https://youtu.be/lS64HqZbWHM

This gives a good overview I believe

Who am I to know who I am?

Or…I could just continue not using google.

Just buy out the senate

First they came for the Communists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Communist

Then they came for the Socialists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Socialist

Then they came for the trade unionists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a trade unionist

Then they came for the Jews
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Jew

Then they came for me
And there was no one left
To speak out for me

https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/26184/pg26184-images.html

The problem in this discussion is that “nature” isn’t defined clearly. Or rather there are two definitions:

the narrow one, meaning nature is everything which happens without the influence of humans

the wide one, meaning nature is practically everything

This wouldn’t be a problem if we wouldn’t constantly switch between them while talking about it. The everyday meaning is the narrow one, but if we think more about it in a discussion like this we realize we ARE a part of nature. So in a way saying plastic isn’t natural because it is produced by humans can be seen as the same as saying wood or silk isn’t natural.

Puerto Rico fände ich etwas schöner

You don’t have weekends?

Oder Leute mit Kindern. Bei deinen Kindern kannst du dich nicht einfach krank melden.

Sehe ich das richtig, dass dort die Linken im Artikeltext einfach komplett ignoriert werden?

And the plate says she’s giving it to Trump “symbolically”

This will age as well as this picture:

Kontext: https://www.worldhistory.org/image/19615/chamberlain-after-the-munich-agreement/

Maybe bring back social ostracism? The person loses all rights and privileges. Meaning even killing them will not be prosecuted.

Uuh, just shoot into the masses of the protests? The mass panic will also kill many indirectly.

It’s victim blaming

Public servants are not the government. They have an obligation to do what the government tells them to do.

A subject of debate for fascists

But that’s definitely arguable and can be used to muddy the waters.

Let’s keep with what is crystal clear:

• He intentionally walked in front of the car.
• Shooting her wouldn’t have helped him even if she did in fact wanted to run him over.

The last point is crucial, because it proves he wasn’t in danger. Shooting her only makes her keep accelerating (more likely even increasing it) while holding the trajectory (at least short distance).

That’s what people should talk about. It wasn’t self defence but even endangering everyone nearby.

Gibt auch genug (boomer), die ihr Haus schon abbezahlt haben. Und wenn jemand ein Haus gerade gekauft hat, hat eben der Verkäufer das Vermögen.

Natürlich gibt es auch günstigstere Eigenheime, deswegen ja nur jeder zweite.