Das was die Nazis veranstalten hat nichts mit Stochastik zu tun. Bei denen sind die Gewalttäter, nicht die Prediger, die treibende Kraft.
Die Entscheidung oder zumindest die Kommunikation zum CSD der Bundestagspräsidentin war absolut daneben, ich bezweifel aber mal stark dass sich irgendwelche Nazis davon haben beeinflussen haben.
Die Symbolpolitik die du suchst ist das ganz konkrete Versagen so einiger Innen- und Justizminister gegen den Hass klar Kante zu zeigen. Die Präsidentin hat zwar eine eigene Polizei die wirste aber nicht außerhalb des Bundestages finden. Den Nazis geht das am Arsch vorbei was im Bundestag passiert, das kriegen die noch nicht mal mit. Die kriegen mit ob irgendwo ein Kamerad wegen einfacher Körperverletzung oder das gleiche aber in Verbindung mit §46 StGB verknackt wird. Das sind materielle Symbole.
Legalität mal ausgeklammert, das Problem an Lina und Umfeld war hauptsächlich dass sie so gut wie 0 Aufklärung und Recherche geleistet haben. Wahllose Auswahl der Opfer, keine Strategie dahinter, und auch die Mittelwahl war nicht von Strategie geleitet. Ansonsten hätte das eher wie die Stasi ausgesehen, Zersetzung usw. Strukturell absolut nichts gerissen.
Gewaltmonopoldiskussion hin oder her ich glaub' man kann sich sehr schnell drauf einigen dass Erlebnisorientierung und Gewalt nicht zusammen gehören.
Ich frag' mich gerade wo do den Widerspruch zwischen dem verlinkten und deinem Post siehst. Ist auch kein Widerspruch zum verlinktem OP, nur halt etwas Nuance: Ja, man kann mehrere Dinge gleichzeitig tun, ja, man kann sich aber auch über Symbolpolitik aufregen, wenn eben nicht beides gemacht wird. Und Nazis gibt's übrigens auch nicht weniger wenn die Mieten unbezahlbar sind.
("The mayor announces that beer will be brewed on Wednesday, therefore beginning Tuesday people are not to shit in the brook")
Learning German has many benefits for young people – and it’s not as hard as its reputation suggests
Frisian and Low Saxon should be practically the same to English speakers, Frisian being more closely related to English is more of a technical thing than a practical one: In practice English uses a gigantic amount of Romance words and is not mutually intelligible with either, while Low Saxon and Frisian do have a decent amount of mutual intelligibility... you can always cherrypick something mutually intelligible, of course, but knowing Low Saxon Frisian is easy to wrap your head around once you decode the accent. Difference like RP vs. Scots I'd say.
Here’s the video; it’s pretty entertaining if you’re into languages.
Bujen? I don't speak West Frisian but dictionaries spit out keapje. Kuupe for North Frisian (mainland), in Low Saxon it's köpen or kopen. Half of the difference there is spelling the other half the exact vowels/dipthongs. The Low Saxon ones are actually diphthongs they just get analysed as long vowels.
The "buy" root seems to be extinct in all other Germanic languages, everyone uses the root for cheap, instead.
English does seem to drift the semantics of its Germanic roots like a motherfucker. People snicker about place names like "Quickborn" but if you weren't English-brained it'd just mean "lively spring" to you. Speaking of fuck.
Learning German has many benefits for young people – and it’s not as hard as its reputation suggests
There's no "behind the scenes" there are plenty of EU-based cloud providers. Including SAP though that's not why I mentioned them.
It'd take some time to organise a replacement organisation but it's not like those systems collapse when the central service goes down. We do have our own root servers and the internet can survive a month or two of not being able to register new tlds or assign subnets.
On the flipside, I wonder how US multinationals would fare without SAP.
You said, verbatim:
Childcare should ideally be 30% men and 70% women
and then went on to justify it with
because women are natual caretakers and excell at emotional and social tasks.
implying that more men would mean worse results "because women are so much better at it": If the ideal is 70:30 then everything else is worse, no? And you were also being very essentialist, saying that "women provide one thing, men another".
The trouble with childcare in Germany wasn't absence of men as such -- it was absence of male insight into childcare. Doing things in way that make a lot of sense but women aren't as prone to do instinctively, but are very capable of doing. As long as there's a baseline level of diversity such that both approaches are present, things are just fine. There's no ideal ratio, there's a wide span of equally good ratios that ensure that everything is covered.
And btw you don't teach emotional resilience by being authoritarian. You teach it by being there, hold watch, while the kid figures out how to control their emotions, maybe some gently encouraging words. Shouting at them might shock them into silence but it's not going to teach them anything about actual emotional regulation. The very presence of the word "authority", on top of that "strict authority", in what you say betrays your ignorance about childcare. If you have kids I feel sorry for them.
The code section in particular is gold and exactly the type of online content we need. A big reason why chuds like Tate are successful is because they provide a code ("compass, outlets, who you're with, how it feels"), which before the internet was something everyone built for themselves, actively picking and choosing, while nowadays the algorithms do the picking+choosing for us. Or, well, before the algorithmic internet boomers largely got that stuff from old institutions (be that church or the party), Gen X from rebellion, then come us sweet-spot millennials seeing the boomer/X conflict and having access to previously unheard of amounts of information to actively choose from, and then Gen Y and younger getting fed by the outrage machine.
So what we need is algorithm-compatible content that challenges the whippersnappers to build their own code, in an active manner. Give guidelines, give examples, but don't decide for them (that makes you no better than the algorithm or for that matter Gen X and boomers) and definitely don't make it a list of don'ts: They're in the process of adapting instincts to currentyear, good living requires finding a configuration that denies none, our task is to help them not being maladaptive, steering away from both neurosis (denial of instinct) as well as asocial BS (exploiting in/outgroup instincts for power plays, oxytocin can be vile). To do that you need to point out the various fundamental drives, validate all of them, make that shit resonate as deeply as possible so they spot the drives themselves instead of some social construct painting over it, enable them to draw a map of their needs, then give examples, plural, of how it can all be integrated in a coherent fashion.
I was pointing at a pattern, cultural at that, and all patterns are reductive. If you can't see the pattern I alluded to you have my condolences, and if it hit you like a brick then you also have my condolences.
The only thing I won't stand for here is saying is "pointing at patterns is bad". These kinds of conversations need to be had if issues are to be understood. And they need to be understood, assumptions have to be questioned, before anything can change for the better.
And if you just don't care about the issue, which is perfectly fine, then FFS don't womensplain the male perception of "men are simple creatures" to men. You came out swinging, remember.
view more:
next ›