HawlSera is generalising feminists, while at the same time critizising them for generalising.

Sorry, thats just not a perspective that deserves to be respected. It deserves to be corrected and criticized.

You seem to have left the conversation about the topic at hand altogether if the only thing you’re willing to talk about is her background.

Now you’ve lost me - should we all be held to the same standard or should OP be exempt from the general rules of decency because of their background?

Because if we’re talking about the standard of “unfair generalisations are unfair, don’t do it” (which is what I’ve been talking about, don’t know about you) then Queen HawlSera clearly failed to meet it.

The alternative is not what youre thinking likely. The alternative is something more nuanced than this-or-that thinking. Something where everyone that’s not bigoted is recognized and considered. Not just a single group.

But working against feminism is bigoted. I feel sorry if someone acts destructively because they had a horrible childhood - nevertheless, acting destructively in itself shouldn’t be tolerated.

I mean who actually benefits from ruining the reputation of feminism? Probably the very people who hurt Queen HawlSera as a child. We’re not doing kids like her any favors by allowing that.

Proof that if you don’t tow the party line, it doesn’t matter what your background is.

Well, yeah? What’s the alternative? “If we like your background it doesn’t really matter what positions you hold - trans people should be allowed generalise a bit and trash feminism, as a treat”?!

I’m queer myself. I will hold you responsible for your words, no matter your background. Especially when it comes to feminism. And that obviously includes women of all backgrounds. If anything I expect more solidarity from them, not less.

All feminists?

Because if we had a mandatory global meeting I sure as hell missed my invitation.

And what does that have to do with feminism?

All this comic does is emphasise how stupid it would be to lump all feminists together. If you deny this you are doing exactly the same thing as those you’re complaining about.

And now you blame feminists? It’s kinda astounding that your life experiences haven’t taught you what nonsense stereotypes and generalisations are.

…I guess it is kinda in theme with the comic though. Assuming that all trans people would get that would be just as generalising, and very apparently wrong.

It reinforces the idea for men not to bother getting help in the first place - you’re a man, they won’t take you seriously anyway, they will call you weak, don’t ask for help, just give up. That’s the inner logic of clinical depression and the comic supports it.

And it’s a really dangerous thing to imply because it could keep men further from the available support systems. It’s discouraging. I’m not questioning weather those things could have been said by someone, but it kinda seems like the author took some horrible TERF talking points and went “I guess it will be the same in mental health”.

The mindset of “it’s gotta be one or the other” is a false choice presented by the fossil fuel industry and conservative politicians.

What fossil lobby or conservative politician is currently saying “okay guys you can have renewables, but then we will have to cut back on nuclear”? That’s the opposite of what conservatives are saying.

You are repeating a talking point that’s being spread around to distract from the fact that it is financially rewarding for the fossil lobby to postpone the transition away from them to sustainable energy sources as far as possible, which is exactly what will happen if we drain resources from renewables towards nuclear. And acting like our resources aren’t in some way limited is nothing but wishful thinking.

While you wait for the next nuclear power plant, the fossil fuel lobby is raking in record profits for decades to come.

Invest the money into renewables instead. And every bit of money you think you can get from “just raising the taxes a little” or “printing it” - invest that too. Everything else is a waste of time and resources.

We can do both.

If you have a set amount of money and resources to invest renewables are almost exclusively the better choice. Investing in nuclear instead means it will take even longer for us to wean off fossiles. That’s why it’s so useful for the oil lobby to support nuclear.

Germany wanted to replace nuclear with renewables. This “replace with coal” bs is straight up misinformation.

You know what sucks as well? Taking too many painkillers against headaches actually causes headaches. Horrible ones at that. Glad to read that you’re feeling better, but that’s a real trap many people out there are stuck in.

Who is going to pull the trigger? Point to the opposition leader willing and able to try and dismantle a party with this many active supporters.

Read the article. It’s already happening.

Which are used to target unpopular fringe groups not regional majorities.

You don’t seem to know a lot about the German constitution. The opposite is true. Unppular fringe groups are not banned because they are not actually a danger to democracy, as long as government positions are not in reach for them. That’s exactly how the german federal constitutional court has argued in the past. Successful bans ever only targeted actually successful parties.

The core mechanism of democracy is to abolish political organizations wholesale?

The core mechanism of democracy is to protect itself, and first and foremost that means protecting itself from facism. A political organisation that’s threatening democracy should obviously not be allowed, so it will be banned.

They won’t, in no small part because the AfD has enough seats to block the attempt.

They cannot block a decision of the federal constitutional court, don’t be ridiculous. Germany has measures in place exactly for this scenario, and they are about to be enforced. They cannot be vetoed away, it’s a legal matter.

Can you ban a party that’s got a plurality of seats in the Parliament? Or will they be the ones banning you?

Of course. And it’s nonsensical to claim we cannot ban them, while worrying they could ban us. We can and we should, based on what you yourself wrote:

If you pass a law but never enforce it, the law does nothing.

We have laws against undemocratic parties, so we should enforce them.

I mean, by all means, feel free to give it a shot. But it seems like you’re asking an elected government to do a thing it isn’t designed to do.

But it is designed to do exactly that. That’s like a core mechanism of our democracy.

The only way to argue we shouldn’t ban the AFD is if you claim that they somehow should be exempt from our mechanisms against fascism. They were enforced before, they will be enforced again. And the AFD fits the bill in every way.

That rather speaks for banning the AfD though. We have a law for banning fascist parties, so we should enforce it, or it truly would mean nothing.

Some of us are convinced this measure does nothing

Nothing? How can it do nothing? You could argue that it doesn’t do enough or not the right things, but if nothing else banning the party would obviously keep them out of the government at least for the next few years.

Killing the head of a terrorist organization won’t help if you don’t fix the underlying issues.

And yet we don’t allow terrorist organizations to campaign for office, officially and supported by tax money, in our societies.

banning it won’t make the people who vote for it and run it any less, well, fascist.

Correct. But it’s no supposed to do that. Banning a fascist party doesn’t solve every problem of a divided society, but it prevents the worst (a fascist party seizing power) and gives us time (and the chance!) to solve some of the others.

There’s basically no other option. Either a society has effective rules against fascism in place or it will stand idly by while being undermined. And if it has these effective rules, it must abide by them. ‘Fascists should not be allowed to rule the country’ seems to be a reasonable lower limit.

Don’t know what’s there to be so smug about. “Oh you would rather ban them in a constitutional process than to wait for them to seize power and fight a bloody civil war, or worse?” Yes please! I hope we all much prefer the first option.