And some statements are so ambiguous that they are ready to be used by the very enemies of democracy and freedom for their own purposes.
He called you out already: “When conversation becomes avoidance, when topics must not be mentioned, we are already living under the quiet logic of authoritarianism.”
Funny that you used that specific quote, as this was the exact one I was specifically thinking about when writing my statement.
Postulation of non-existant “Denkverbote” is a prime AfD narrative.
And because they are using it, you are saying that we should not talk about how some topics are becoming more and more taboo. You are making a meta-taboo, and that’s self defeating.
I’m not talking about some silly/dangerous “debate the fascists on the topics they choose” strategy of course. We don’t debate fascists, period.
I’m talking about the fact that the fascists always use a kernel of truth to spin their house of lies from. And that kernel of truth is that indeed the liberal mainstream doesn’t talk about certain things, with the brain-dead German mainstream consensus on denying the Gaza Genocide being a prime case study.
Otherwise nefarious people will use the statements to push their own agenda.
Yes, and the presence (or absence) of said ambiguity is exactly what makes or breaks a good article imo. Because all information has a "goal rationale " ( as in Zweckrationalität, Max Weber).
He called you out already: “When conversation becomes avoidance, when topics must not be mentioned, we are already living under the quiet logic of authoritarianism.”
Funny that you used that specific quote, as this was the exact one I was specifically thinking about when writing my statement.
Postulation of non-existant “Denkverbote” is a prime AfD narrative.
And because they are using it, you are saying that we should not talk about how some topics are becoming more and more taboo. You are making a meta-taboo, and that’s self defeating.
I’m not talking about some silly/dangerous “debate the fascists on the topics they choose” strategy of course. We don’t debate fascists, period.
I’m talking about the fact that the fascists always use a kernel of truth to spin their house of lies from. And that kernel of truth is that indeed the liberal mainstream doesn’t talk about certain things, with the brain-dead German mainstream consensus on denying the Gaza Genocide being a prime case study.
That’s not what I said.
Please do so, point out topics that are not covered enough, but be specific and not so ambiguous as Ai Weiwei here.
Otherwise nefarious people will use the statements to push their own agenda.
Yes, and the presence (or absence) of said ambiguity is exactly what makes or breaks a good article imo. Because all information has a "goal rationale " ( as in Zweckrationalität, Max Weber).
They did not say that.