Summary

German lawmakers are debating whether to pursue a ban on the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD), but many fear the move could backfire ahead of the Feb. 23 national election.

The proposal, backed by 124 lawmakers, seeks a court review of whether the AfD is unconstitutional.

Critics, including Chancellor Olaf Scholz, warn a failed attempt could strengthen the party, which is polling at 20%.

The debate underscores concerns over the AfD’s extremism but also the risks of fueling its anti-establishment narrative.

  • Justin@lemmy.jlh.name
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    22
    ·
    3 days ago

    technocracy != Elon Musk as president

    technocracy is when you have political scientists and engineers as politicians, not billionaires and lawyers.

    • Ogmios@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      2 days ago

      In common usage, I’d argue it just means a society which is run by technology rather than people, which everyone is trying to do these days.

      • FooBarrington@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        2 days ago

        That might be what people think the word means when they first hear it, but that doesn’t mean we should use it that way.

        • Ogmios@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          2 days ago

          Well if you actually want to communicate with others outside of academia, you’re going to have to get used to attempting to understand people rather than constantly trying to “fix” them.

          • FooBarrington@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            2 days ago

            So we should just do away with definitions, and go with whatever people think a word means the first time they hear it? Why?

            • Mnemnosyne@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              15 hours ago

              If one person or a few people have a definition wrong, that’s a thing that can be corrected.

              If the majority of people think that’s the definition, and it’s been that way for decades, then you have the definition wrong.

            • Ogmios@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              edit-2
              1 day ago

              The point is that you have to make a good faith effort for communication to be possible, which you are not doing here. Language evolves organically, not by the dictate of a legally mandated authority.

              • FooBarrington@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                21 hours ago

                When the “good faith effort” requires changing definitions, it’s not a good faith effort from the other side.

                • Ogmios@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  13 hours ago

                  That’s exactly my point. If you come into a conversation and start declaring the definitions have to be different from how the speaker uses their own words, because people they’ve never even met said so, that’s not a good faith effort.