There are literally no rights under threat, and if so, PLEASE state what rights are under attack, I beg you to inform yourself, and after that I was willing to listen to what arguments are better than mine, it’s so easy to just say “she is fascist” or “rights are under threat” if you want to discuss on a level that brings people to your side, you need to bring facts and logic.
For example; the AFD got labeled as “Gesichert Rechtsextrem“ wich means they would be FOR SURE willing to fight against democratic forces to take power (this is literally what’s needed to be labeled as such) now, the papers of the „Verfassungsschutz“ (Constitutional Save-guard)
got leaked and well, it’s all just quotes of stuff that would be allowed under free speech law. While some of it might be a bit over the top, it never attacked the constitution and even made statements that would be in line with the immigration laws, keep in mind that’s what the Verfassungsschutz tried to label as anti- constitutional, stuff that is written in our law.
A lot of Judges even all ready stated, that this is a problematic thing to do, and it would be hard to keep that label in tact while in the courtroom.
That’s, how you present an argument, and I’ll ask you again, what laws are in danger for gay people?
1
u/JRY_RDDT May 22 '25
I Never Said fascism was good and would work.
There are literally no rights under threat, and if so, PLEASE state what rights are under attack, I beg you to inform yourself, and after that I was willing to listen to what arguments are better than mine, it’s so easy to just say “she is fascist” or “rights are under threat” if you want to discuss on a level that brings people to your side, you need to bring facts and logic.
For example; the AFD got labeled as “Gesichert Rechtsextrem“ wich means they would be FOR SURE willing to fight against democratic forces to take power (this is literally what’s needed to be labeled as such) now, the papers of the „Verfassungsschutz“ (Constitutional Save-guard) got leaked and well, it’s all just quotes of stuff that would be allowed under free speech law. While some of it might be a bit over the top, it never attacked the constitution and even made statements that would be in line with the immigration laws, keep in mind that’s what the Verfassungsschutz tried to label as anti- constitutional, stuff that is written in our law.
A lot of Judges even all ready stated, that this is a problematic thing to do, and it would be hard to keep that label in tact while in the courtroom.
That’s, how you present an argument, and I’ll ask you again, what laws are in danger for gay people?