4 ms·

It is patently obvious parties like AfD exist because there's been massive censorship on speaking of the negative aspects of mass immigration. What do you think

It is patently obvious parties like AfD exist because there's been massive censorship on speaking of the negative aspects of mass immigration. What do you think will happen if you start introducing harder clamps on free speech?

qwertox 3y ago
> "patently obvious ... massive censorship on speaking of the negative aspects of mass immigration" There exists the concept of "Lügenpresse" ("lying press") which is a word used similar to uses of the word "woke", as a term to compact a message into one word. This "Lügenpresse", which usually the public broadcasting services like ARD and ZDF are referred to, have indeed dealt with this topic for years now, as well as newspapers like Der Spiegel or FAZ. No censorship has been taking place. What has been taking place is an avoidance of acknowledging the seriousness of the problem in the way the popular and extremist AfD has portrayed it, because it is easy to portray it for them the way they do due to a lack of honest discourse. Keep in mind that while the AfD is attacking the other parties as being parties which ignore the topic, they are not proposing solutions which are immediately implementable, because they are in the privileged position of being in the opposition and therefore not required to actually act. They are in the privileged position where they can fan the fire, lean back comfortably and watch the place burn. No action required from their part. Dealing with the topic is very complex not only due to the laws we have agreed to abide to, due to the "Rechtsstaat" ("constitutional state"). If it were by me, I wouldn't mind if they get to rule for one term, just for them to then display their inability to solve the problems they've been "criticizing" the entire time, but due to their stance regarding the Russian war – handing over Ukraine to Russia in exchange for cheap gas, like it used to be – and their right extremist views, they're absolutely untenable. Do you really think that it was the AfD which moved Lindner to push the idea of looking for ways to impede migrants to send money back to their families? I doubt so. Not even two weeks ago our city had a citizen conversation to discuss the problems we are facing with the influx of migrants. This is the way to deal with these issues, and no AfD is required for this. It doesn't take an AfD to acknowledge the problems, they are not getting ignored. > What do you think will happen if you start introducing harder clamps on free speech? Using AI to help with more civilized discussions is not "introducing harder clamps on free speech".
- waihtis 3y ago
  Apologies for the short message (on mobile and dont like typing on it) > lügenpresse Refusing to talk about a certain angle of a problem would constitute as censorship IMHO > using AI to help with more civilized discussions… Who decides the boundaries of civilized discussion? Some central authority like the EU? Sounds incredibly dangerous and prone to power hijacks

qwertox 3y ago

> "patently obvious ... massive censorship on speaking of the negative aspects of mass immigration" There exists the concept of "Lügenpresse" ("lying press") which is a word used similar to uses of the word "woke", as a term to compact a message into one word. This "Lügenpresse", which usually the public broadcasting services like ARD and ZDF are referred to, have indeed dealt with this topic for years now, as well as newspapers like Der Spiegel or FAZ. No censorship has been taking place. What has been taking place is an avoidance of acknowledging the seriousness of the problem in the way the popular and extremist AfD has portrayed it, because it is easy to portray it for them the way they do due to a lack of honest discourse. Keep in mind that while the AfD is attacking the other parties as being parties which ignore the topic, they are not proposing solutions which are immediately implementable, because they are in the privileged position of being in the opposition and therefore not required to actually act. They are in the privileged position where they can fan the fire, lean back comfortably and watch the place burn. No action required from their part. Dealing with the topic is very complex not only due to the laws we have agreed to abide to, due to the "Rechtsstaat" ("constitutional state"). If it were by me, I wouldn't mind if they get to rule for one term, just for them to then display their inability to solve the problems they've been "criticizing" the entire time, but due to their stance regarding the Russian war – handing over Ukraine to Russia in exchange for cheap gas, like it used to be – and their right extremist views, they're absolutely untenable. Do you really think that it was the AfD which moved Lindner to push the idea of looking for ways to impede migrants to send money back to their families? I doubt so. Not even two weeks ago our city had a citizen conversation to discuss the problems we are facing with the influx of migrants. This is the way to deal with these issues, and no AfD is required for this. It doesn't take an AfD to acknowledge the problems, they are not getting ignored. > What do you think will happen if you start introducing harder clamps on free speech? Using AI to help with more civilized discussions is not "introducing harder clamps on free speech".

waihtis 3y ago
Apologies for the short message (on mobile and dont like typing on it) > lügenpresse Refusing to talk about a certain angle of a problem would constitute as censorship IMHO > using AI to help with more civilized discussions… Who decides the boundaries of civilized discussion? Some central authority like the EU? Sounds incredibly dangerous and prone to power hijacks