Don Piano

Eh. I’d say it’s center right, the c*u is right, there’s the fascists/far right and then you have the social democratic parties left of center like the greens and the linke.

Things don’t have to be relative in this context either. They’re also relative, but you can use more absolute criteria as well. Stuff like “wants no one to be coerced into employment” vs “wants some people coerced mildly” vs “wants to coerce everyone to be employed”. Or the converse with regards to social security. Or criteria relating to individual rights. Or regulation in favor of hierarchical power structures vs regulations in favor of non-hierarchical power structures. These would all be meaningful left-right aligned analytical lenses.

I do agree though that relative statements can for certain contexts be more immediately practical. But also, the case of the spd is one where thinking about the space of possible party landscapes is relevant: What if the spd were center-left, in the sense of reformist left-wing/labor movement/syndicalist-ish policies, instead of a seeheimer circle oriented mildly right-wing party? That would present a very different type of discourse in society, i feel.

Oh no, Macie’s wife

Can you conceive of other motivations?

Do you believe that the point of such assignments is because the teacher desires to read a couple dozen nigh-identical essays on the topic at hand?

Don’t believe nazi propaganda about those things. They were largely inefficient and disorganized, they just predated others to fuel their goals. It’s one of the economic reasons for waging war on everyone: once you use up your local stolen wealth, you gotta raid other people’s. Nazi organizational structures were famously broken, with different redundant levels of political control pitted against each other, in line with social darwinist ideas.

And by far not all Nazis were true believers. Tons were “merely” playing along, because they thought they’d get something out of it. They often did, with the wealth of previously Jewish owned (and other) companies being handed to people close to the leadership.

These are parallels, not contrasts.

No, that is not what I wrote.

For context: It isn’t, and the underlying misunderstanding is fostered by the reporting on what is going on.

The proposed changes are about to what extent all hospitals have to offer treatment types. There’s basics that all hospitals have to offer either way, but for some treatments you want highly specialized departments, both in expertise and in equipment. The underlying issue is basically:

Is it better to have a mediocre [something]ology department in every hamlet, with corresponding constraints on quality of care (as well as higher infrastructural redundancies) or is it better to have better equipped specialized centers that have to cover a larger area (with the corresponding issues of having to transport patients across relatively larger distances)?

It’s complicated with genuinely important trade-offs to consider, but the minister whose face is associated with it also became a target of right wing weirdoes and newspapers over corona stuff and the cannabis “legalization”.

Use none, support none