Well, in Germany we got hammered it in that any likening of anything that was not part of the Holocaust to parts of the Holocaust is inherently antisemitic and a new form of nazism. The Holocaust is supposed to be unique and special forever, as no one is as good at exterminating people like we Germans are and Jews are the eternal victims, hence Israel can’t do any wrong. Conveniently ignoring how other victims of the Holocaust such as Sinti and Roma are still facing rampant systemic discrimination in Germany and also that understanding of Jewish victims being limited to Israelis or people loyal to Israel, whereas Jews who criticize Israel face various forms of repression in Germany.

Now obviously that isn’t the way it is taught directly, but it does involve a sick guilt pride on the one hand and the immediate shut down of any criticism of anything that actually does have parallels to aspects of the Nazi regime and the Holocaust. Or well, that is as long as the criticism is geared towards our allies such as the US and Israel.

Unfortunately the whole debate has been deeply intoxicated and instrumentalized in the “Staatsräson” logic of unconditional support for any and every atrocity, as long as it serves the current Israeli state and its government.

From the best attempt of a neutral perspective: In Auschwitz the Nazis murdered about 1.5 Million people. At its peak there were about 150,000 - 200,000 people concentrated there. From medicinal experiments on humans to random acts of brutal violence there has been all sorts of further gruesome atrocities piled on top of the systematic extermination. So in terms of scale the comparison really cannot come even remotely close.

I do agree with you that these atrocities escalate and escalate quickly, when left unchallenged. The idea that Germany, Israel, the US or anyone other state entity truly learned a lesson of humanity from the horrors of the Holocaust and there would be a certain prevention unfortunately also is wrong. I remember how in school everybody was like “i could have never done this” or “i would have fought against this, how could the people?!” and now we see the same writings on the wall here in Germany again and most people do fuck all, if they don’t already openly embrace it

The EU is not trying to “buy up Ukraine at a discount”, they are pushing for Ukrainian EU membership, which would be mutually beneficial. On the one hand, the EU would gain massive strategic food production and a large experienced military, and further buffer area towards Russia.

EU tried to get its own minerals deal with Ukraine in the wake of Trump demands.

https://www.politico.eu/article/critical-minerals-rare-earths-deal-eu-not-donald-trump/

Also Ukraine joining the EU would not make a “buffer”, unless you would argue in terms of first and second class EU countries, with Ukraine being designated to become a second class one. Ukraine currently is the “buffer” as it is aligned with the EU, but not part of it, so the EU does not bear the same responsibilities towards Ukraine as to other EU members.

How does for instance google having to pay a tax on their ad revenue in France make the french google users pay?

Why is it that these companies are so fiercely opposed to taxation?

The Suez channel is even more crucial to Israel than it is to countries like Spain or France for their link to East Asia.

I have measured a rough example in maps:

If a ship from Singapore to Marseille would go through the Suez Channel, it would be about 13,000 km without stops. Around Africa that would be around 22,000 km without stops (yeah i know that is optimistic), so a 70% increase which undoubtedly is bad.

Now a ship from Singapore to Haifa would have its route increase from about 9,500 km to about 25,000 km, (again without stops) which is about a 170% increase.

If the Houthis manage to effectively cut off that route, it will be driving prices up like crazy for Israel. If on top of it countries like Spain close the ports for ships carrying freight to Israel, it will further drive up their costs.

There can be various purposes to a ceasefire.

• The most direct one is that a ceasefire gives a space in which diplomatic options can be discussed as both sides believe that there could be an opening where they gain more than with continued fighting.
• The other direct option is that both sides believe that they can achieve a temporary ceasefire to rearm/regroup for subsequent fighting, believing that they can do so better than the enemy.
• There could be external or internal political pressure to attempt diplomatic options, which will subsequently be derailed
• There could be humanitarian reasons, albeit that seems to not be relevant these days, with humanitarian reasons being given as pretense at best
• There could be religious reasons, such as the observation of a shared holiday, albeit that also seems to not be relevant these days

For Ukraine as it stands there is little reason to believe that Ukraine will be able to retake their territory fully, unless the support from the West would come in the shape of boots on the ground and massive amounts of arms. As for Russia it seems Russia is slowly gaining territory while incurring high losses and taking very bad economic hits at home. So there could come a point of collapse of the Russian army. From Ukraines perspective however, unless that happens, if Russia gets weaker, they could always retreat to a reinforced line and take the gains they have made.

Accepting defeat probably will not be taken lightly and will be the certain end to Zelensky’s rule, so i don’t think he’s to enthusiastic about a ceasefire. But it also seems that the Western Allies, in particular the US are not willing to give Ukraine what it takes and rather see an end to the war, with the EU countries probably following the US in trying to recoup some of the military spending by buying up Ukraine at a discount.

For Putin on the other hand it is questionable, if he can sell the current state as a “victory” that justifies the losses. I guess for Russia to agree to a long term ceasefire they would demand to keep the current territories and be immediately relieved of sanctions.

Arne Christiani, the mayor of Grünheide and an unwavering Musk enthusiast, said he was confident Tesla would stay in Grünheide and would thrive. He was unmoved, he said, by what Musk said or did. “You have to distinguish between what happens in the US and here in Grünheide,” he said.

This gives me some “Yeah, what you hear from the Colonies sounds tragic, but look at all the goods we now have.” vibes.

Arbeit ist aktuell ziemlich wild. Ich vermute in einem Projekt müssen wir bald dazu übergehen, dass man sich nur noch per Rechtsanwalt unterhält, was gerade am Anfang eines Projekts super ist…

Mein Beileid für deinen Sittich. Ich musste meine Wellensittiche vor anderthalb Jahren leider abgeben und vermisse sie noch immer. Dabei haben sie mir gefühlt vor allem die Wohnung zerknabbert und sich gerne mal lautstark gefetzt. Das vermeintliche Männchen hatte sich als Weibchen herausgestellt und zwei Weibchen sind nicht die beste Kombi.

Die CDU positioniert sich damit wieder als “Alternative” zum Rest des Parteienspektrums.

Das schlägt aus meiner Sicht in die gleiche Kerbe aus dem Bundestagswahlkampf, wo die CDU sinngemäß damit angetreten ist, dass man die AfD Positionen und Verhaltensweisen auch schon bei ihr bekommt und nicht extra AfD wählen muss. Das die Partei, die in den letzten 42 Jahren 34 Jahre den Kanzler gestellt hat, sich als “Alternative” verkauft hat, ist dabei schon wahnsinnig genug.

Cooper: Dann zerfällt das internationale System, das auf gemeinsamen Werten basiert. Menschenrechte, Pressefreiheit, Gewaltenteilung – all das wird zur Verhandlungssache, abhängig von “Traditionen” und “kulturellen Besonderheiten”.

Dukalskis: Ja, absolut. Joe Biden wollte mit einem “Gipfel für Demokratie” international ein Zeichen setzen. Doch das wurde schnell von innenpolitischen Konflikten überrollt.

Wenn man die Unterstützer von Verbrechen wie ethnischen Säuberungen, Völkermord und Angriffskriegen zu den “Verteidigern” der liberalen Ordnung erklärt, dann ist es wenig verwunderlich, dass diese Ordnung zerbricht.

ZEIT: Wie zum Beispiel?
Dukalskis: In den USA sehen wir längst den Einsatz autoritärer Taktiken: Klagen gegen kritische Medien, Einschüchterung zivilgesellschaftlicher Organisationen, Versuche, die Justiz unter politische Kontrolle zu bringen.

Hier wird auch komplett ausgeblendet, was die Realität der “liberalen Ordnung” auf ihrem Höhepunkt in den 90er und 00er Jahren außerhalb der Kernländer bedeutete. Angriffskriege, Massenmord durch Sanktionen auf Lebensmittel, Massenmord durch Drohnen, Foltergefängnisse… Auch die Zeit davor in den 70er und 80er Jahren, wo insb. die USA demokratische Regierungen gerne mal mit rechtsextremen Diktaturen ersetzt hat, wenn ihnen die Sozialpolitik nicht gepasst hat, haben keine gute Grundlage für Überzeugung gelegt.

In dem Interview werden aus meiner Sicht außenpolitisch Sachen wie regelbasiertes Vorgehen, Menschenrechten und Demokratie als gesetzt behauptet, die so nie existiert haben, oder wenn dann nur als Farce. Dabei wird auch die Frage des Neoliberalismus als eine Kernideologie der “liberalen” Ordnung und seine Zerstörung der wirtschaftlichen Möglichkeiten und sozialen Sicherheit, sowie gesellschaftlichen Zusammenhalts für weite Teile der Bevölkerung auf innenpolitischer Seite komplett ausgeblendet.

Dazu wurde auch ein Artikel heute verlinkt, der aufzeigt, wie die neoliberalen Staaten das zunächst überdecken konnten. Nach 40 Jahren Raubbau an der breiten Bevölkerung, kommt dann aber doch die Systemfrage auf. Mehr als ein “weiter so” wird in kaum einem Land politisch ernsthaft verfolgt. Der Neoliberalismus wird gleichgesetzt mit der Freiheit und man geht diesen Weg lieber zum Faschismus, als die Systemkrise anzuerkennen.

Die “liberale” Ordnung zerbricht, weil sie von jeher Heuchlerisch war. Sie war von jeher in erster Linie durch die Waffengewalt der USA durchgesetzt worden und nicht durch Überzeugung mit echten Werten. Dabei sehen wir gerade in Deutschland, dass es im gesamten Parteienspektrum keine relevante Haltung von Werten über Allianzen gibt, und sich praktisch das gesamte Parteienspektrum, dass im Bundestag oder Landtagen vertreten ist, über die letzten Jahre autoritär radikalisiert hat und weiter radikalisiert, oftmals im Namen der “Freiheit”.

Zu einer Auseinandersetzung mit der “Liberal Hegemony”, also der von den USA geführten Durchsetzung der “liberalen Ordnung” kann ich diese Vorlesung von Prof. John Mearsheimer empfehlen:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ESwIVY2oimI

Eigentlich möchte ich auch eher darauf hinaus, dass es problematisch ist, mittels Algorithmen Kindern unterbreiten zu können, dass es eine gute Idee ist Geschirrspültabs zu essen, Lachgas zu inhalieren o.Ä…

Darum geht es. Das sollte mit zügiger Moderation unterbunden werden, und entsprechend Strafen für die Platformen hageln, wenn sie sowas stehen lassen. Das hat mit Fragen von politischer Meinung nichts zu tun.

Wenn es um die Moderation von Inhalten geht, die unter die Meinungsfreiheit fallen, dann bin ich bei dir. Dabei unterscheidet sich Moderation erstmal grundlegend von Überwachung, weil sie auf den Inhalt ausgerichtet ist, nicht auf die Person dahinter. Wenn bestimmte Personen regelmäßig moderiert werden müssen, verschwimmt diese Linie ab einem gewissen Punkt natürlich.

I wasn’t sure if people would immediately recognize Almería to be in Spain, as it is a city with about 200k inhabitants.

I find a lot of inspiration, optimism and hope in a “simple guy” taking on a large financial institution to right a wrong. But i understand if that is not how the majority sees it.

Mir ist es grundsätzlich wichtig vor extremistischem Atheismus zu warnen, da er mir hier auf Lemmy auch sehr häufig begegnet und oft Leute ebenjene hasserfüllten Narrative wie Spencer und co. unter dem Deckmantel von Atheismus verbreiten.

Ich weiß, dass das auf dich nicht zutrifft. Wie im Artikel ausgeführt ist ebenjene Abgrenzung wichtig hervorzuheben.

Werden sie durchgesetzt?

“Dann haben die Schwächeren keine Stimme mehr: nicht die Ungeborenen und nicht die pflegebedürftigen Alten; nicht die psychisch Kranken und auch nicht die sozial Schwachen, nicht die Menschen, die sich aufgrund von Krieg und Verfolgung auf die Flucht begeben und auch nicht die Natur, die gewissenlos ausgebeutet und zerstört wird.”

Dieser Zynismus widert mich an. Die “christlichen” Parteien hetzen gerade an allen Fronten gegen ebenjene benannten Gruppen. Das hat mit der Frage von Abtreibungen auch null zu tun.

“in welchen Abgrund der Intoleranz und Menschenverachtung wir gleiten, wenn die Verantwortung vor Gott immer mehr aus dem Bewusstsein der Menschen verschwindet”

Leider lässt sich bei den “Christlichen” Parteien ebenso wie bei vielen Vertretern der Kirchen ebenjene Verantwortung schmerzlich vermissen.

Ich muss dir allerdings widersprechen, dass “Atheisten sehr ethisch handeln”. Es gibt bei Atheisten das gesamte Spektrum an Haltung inklusive aus dem Atheismus begründeten Glauben der rassischen Überlegenheit gegen “minderwertige Menschen” und eines “Wettkampfes der Völker” wobei die Religiösität oft als Argument für die “Minderwertigkeit” anderer angeführt wird.

Analog zu den Missbrauchskandalen in den Kirchen scheint man die Nazi-Atheistischen-Strömungen und deren wachsenden Einfluss auch in größeren Organisationen gerne unter den Tisch kehren zu wollen, um die atheistische Missionierung vorantreiben zu können.

https://www.vice.com/en/article/too-many-atheists-are-veering-dangerously-toward-the-alt-right/

By neglecting to address its darker currents, online atheism has perhaps unknowingly planted the seeds for the alt-right’s harvest. Three years ago Reddit’s atheism subforum, perhaps the largest community of atheists on the internet, was found to be the website’s third most bigoted—meaning not just tolerant of overt displays of bigotry, but actively supportive of them. Last year, the Daily Beast revealed that the study’s most bigoted Reddit subforum, the Red Pill, was founded by Robert Fisher, a Republican state lawmaker who is also an atheist.
…
I spoke with a staffer at one of America’s largest secular organizations on the condition of anonymity who told me that issuing a statement condemning Spencer was discussed but shot down, in part because the organization’s leadership didn’t want to draw attention to the fact that Spencer is an atheist. This same organization, which regularly issues statements about political issues as a major part of its advocacy strategy, also reportedly declined staff requests to release a statement condemning Trump’s appointment of Steve Bannon as a White House adviser. According to the member I spoke to, the organization’s management didn’t want to publicly oppose anyone in Trump’s cabinet or inner circle.

When I asked my source why they thought a secular organization’s leadership would make these decisions, they replied, “When advancing atheism is your primary motive, you may have an interest in ignoring that some atheists are white nationalists and neo-Nazis. But staying silent also means keeping supporters who may otherwise be pissed off that you criticized the alt-right.”
…
But condemning Spencer and promoting an alternative aren’t enough. Atheists also need to ask ourselves difficult questions about the culture of our movement. Many atheists consider themselves transgressors who openly doubt and sometimes even mock the sincerely held beliefs of others—who take it upon themselves to slay “sacred cows.” This attitude is deeply embedded in movement atheism, where the most visible advocates tend to be vocally anti-religious. A 2013 study from the University of Tennessee at Chattanooga found that the atheists who consider themselves “anti-theists,” or vehemently opposed to religion in all its forms and eager to proactively fight it, have the highest rates of dogmatism and anger.
…
The difficult truth spotlighted by both Spencer’s atheism and the silence of other atheists is that, despite the late Christopher Hitchens’s infamous proclamation that “religion poisons everything,” religion was never the problem. It was always something more complicated. Something uglier, more primal, more deeply human. Something the internet, with all the good it can foster, often facilitates. Until atheists and humanists confront this Something head on, we will continue to struggle with people like Spencer who embody an atheism that got rid of the gods but put white men in their place.

I just had a look at it. Note that this is the first source i came across. It seems to be in line with the arguments of Williams

https://legalvision.com.au/4-things-to-know-about-exemplary-damages/

Exemplary damages are one type of damages available for recovery in civil disputes. Sometimes referred to as punitive damages, these types of damages are the most rarely awarded damages in Australia. This is because the court awards exemplary damages with the purpose of punishing a defendant, which contrasts with the Australian courts’ emphasis on using the legal system to provide compensation.

In general, damages are used to compensate a party for a loss and should aim to put them in the position they would have been in, had the wrongdoing not occurred. This means that usually, the court should not award a party more damages than their actual loss. In fact, the court must be cautious when assessing damages to ensure there is not an element of punishment (a punitive element) to them.

The court awards exemplary damages as a form of punishment. Further, their purpose is to deter the defendant and the broader public from malicious behaviour or conduct. Typically, this applies where that conduct causes harm, warning them that such conduct will attract punishment. Generally speaking, this behaviour will include certain elements, such as:

• malice;
• abuse of power;
• cruelty; or
• violence.

So it is possible that the court would follow the reasoning of Williams that the bank has abused its power in rushing to put the blame on him instead of investigating the fraud properly or taking measures to prevent the fraud. As bank customers seem to be regular victims of such fraud and the bank seems to generally just deny the claims instead of prevent the fraud, the argument of “abuse of power” and “malice” seems plausible to me. (Who is not a legal expert, leave alone in Australia)

If the court follows the reasoning of Williams that the bank needs to be handed a punitive damage sentence to discourage it from abusing its powers against its customers, i find his calculation appropriate. His pension seems in line with typical pension rates in Australia and the damage from the fraud also seems to be in the usual range. So punishing the bank with a comparable relative damage doe snot seem unfair. One could argue that his calculation is still quite generous as he is targeting the banks profits after tax, while his pension has to cover everything, and his “disposable” income from the pension is much lower.

I know this is not yet decided, but i find it certainly inspiring and i dearly hope for Mr. Williams to succeed.

Experts said it is unclear if the cash brokers’ activities benefit Hamas, as some Israeli analysts claim.

The war has made it more difficult to determine who is behind all sorts of economic activity in the territory, said Omar Shabaan, director of Palthink for Strategic Studies, a Gaza-based think tank.

“It’s a dark place now. You don’t know who is bringing cigarettes into Gaza,” he said, giving just one example. “It’s like a mafia.”

The UN has reported on Aid trucks regularly being looted by the Abu Shabab gang. A group of lowlife criminals, who are armed and supported by Israel to wreak further havoc in Gaza and exploit the population further. In one of their largest raids, they robbed and burnt almost a hundred UN trucks for Israel in November 2024. I wouldn’t be surprised if Israel is funneling fresh cash to such criminal elements to further strengthen them and extract money from the people of Gaza through a middlemen allowing them plausible deniability. Note that the Abu Shabab criminals also have ties to ISIS. As Israel had consistently accused Hamas of “being ISIS” this shows once again that every Israeli accusation is a projection.

It also is less energy efficient as running the juice directly through a cable of course is more efficient than creating a magnetic field that then induces juice on the other side to flow again.

It should be said that this is the principle of transformers, but they are built in an efficient way for it.

Der Token ist für den Staat spätestens ab da deanonymisiert, wo du dich damit in einem Onlineshop identifizierst.