whats your opinion , should the german party afd be banned ?

Banning is typical of a strident, intolerant Left. I tend to disfavor banning even of those I don't like, but just on the basis of valuing free expression, not because I think banning is necessarily ineffective (although, of course, it might be).

"free expression"

• There is no absolute free expression.
  In many countries racism, antisemitism, holocaust denial, holocaust revision, wearing a swastika are criminal offenses.

@Noflaps

if anything nazis should be made to fear open expression again

I'm not sure what you mean, @JonSnow1998 .

Just to be clear, I hate Nazis -- and, fortunately, don't live in a country where they have any significant presence.

Where I live, the words "Nazi" and "fascist" get hurled as a political weapon, but it's all political nonsense. There are few actual Nazis or fascists -- there are however many leftists who like to use the insult.

But, in any event, I doubt that any Nazi could win an open debate mediated by a jury of even average wisdom, so free expression still seems the best medicine. Truth eventually wins out over foolishness -- although, lately, I'll admit it's been tense at times as nonsense of many stripes seems to be circulating vehemently.

@Noflaps said ^

I'm not sure what you mean, @JonSnow1998 .

Just to be clear, I hate Nazis -- and, fortunately, don't live in a country where they have any significant presence.

Where I live, the words "Nazi" and "fascist" get hurled as a political weapon, but it's all political nonsense. There are few actual Nazis or fascists -- there are however many leftists who like to use the insult.

But, any event, I dou...

I grew up regularly seeing people with swastika armbands in restaurants, they're more legitimized than ever

want to take a guess which candidate had their 100% support, same as these "very fine people" in trumps words - at the unite the right rally

".... as these 'very fine people' in trumps words"

NOPE. You're quite wrong.

Trump DID NOT SAY that Nazis were very fine people. That's political nonsense based on an out-of-context, incorrect interpretation of a tiny part of his speech. That silly notion has long since been debunked, although many still don't realize it.

Unlike most people, I ACTUALLY listened to his entire speech. I did not just look at a short, edited clip of it, or start repeating what a thousand other people had repeated from a thousand others.

The "fine people on both sides" were people involved in arguing whether STATUES should just be torn down by mobs.

Trump was NOT referring to "Nazis" or "White supremacists" or "fascists" as fine people.

TO THE CONTRARY, during the speech -- which, again, I ACTUALLY WATCHED in its ENTIRETY -- he EXPRESSLY said that such evil people were NOT those to whom he was referring.

I write this, and hope that someday you get a chance to listen to the whole, unedited speech so you can check what I say. It's right out in the open to see, for those who have patience and bother to be accurate. No, it's NOT enough to watch a brief, carefully selected clip.

But most people wouldn't bother to watch the whole speech and see Trump expressly CONTRADICT the impression many have tried to spread. They WANT to believe such nonsense about Trump, so they will. And evidence to the contrary will just be shoved aside and quickly forgotten. After all, many of their friends and teachers are SURE they're right!

It's one of the reasons politics is so screwed up right now. Too many people are certain about things they don't really ever bother to check thoroughly. Many people would rather feel righteous indignation, feel superior, and fit in than work to be objective and risk disappointing their peers or favorite teachers.

I think about the objectivity, or bias, of any media source that would allow so many to come away with such an obvious misunderstanding of what he ACTUALLY said in the whole speech. I wonder, did some of the same media seem to feel that it really WAS the "best Biden ever" those last few years? And that Covid just HAD to come from bat soup? And that Trump just HAD to be a Russian agent? Etc. etc. etc.

Too many people get played, and it does nobody any good.

@Noflaps said ^

@Clousems, this isn't about me, much as many would prefer it to be.

Believe and listen to what you choose.

All I ask is for people to NOTICE when what they've been told, and come to believe, does not actually prove out.

That's not what you're arguing, though. You're assailing sources, even without always knowing what sources you are assailing, and not providing superior alternatives.

I bring this up here because I don't have a strong preference towards banning AFD, but I also can see why people would have such a preference. I have no dog in this fight. I simply don't like people devoting lots and lots of time to writing fundamentally flawed arguments, especially when the argument flaw is a recurrent defect.

"even without always knowing what sources you are assailing, and not providing superior alternatives."

No. I'm simply hoping that others will notice if and when THEIR favored sources -- they know what they are -- are predictably biased and sell them viewpoints that prove false in retrospect.

I'm not sure I could list every source that assured us, indignantly and with apparent certainty, either expressly or in so many words, that we were seeing the "Best Biden ever."

I certainly know SOME of those sources. I don't know them all.

You don't need to depend on me for anything. All that's needed for anybody is to pay attention, and NOTICE political bias and error when it appears. It's not all that subtle. And there's plenty of it.

@Noflaps said ^

Argument has turned into attempts to justify preferences and preconceptions. Nobody ever wants to be wrong, and many buy reassurance by embracing propaganda and wanting to ban or shame or attack counterargument.

I've become convinced that is unlikely to change. Even the obvious is often denied.

Better to just play chess.

Ahh, words of wisdom.