Germany’s history informs its current laws. That much is undeniable. But it doesn’t excuse the over-correction applied by legislators in hopes of heading off another Hitler. And it cert…
from the be-the-stasi-you-wish-to-see-in-the-world dept
Propaganda is rarely outright lies, it is about framing facts in a distorted way.
Both facts are framed in the above comment exactly like the AfD does, and the way they are framed is highly misleading.
But I am starting to think you are not arguing in good faith as this is crystal clear for anyone even slightly familiar with these AfD propaganda narratives.
I’m sorry but I don’t find “they’re right but I don’t like how they’re right” a compelling reason to accuse them of propaganda. That’s not a light thing of which to accuse someone. Especially when their “propaganda” is actually the truth. You are far too preoccupied with tone policing than the fact German authorities are literally raiding people’s homes for wrongthink and wrongspeak.
But they are not right. There is a tiny bit of truth buried in a pile of lies.
Take the first claim for example. Out of literally thousands of cases they take out and highlight one that is questionable. And then they take an entirely unrelated topic on top to attack the credibility of the current German minister of economy with another tiny bit of truth and a big pile of lies (he has literally many years of experience doing the same job at state level, which btw doesn’t even exist outside of politics so no-one has experience when entering such a job the first time).
This is such a classic case of gish-galloping lies and half-truths for propaganda purposes that you need to be extremely stupid to not see that.
The second case is the same. This is not a “opposition newspaper” but an propaganda outlet of the extreme far right that has been under investigation for many years and the legal proceedings to shut it down are ongoing. The evidence includes by the way credible hints at funding from the Kremlin, and no sovergn state needs to tolerate such blatant interference of hostile state actors. It is purely the attempt to shut down its operations more quickly before an important election that the court objected to on very technical legal grounds.
But it’s not just one case. The German officials themselves admit they “successfully” prosecute 750 people each year. That’s literally in the article.
As for the newspaper, you appear to be arguing that it’s a good thing now that political opposition be shut down, rather than discrediting the claim itself. If you like it, why accuse the user of propaganda? Surely you would be happy that they’re advertising the good thing you agree with? I think you know it’s wrong to shut down free speech in a democracy, even if you don’t like how they’re funded.
The vast majority of the cases is absolutely justified in being prosecuted. The law itself is overly broad, and you can argue that it causes unnecessary load on the courts for cases that get dismissed, but taking out one specific case to throw a shade on a specific politician (and ignoring all the other cases) is clearly propaganda.
Sorry, but if you think a propaganda outlet that promotes the destruction of democracy and is directly opposed to the core values in the German constitution is somehow just another opinion that deserves the same protection as real journalism then we will never agree.
Propaganda is rarely outright lies, it is about framing facts in a distorted way.
Both facts are framed in the above comment exactly like the AfD does, and the way they are framed is highly misleading.
But I am starting to think you are not arguing in good faith as this is crystal clear for anyone even slightly familiar with these AfD propaganda narratives.
I’m sorry but I don’t find “they’re right but I don’t like how they’re right” a compelling reason to accuse them of propaganda. That’s not a light thing of which to accuse someone. Especially when their “propaganda” is actually the truth. You are far too preoccupied with tone policing than the fact German authorities are literally raiding people’s homes for wrongthink and wrongspeak.
But they are not right. There is a tiny bit of truth buried in a pile of lies.
Take the first claim for example. Out of literally thousands of cases they take out and highlight one that is questionable. And then they take an entirely unrelated topic on top to attack the credibility of the current German minister of economy with another tiny bit of truth and a big pile of lies (he has literally many years of experience doing the same job at state level, which btw doesn’t even exist outside of politics so no-one has experience when entering such a job the first time).
This is such a classic case of gish-galloping lies and half-truths for propaganda purposes that you need to be extremely stupid to not see that.
The second case is the same. This is not a “opposition newspaper” but an propaganda outlet of the extreme far right that has been under investigation for many years and the legal proceedings to shut it down are ongoing. The evidence includes by the way credible hints at funding from the Kremlin, and no sovergn state needs to tolerate such blatant interference of hostile state actors. It is purely the attempt to shut down its operations more quickly before an important election that the court objected to on very technical legal grounds.
But it’s not just one case. The German officials themselves admit they “successfully” prosecute 750 people each year. That’s literally in the article.
As for the newspaper, you appear to be arguing that it’s a good thing now that political opposition be shut down, rather than discrediting the claim itself. If you like it, why accuse the user of propaganda? Surely you would be happy that they’re advertising the good thing you agree with? I think you know it’s wrong to shut down free speech in a democracy, even if you don’t like how they’re funded.
The vast majority of the cases is absolutely justified in being prosecuted. The law itself is overly broad, and you can argue that it causes unnecessary load on the courts for cases that get dismissed, but taking out one specific case to throw a shade on a specific politician (and ignoring all the other cases) is clearly propaganda.
Sorry, but if you think a propaganda outlet that promotes the destruction of democracy and is directly opposed to the core values in the German constitution is somehow just another opinion that deserves the same protection as real journalism then we will never agree.