Germany to become the censorship capital of the world

Come on Germany, all is not lost. You can still come back from this, I promise on behalf of the rest of the world we will not make unfair comparisons to Hitler if you want to do a little "spring cleaning"...
 
I believe we simply need to be more effective about teaching people to use their own brains and how to be critical when processing information (from any source, really, nowadays), instead of having someone else do their thinking for them.

It just sets a bad precedent when people need to be told that this and that site are literally generating bullshit stories for a living. We have to be able to trust the individuals to be able to do even that much, and that our communities are active enough and capable enough intellectually to be able to point out obvious mistruths, without having someone else holding them by the hand. If they aren't, then we should work on raising a generation of people who have a healthy sense of cynicism and appreciation for the facts, even when their initial emotional responses are not in line with the evidence that was presented to them.

These sorts of mechanisms, to combat such "issues", are what spawns in the mind of a bureaucrat, seeking to indulge himself in ever-increasing power. They do not really have the capacity to think of any other sorts of solutions outside of making up new laws and hoping someone will be around to enforce them.

That would be the ideal, but if if it's not a lack of capability with people it's probably a lack of will. There's plenty of opportunities for education in the western countries, yet we have many that put in very little effort and that's hard to deal with. And it's not like there's not a lot of effort going into improving education as it is.

I'm negatively predisposed to the idea that we're close to having a population that will be good at critical thinking. Even here at the WR, where you'd assume people are interested in what they choose to discuss, we see mindbogglingly bad examples of presentation of news without the least bit of source criticism. I've been told several things that I could instantly see were completely illogical, and that took me about a minute to verify as false, but the other poster had bought completely, most likely because it's what he wanted to be true. Never underestimate people's desire to see things as they want them to be.

So misinformation is a big issue, and all the measures that can be used are flawed in their own way.
 
That would be the ideal, but if if it's not a lack of capability with people it's probably a lack of will. There's plenty of opportunities for education in the western countries, yet we have many that put in very little effort and that's hard to deal with. And it's not like there's not a lot of effort going into improving education as it is.

I'm negatively predisposed to the idea that we're close to having a population that will be good at critical thinking. Even here at the WR, where you'd assume people are interested in what they choose to discuss, we see mindbogglingly bad examples of presentation of news without the least bit of source criticism. I've been told several things that I could instantly see were completely illogical, and that took me about a minute to verify as false, but the other poster had bought completely, most likely because it's what he wanted to be true. Never underestimate people's desire to see things as they want them to be.

So misinformation is a big issue, and all the measures that can be used are flawed in their own way.

A lack of faith in humanity, is what is usually behind every expansion of our system. However, this does not take into account, that systems are also man-made and subject to causing an even greater amount of damage than the failures of individuals.

We have to weigh rather carefully which expansions we truly need, and what can be left up to people's individual responsibility.
 
Last edited:
A lack of faith in humanity, is what is usually behind every expansion of our system. However, this does not take into account, that systems are also man-made and subject to causing an even greater amount of damage than the failures of individuals.

We have to weigh rather carefully which expansions we need, and what can be left up to people's individual responsibility.

I think we agree in general, but your posts kind of make it look like you think I'm arguing for the stance in the article in the OP. But yes, I do not have unlimited faith in humanity. Nothing in the world suggests that would be a good thing to have imo.
 
Maybe they will when one drives a fucking truck through the event or shoots up the place.

Ironic thing is people are exponentially more likely to die from complications from alcohol abuse than that. Maybe alcohol should be banned.... it's more dangerous than Muslims.

<{MingNope}>
 
I think we agree in general, but your posts kind of make it look like you think I'm arguing for the stance in the article in the OP. But yes, I do not have unlimited faith in humanity. Nothing in the world suggests that would be a good thing to have imo.

I don't, either. I'm as authoritative as it gets in some regards, while anarchic in others, based on my current understanding of human nature, its strengths and short-comings, which is obviously ever-evolving.

I suppose my point is that I would prefer to see a more serious contemplation on the part of the German government, on whether this is truly an issue which requires such a response. It appears that in many, particularly North and West European societies, we have become lax in our approach to creating new laws to combat "harmful phenomenons", rather than addressing them in alternative ways.

We believe that as long as we are handing out fines and prison stints to potential disruptors, the society will remain stable and effective. Yet the population only learn that if they go against the government they will be punished, instead of actually reflecting on the direct consequences of their misbehaviour towards themselves and the others. It is generating a mentality, which to be blunt, is a depressing thing to witness. One where people can scarcely explain why they believe the things they believe, and do the things that they do.

There was once a time when a state was deemed to be the more corrupt and the more tyrannic, based on the amount of laws that it imposed upon its citizens.
 
If they keep this shit up and they'll be brewing the perfect storm for the rise of a new Hitler.
 
I don't, either. I'm as authoritative as it gets in some regards, while anarchic in others, based on my current understanding of human nature, its strengths and short-comings, which is obviously ever-evolving.

I suppose my point is that I would prefer to see a more serious contemplation on the part of the German government, on whether this is truly an issue which requires such a response. It appears that in many, particularly North and West European societies, we have become lax in our approach to creating new laws to combat "harmful phenomenons", rather than addressing them in alternative ways.

We believe that as long as we are handing out fines and prison stints to potential disruptors, the society will remain stable and effective. Yet the population only learn that if they go against the government they will be punished, instead of actually reflecting on the direct consequences of their misbehaviour towards themselves and the others. It is generating a mentality, which to be blunt, is a depressing thing to witness. One where people can scarcely explain why they believe the things they believe, and do the things that they do.

There was once a time when a state was deemed to be the more corrupt and the more tyrannic, based on the amount of laws that it imposed upon its citizens.

I agree that there's definitely a line you have to find. Countries with less structure don't manage to create stability and security, and those on the opposite side are oppressing their peoples. We can all strive to be better, but based on the studies of populations north and western Europe isn't exactly faring ill in the comparisons.

As for only learning that going against the government equals punishment, instead of thinking about why the laws are there to begin with, is the same issue as buying information without source criticism in my view. It's not like the information isn't there if you want to find it.
 
I agree that there's definitely a line you have to find. Countries with less structure don't manage to create stability and security, and those on the opposite side are oppressing their peoples. We can all strive to be better, but based on the studies of populations north and western Europe isn't exactly faring ill in the comparisons.

As for only learning that going against the government equals punishment, instead of thinking about why the laws are there to begin with, is the same issue as buying information without source criticism in my view. It's not like the information isn't there if you want to find it.

It's not the first thing that comes across your mind when your house is invaded by armed officers in uniform who present you with the choice of either being beaten to submission and dragged out or paying a fine up to 500,000$ and a potential jail stint, for running a website where someone gave his own (probably worthless) "2 cents" on recent news without a "proper" education.

As far as I'm concerned, all of this misinformation being out there is actually a good thing, because now we can move on to correct it instead of sweeping under-lying issues under the carpet, and generally being apathetic towards enlightening other people.
 
Last edited:
It's not the first thing that comes across your mind when your house is invaded by armed officers in uniform who present you with the choice of either being beaten to submission and dragged out or paying a fine up to 500,000$ and a potential jail stint, for running a website where someone gave his own (probably worthless) "2 cents" on recent news without a "proper" education.

The fines are for Facebook, not the ones posting it. The word "individual" refers to that each case of them not removing it can result in a fine, not that the individuals that post it get fined.
 
The fines are for Facebook, not the ones posting it. The word "individual" refers to that each case of them not removing it can result in a fine, not that the individuals that post it get fined.

Why would you think that it applies to Facebook alone, and not other forms of social media?

If I ran a "free-thinker" blog with some Neo-Nazi posting in it, I reckon I would be given the same treatment. It is no better in either case, whether it's Facebook or a random guy running a blog. The law ought to be written in the way that it can be applied to all persons, otherwise it's probably not a law worth having.
 
Why would you think that it applies to Facebook alone, and not other forms of social media?

If I ran a "free-thinker" blog with some Neo-Nazi posting in it, I reckon I would be given the same treatment. It is no better in either case, whether it's Facebook or a random guy running a blog. The law ought to be written in the way that it can be applied to all persons, otherwise it's probably not a law worth having.

It's for all social media platforms, as the article clearly states. Things might escalate from there, as I wrote about in the early part of our discussion, but that's as far as the current suggestion goes. Talking about being invaded by armed officers threatening to beat someone into submission is just making the whole thing silly at this point though. Even bad things must be able to be discussed as they are instead of made into a hyperbolic caricature.
 
It's for all social media platforms, as the article clearly states. Things might escalate from there, as I wrote about in the early part of our discussion, but that's as far as the current suggestion goes. Talking about being invaded by armed officers threatening to beat someone into submission is just making the whole thing silly at this point though. Even bad things must be able to be discussed as they are instead of made into a hyperbolic caricature.

If you've ever dealt with the law, you'll understand that it is not a hyperbolic caricature at all. That's the essence of being a law enforcer, if the law is not obeyed and the law-breaker resists arrest, he must be restrained and subjugated physically.

It is again, one of the issues that we wish to sweep under the carpet over here, but we are beginning to see what law-enforcing actually takes when people do break the law, instead of being obedient, as our American friends already know.

Every law is enforced, ultimately, through the threat of physical violence, confiscation of property and imprisonment.
 
If you've ever dealt with the law, you'll understand that it is not a hyperbolic caricature at all. That's the essence of being a law enforcer, if the law is not obeyed and the law-breaker resists arrest, he must be restrained and subjugated physically.

It is again, one of the issues that we wish to sweep under the carpet over here, but we are beginning to see what law-enforcing actually takes when people do break the law, instead of being obedient, as our American friends already know.

Every law is enforced, ultimately, through the threat of physical violence, confiscation of property and imprisonment.

You made it sound like they'll just suddenly show up and invade, when the reality would be that you'd first be contacted to remove something that's false, and when you've not done that within the time given to you you'll be fined or called to court. Any possible violence would only come if you repeatedly failed to show up for court and then resisted when they come to make sure you get there. And all that is in a theoretical case where the suggested law becomes something else.

I remain in my position about what you wrote and maintain that the issue can be discussed with enough detail in it's current state.
 
You made it sound like they'll just suddenly show up and invade, when the reality would be that you'd first be contacted to remove something that's false, and when you've not done that within the time given to you you'll be fined or called to court. Any possible violence would only come if you repeatedly failed to show up for court and then resisted when they come to make sure you get there. And all that is in a theoretical case where the suggested law becomes something else.

I remain in my position about what you wrote and maintain that the issue can be discussed with enough detail in it's current state.

How does this make the violence any more excusable? Would the Nazis have been more excusable if they knocked first?




Alright, enough hyperbolic banter from my end. I do think people who make up the laws, are quick to forget what it entails sometimes to enforce them, because they are so very detached from that aspect of life, the idea that someone might not obey orders.
 
How does this make the violence any more excusable? Would the Nazis have been more excusable if they knocked first?




Alright, enough hyperbolic banter from my end. I do think people who make up the laws, are quick to forget what it entails sometimes to enforce them, because they are so very detached from that aspect of life, the idea that someone might not obey orders.

Well, in this case what it takes to enforce them is to fine the social media corporations, and if they don't pay there will be further legal issues. That's where we stand at the moment. As I said, it's still a difficult step with definitions and further implications, and I think those issues are larger than discussing what would happen in a theoretical case where the law has transformed and someone found guilty is resisting arrest after having ignored all other procedures.
 
Well, in this case what it takes to enforce them is to fine the social media corporations, and if they don't pay there will be further legal issues. That's where we stand at the moment. As I said, it's still a difficult step with definitions and further implications, and I think those issues are larger than discussing what would happen in a theoretical case where the law has transformed and someone found guilty is resisting arrest after having ignored all other procedures.

In this country, there is an on-going case where a person responsible for an "alt-media" news site, is being hunted by the police for various charges, which all basically amount to him running what is a so-called "fake news" web site in the opinion of the governing officials, with stories focusing around immigration and arguing against leftists. Except he decided not to face the charges, and it is quickly turning into quite the manhunt, with an international warrant out for him.

This is just one case, among many, which shows how such cases can go out of hand, when people decide not to follow the "procedures" because they believe that the law itself violates their freedom of speech.
 
In this country, there is an on-going case where a person responsible for an "alt-media" news site, is being hunted by the police for various charges, which all basically amount to him running what is a so-called "fake news" web site in the opinion of the governing officials, with stories focusing around immigration and arguing against leftists. Except he decided not to face the charges, and it is quickly turning into quite the manhunt, with an international warrant out for him.

This is just one case, among many, which shows how such cases can go out of hand, when people decide not to follow the "procedures" because they believe that the law itself violates their freedom of speech.

Well, that's up to the person in question if he wants to make that ruling for himself and not go to a real court that can test whether he's acting within his freedom of speech which is granted to him in the constitution. Laws have fallen before when they've been tested in courts.
 
here is the same, they cannot stand critics, both harsh or soft as well as satyr .
As elitarian cultural marxists they feels a deep hatred towards common people.
 
Back
Top