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.
So we should just do away with definitions, and go with whatever people think a word means the first time they hear it? Why?
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.
Do you have data to show that a majority of people have been missing “technocracy” for decades?
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.
When the “good faith effort” requires changing definitions, it’s not a good faith effort from the other side.
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.