God. Damnit. I just managed to be able to listen to Gorillaz without just randomly singing ram ranch. Now it’s back on my mind

I’m curious, doesn’t WhatsApp require a phone number to be attached to an account? As in, I thought activating it doesn’t work on devices without a SIM card?

It’s a first step. One thing this will (hopefully) provide is more accurate data on exactly how much wealth is being hoarded. The current data is being assumed to be underestimating the actual numbers

Well if it is skipping like a dipshit, talks like a dipshit, looks like a dipshit…

I’m 27 and that comment didn’t make any sense to me. The oldening has officially begun

Hm yes, but if someone takes a picture of me without me asking for it that’s different

That headline had me confused a bit before I realised it’s about stuff originating from Kazakhstan

For background, Kristall is obviously cristal in German, which is associated with cleanliness and purity and high value. The name plays into the idea of “cleaning” Germany from the “dirty” parts of society

Well now I am imagining cows in silly costumes trying to trick the machine into not recognising them

It’s actually uncommon to refer to the November pogrom as Kristallnacht in German because it’s the positive spin the Nazis put to that. It’s not outright taboo but it can be a dog whistle

Do you think the government should enforce some limits on wealth accumulation? Genuine question, because this doesn’t appear on neither the pro nor con lists in that definition and I’d like to hear a take of a self described economic liberal on this

Consider this: horses can’t puke and just die if they eat something bad

Why would BP change if you don’t?

Because BP isn’t a human being it is a legal entity without inherent value other than those that we as a society allow it to have. If society decides BP should stop existing that’s just a logistical effort (replacing energy needs, finding jobs for the workers there etc etc) where as if society decides I should stop existing that’s a crime against humanity. Putting legal entities and humans on the same level here is a false premise in my eyes.

Also: Arguing for removing BP from the world IS showing a willingness to change personally because it means changing a lot of other stuff too that will affect everyones live.

And I think it’s important to change yourself as well, so you can demand it from others.

I’d argue that that only works on small scales. For big changes we need to agree beforehand that we want and will do the change and then do that change together. Demanding someone jump first won’t work here.

I don’t think that being part of the current society and doing what that society pushes people to do is a reason to dismiss criticism of that same society. I can acknowledge that I am flawed, that I am part of the problem, and still argue for change on a societal level. Especially because it is easier to act responsibly when everyone does

Yeah I remember reading about it. This is probably a step in the right direction without having looked at all the details

Stopping the wealth accumulation at the top through taxes on property above a threshold.

And, supplementary:

Stopping tax evasion by implementing a global tax cooperative so nations can stop competing in a downward race on tax rates

Dingos would hunt at packice holes if they had access to them?

I think protesting against the vote of the average Joe in a way that affects the average Joe is quite valid. The politicians got voted for their policies, they wouldn’t be doing their jobs if they just shifted their whole position because of a protests that are expressing quite old ideas. The average Joe has to stand up and vote for people that actually want the change we need.

The pressure regarding queer rights was successful because it became a less and less favourable position to be against those same rights in the public view. Being conservative regarding fighting the climate change is still a pretty favourable position so not enough pressure can be built by protests against politicians alone.

And, one aspect that is overlooked in the discussion, at least in my opinion: People are allowed to be angry at the state of the world and the popular opinions, and express that anger publicly and in the face of the general public. This is a valid thing to do.

Maybe I missed it but it seems the average Joe voted for people that are responsible for what’s going on right now instead of trying to change direction drastically right?

and if we believe in democracy we have to believe that the people can be trusted with unrestricted political information.

I do agree with that, that’s not what I’m arguing. What I’m saying that there is a difference between political information and calls to action. And I don’t think making that separation and acting on one but not the other is not harmful but rather helpful for democracy as it allows more people to participate, namely those that would otherwise have to fear calls for violence against them.

That’s why acting on those calls to violence is illegal, while speech is not.

The point of this law is that having to deal with calls to violence towards a group will likely alter the behaviour of that group in a negative way as well as create direct risks for that group. There is a benefit towards more diversity to restrict some speech. I think this is a good tradeoff.

Also, unless I’m misunderstanding something (which I very well may be), it seems to me that 70% of the people voted for democracy in Germany - your elected representatives not being able to agree with each other is what appears to be the problem.

Nope that is basically what’s happening here, but it is not really the fault of the people that got elected. We elected a very diverse mix of parties and it is hard to make coalitions in this political climate. This has been the case for a long time but for a lot of the past decades it was enough for two parties to form a coalition for a majority. With the right-wing extremists getting this many votes this has changed towards three or even four parties being involved for majority talks. It’s just honestly a big mess leaving no-one satisfied which in turn only feeds the populists that paint the picture of germany as a failing state.

I was going to argue in my previous comment that representative democracies are dangerously close to autocracies already, but thought it too far afield from my main point. So, I think I agree with you here.

I’m not sure I’d say it is close to autocracies, it is more a plutocracy where the money gets you more political influence, similar to the times when voting rights depended on your wealth but less direct making everything looking more shady in the process. This just fuels suspicions and undermines trust in the institutions which is how you get at least minority support for parties that want to openly destroy the system.

A system where more political decisions are voted on through direct democracy and representatives are only chosen to enact the policies already selected by the people would be less susceptible to these problems (but, again, would rely much more heavily on the people, which, again, is the entire question).

I’m not a big fan of direct democracy on large scales mostly because I honestly don’t think I have the time and energy to have an informed opinion on everything that needs to be decided on in a functioning state. Which makes me assumes that that is probably true for at least a lot of other people too. I like the idea of randomly selected representatives that get compensated to pause their jobs for a period of a few years. It gets rid of some of the bad incentives the party systems have created with people focusing on political “careers” making themselves dependent on being popular.