabet boys.
          • deleted 3y ago
            [deleted]
      • Mountain_Skies 3y ago
        Who gets to decide who is a Nazi or a Communist? Maybe one day you'll be declared a Nazi for disagreeing with something the government in power decrees or even because some social group disapproves of your lifestyle. Definitions are powerful and recently, quite flexible to achieve desired goals of those who make themselves the arbiters of definition.
        • zirgs 3y ago
          The Communists invaded and occupied my country for 45 years. The Nazis invaded and slaughtered almost all of our Jews. We know very well who is a Nazi or a Communist. We don't want another Holocaust or Gulag camps here ever again. I'm fine with restricting some speech. It's a small price to pay.
        • digging 3y ago
          It's actually not very difficult to distinguish who nazis are. I see all these arguments waxing poetic about how dangerous it is to... I don't know, give anyone power? As if we haven't had these debates before. We have concrete examples of policies and behaviors that are harmful on fascist/Communist (big C is important) levels. We can compare someone's rhetoric and actions to those of people who have done the kinds of harm we want to prevent. We can use reasoning to parse their arguments instead of reacting emotionally. People do this every single day. If it's really your concern that we can't define what dangerous ideologies are, then educate yourself, because we can.
    • ben_w 3y ago
      The EU isn't unaccountable, unlike most free trade agreements it's also got a parliament that citizens can vote for. NAFTA or TTIP — unless I've fallen for the exact same propaganda that led to Brexit — would have been better examples.
      • 6LLvveMx2koXfwn 3y ago
        Whatever it's benefits the EU is a terrible example of democracy, to the extent that I would say it is not directly representative of 'the people'.
        • ben_w 3y ago
          It's a trade agreement; the democratic part is unusual, one of the rare (IIRC unique) examples where one has a mechanism for self-updating by the people of the counties in that agreement rather than by the government of whichever country happens to be biggest and most able to throw its weight around. You're welcome to not like the details of the democratic mechanism within the EU; ironically this is in part because some of the member state governments thought that making the EU more democratic would usurp the sovereignty of the member states.
          • 6LLvveMx2koXfwn 3y ago
            I suspect it's more to do with the EU being an economic enterprise, democracy was and is an afterthought.
          • barry-cotter 3y ago
            Whatever the EU was it is not now a trade agreement. Trade agreements don’t have delegations to the UN. https://www.eeas.europa.eu/delegations/un-new-york_en?s=63 https://www.eeas.europa.eu/delegations/un-new-york_en?s=63
            • ben_w 3y ago
              As does: • The Vatican (a "country" on paper; but seriously?) • The Sovereign Military Hospitaller Order of Saint John of Jerusalem, of Rhodes and of Malta (not to be confused with the country of Malta; this lot have no territory) • The Organisation of African, Caribbean and Pacific States • The African Development Bank • The Andean Community (another free trade area) • Both the Commonwealth of Independent States (former soviet bloc) and the Commonwealth of Nations (former British Empire) • The International Olympic Committee … The list of organisations sending delegations is pretty big, even just limiting to the ones important enough to get into Wikipedia; you can probably find a whole bunch more of small ones.
    • kazen44 3y ago
      > right now there's a odd vogue to think that a healthy democracy does things like ban political parties (currently an active debate regarding the AfD in Germany) this is based on the idea of streitbare demokratie[0]. Which basically states that the foundation of the state (bundestag, bundesregerung and courts) has the right AND duty to defend itself against parties/elements who wish to abolish the "freiheitlich-demokratische Grundordnung" (freedom/democratic foundation/order). This concept actually is worked out in various different laws in the Grundgesetz. It solves the problem of the paradox of intolerance quiet well in my opinion, and considering germany's history it is a very, very good system to have. [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defensive_democracy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defensive_democracy
  • nonethewiser 3y ago
    Because of criminalizing "deadnaming" or in spite of it? For those that don't know, so-called "deadnaming" "is the act of referring to a transgender or non-binary person by a name they used prior to transitioning, such as their birth name." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deadnaming https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deadnaming
    • zirgs 3y ago
      That should not be a criminal offence.
      • gdprrrr 3y ago
        Insulting is already a criminal offence, so it makes sense.
      • indigo945 3y ago
        Intentionally insulting someone already is a crime under German law, so the only real question is why deadnaming is not already covered? And these kinds of laws also exist in more extreme "free-speech" countries like the United States (where the guarantee of free speech doesn't cover, for example, libel).
        • Chris2048 3y ago
          libel and "insulting someone" in the sense of using slurs of defamatory remarks aren't obviously the same thing as referring to them by a previous name. I'd be very surprised if the German law (if actually policed) expands to anything an individual might be insulted by, especially if the offense is one of self image.
        • Veserv 3y ago
          Not to say that the US is a country of unrestricted free speech, but the standard of libel/slander is extremely strict in the US relative to most other countries. You must make intentionally untrue statements with the intent to harm that causes harm. The truth is a perfect defense. Even if you thought you were lying, you are protected. If you believe what you are saying, you are protected. If you did not know for certain that you said a lie, you are protected. If you did not mean to cause harm, you are protected. If no harm occurred, even if you tried to cause harm, you are protected. The standard is extremely hard to reach, possibly even too hard, and it is clearly qualitatively different than most other countries.
  • kortilla 3y ago
    That’s orthogonal. You can have a “healthy democracy” by killing FPTP, the two party system, and other things like that. You can still have an intellectually unhealthy society subject to groupthink and stagnation if you make it illegal to say many things.
  • refurb 3y ago
    I think the problem is that people think “a lack of political debate and extreme views” is a healthy sign of democracy. It’s actually the opposite. Plenty of authoritarian regimes look awfully peaceful because the only acceptable views are the government approved ones. Id take political strife any day over forced “political harmony”. Far better to “air the dirty laundry” than pretend it doesn’t exist.
    • KSteffensen 3y ago
      Depends. Political harmony is a problem if forced, but a common vision shared by much of society is a strength if arrived at through healthy, intellectually honest debate. Political debate is fine and healthy, but it should not be possible to end a debate by being louder, more obnoxious and more ready to do violence than the other debaters.
      • refurb 3y ago
        Of course, but having lived in a lot of “politically harmonious countries” I’ve noticed it’s not harmonious due to some universal belief in the political system, but a combination of political apathy, learned helplessness, political oppression (often subtle) or some cultural belief that you don’t question leaders or that they possess some special attributes that no one else does.
  • phpisthebest 3y ago
    I guess that would depends on how you define "democracy" and what you believe a healthy government looks like. I prefer a messy, publicly conflicting government to a smooth running authoritarian police state any day
• deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
• Sohcahtoa82 3y ago
  It sure seems strange to want to fight for your right to be deliberately rude to someone. If someone says they want to be Stephen instead of Stephanie, choosing to continue calling them Stephanie is just being a dick for no reason. It's one thing if you've known them for years and so breaking the habit of calling them Stephanie is hard, but when that happens, you apologize and call them Stephen. While I agree that making it a crime is a bit over the top, it's just not a good look to complain about it.
  • Anon_Forever 3y ago
    [flagged]
    • Sohcahtoa82 3y ago
      > It's deliberately rude to tell Muslims [...] Rude, maybe. But you're just stating an opinion of the Muslim religion, not the individual. Deliberate deadnaming serves zero purpose. There's no reason to deadname other than "I have no respect for you as a person."
    • dang 3y ago
      Religious flamewar is not welcome on Hacker News, regardless of which religion you have a problem with. Please don't post like this again. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
• zimpenfish 3y ago
  Do you have a handy link, btw? I did some searching and all I can find is their new "self-determination" law reported by AP[1], and their report doesn't mention deadnaming. The only places I can find saying that deadnaming will be fined are your standard right-wing transphobic nutjobs. [2] (with an NSFW header image) explains that it only covers "[deadnaming] with the aim of harming the person" which is completely different from "deadnaming [is] a crime", right? [1] https://apnews.com/article/germany-transgender-legal-registry-changes-16abda63c22f7ac800ee126e6f51d856 https://apnews.com/article/germany-transgender-legal-registr... [2] https://euro.dayfr.com/trends/756176.html https://euro.dayfr.com/trends/756176.html