Thanks!
I think “vorgeblich” has some more nuance, as it does not say the claim is necessarily wrong (https://de.wiktionary.org/wiki/vorgeblich). But like I said in the other sub-thread: he is very wrong with this statement (addendum: and in his job). It’s still a different picture than one might imagine when hearing “German government officials are deciding whether you are jewish enough” (which you didn’t write, but apparently was understood like that by other commenters).
Your reading is very generous to him.
Probably. My point is that I was very confused by the original claim (officials deciding whether people are jewish or not) and the following comments drawing comparisons to Nazi Germany.
I don’t have time to learn German to read your source, in an English based discussion.
Understandable. But when the discussion is about German law, German sources are to be expected.
It is not relevant that it is wrong.
If it’s not relevant, then why quote it? In any case it tells me something about the quality of the article.
The commissioner tried to use it to defend his position that they are ostensibly Jewish. Actually being wrong makes it worse as he should know better or he is lying.
Yes, as I said: the “Jewishness” of the people should not matter when you’re attacking their arguments. And yes, he is very obvioulsy trying to defend this instead of admitting that he shouldn’t have said that.
Thanks. So he explicitely was not talking about whether individual persons are jewish or not.
Instead he was questioning if an organisation (that mobilized to a “Glory to the resistance” demonstration on 7th of October 2024) is actually involving a significant amount of people from jewish communities. Which is still shitty and besides the point of any valid criticism, but also different from trying to decide if individual people are jewish or not. And he obviously tried to weasle himself out of his shit take.
The last paragraph is factually wrong though. There are religious communities who are Öffentlich-rechtliche Religionsgesellschaften, but you don’t have to adhere to these regulations.
It’s not a source for a quote if the quote does not show up in the link.
edit: the fact that this gets downvoted really says a lot about the quality of the discussion :D
Ctrl+F didn’t turn up any results for your quote (“alleged”/“allegedly”) , and I’m not going to read the whole article searching for what you might have meant instead.
Do you have sources?
As I understand it: because not enough people will use it through these ways, leading to not enough motivation for the dev(s?) .
Was soll immer dieses Gejammere und Gehetze gegen Reiche? Die Hartz-4-Anträge von Millionären werden im Großen und Ganzen genauso streng geprüft wie alle anderen!
Most people’s ELOs don’t shift much after settling into your “natural” rank, which should happen after about 50 matches or so.
Ehm, 50 matches seems like a lot to me. Especially if they aren’t enjoyable (yet) because of flawed matchmaking.
zusätzlich zu den staatlichen 50 Euro noch mehr Bargeld
noch mehr als 1,67 € am Tag - das muss man sich mal vorstellen!
und somit die dortigen Fachkräfteengpässe zu lindern
Hat da noch jemand lindnern gelesen?
Und Sexist nicht zu vergessen! Er hat z.B. dagegen gestimmt, Vergewaltigung in der Ehe als Vergewaltigung zu bestrafen und ist Abtreibungsgegner. Und scheint homophob zu sein.
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Merz#Familienpolitik
Hat der psychisch ein klinisches Problem?
Zumindest die Menschen mit (auch klinisch relevanten) psychischen Problemen, die ich kenne, sind deutlich empathiefähiger und solidarischer als Mr Obere Mittelklasse. Von bitte ich darum, in Zukunft andere Vergleiche zu wählen.
Es regt mich so auf, wie unspezifisch er “argumentiert” und wie wenig da anscheinend nachgehakt wird, warum das in diesem Fall noch “schwierig” sein sollte. Und warum “schwierig” ein Argument ist, es gar nicht erst zu versuchen. Vielleicht sollte ich das bei meinem Chef nächstes mal auch probieren: “homoludens, hast du schon das dringende Feature XY fertig?” - “Nee, das ist derzeit kein Thema für mich, das ist eine ganz schwierige Sache.”
Machen wir doch einfach eine WIni-Win-Situation draus: wir geben denen einen noch besseren Grund, sich in der Opferrolle zu suhlen, und verbieten diese Fascho-Organisation endlich :)
Das (plus Militäreinsatz in Kosovo usw.) ist mir durchaus schmerzlich bewusst ;) Ich hatte aber tatsächlich die Hoffnung, dass sie daraus gelernt haben, und bin komplett geplättet davon, dass sie angesichts eines Mannes mit einem Messer so komplett umkippen (auch wenn jeder “Einzelfall” natürlich zu großem Leid bei den Betroffenen führt).
OP makes a claim, I asked for a source. That’s not an attack.
And how is on the other hand “he is very wrong with this statement (addendum: and in his job)” and “shitty and besides the point of any valid criticism,” and “he obviously tried to weasle himself out of his shit take” not an “attack” against the commissioner?
edit: anyway, I have spend enough time on this.