Does this mean we finally know what dark matter is? Or at least what parts of it are?

deleted by creator

Yeah that’s true.

Yeah but they got to do something. They are the reason the police isn’t moving in. So if I were in their place I’d either coordinate with the police so they could move in or try to take the situation in my own hands or stop protesting all together because it allows people to do looting under my umbrella. That makes me responsible. If the looting happened anywhere else the cops would have done something about it long ago. So like go to a protest tomorrow that isn’t right next to a store that you must have taken notice of by now is being looted.

I am specifically talking about the guy in a wheelchair and at least 5 other people I’ve recognised that were in the midst of the protest before. Those are clearly protesters not criminals that randomly showed up or just tagged along.

They are of course only a small portion of the protesters. However no one calling the cops on them or hindering them makes them complicit.

Why tf are they looting a gas station?

Following the headlines logic: Germany is angry at this post right now for overgeneralising in a topic where there are a lot of fake news and and propaganda spreading actors. Germany will now go and make itself tea.

Sry. Activated by accident

I think I just fat fingered it

That somehow feels right. I still kind of want some phrase that you could substitute for it though. The most correct feeling thing I could think of are seasons as in ‘the summer rains’. But from a logical standpoint a concept that is defined by humans producing something material doesn’t really make sense since a concept isn’t material.

Which sentence do you mean?

‘It’s raining’ must refer to the same it as the one in ‘it rains’. From that we can gather that the entity referred by ‘it’ must be quite capable as it can do the raining as well as be raining. However ‘It’s cold outside’ could refer to the air as in the air is cold outside. Similarly the ‘it’ in ‘it is the case’ needs some context in a prior sentence or something else in the real world otherwise the sentence doesn’t make sense.

Has Trump already tweeted something disrespectful about this?

All knowledge is models

If you say that banning a party because it plans to destroy democracy itself destroys democracy then you are talking of democracy as am absolute. So after banning the party democracy vanishes and we live in a not democratic state anymore. That’s not the case though. It would still be a democracy. Banning a party is a dilemma, either you let the people have their say which is more democratic and then after you have let them then you don’t have a democracy anymore or you don’t and then you have less of a democracy in the sense that one position of planning to completely destroy democracy is not allowed but it still is a democracy on all the other issues at least.

As for whether the party will use loopholes to destroy democracy: that’s a complex issue and difficult to determine. We may not agree on that. That’s why we leave it to a court to settle.

Banning parties isn’t always anti-democratic. The reason why is a bit unituitive so I explained it quite detailed but I believe that’s necessary. Take for example a hypothetical party X. Party X will use legal loopholes to effectively destroy democracy when it gets into power (restrict free speech, manipulate ballots, lock up the opposition, etc.) . Now party X gets the majority. That creates a situation where Party X stays in Power indefinitely. Now at some point the majority of people people change their mind and now they wouldn’t vote for the party anymore so the government isn’t representative of the people anymore. But it doesn’t matter anymore because democracy is dead in the country now. So now the people have to go through the whole establishing democracy process again which costs many lives and many years of living under oppression. That could have been skipped if party X had been banned. Now the problem remains that a majority of people weren’t represented in a election. That’s obviously bad. However keep in mind that the only thing we need to ban to skip all those years of oppression is to ban a single thing that party’s just aren’t allowed to do. And that thing is being antidemocratic. So banning that one single thing allows us to keep all the other nice thing that democracy has to offer.

No it’s not anti-democratic. The parties can’t ban the AFD only initiate the process. Whether the AFD is antidemocratic and a has the ability to undermine democracy is decided by the highest court. Precisely so they can’t just ban the opposition.