• 0 Posts
  • 33 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 12th, 2023

help-circle





  • Lupus108@feddit.detoScience Memes@mander.xyzQuestionable methods.
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    48
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    In the article someone linked below I found this section :

    Archaeologists preserved the newly discovered remains using a variation of a technique developed by Italian archaeologist Giuseppe Fiorelli in 1863. The process involves pouring liquid chalk into cavities left by decomposing bodies; this plaster fills gaps in preserved bones and teeth, creating a cast of the bodies as they looked at the moment of death.

    So you find a cavity with bones and other remains in there and use it as a mold I suppose? They probably were excavating the city from the ash cover and when they found something that could be remains of a human they stopped digging and used said techniques to preserve the remains.










  • You could make the same argument against every civil liberty the Germans enjoyed in the Weimar Republic: freedom of movement, freedom of press, freedom of assembly, even democracy.

    That’s exactly my point, the Nazis never acted in good faith, they were never beholden to the freedoms they used, in fact they used those freedoms to get rid of them, so to protect them we have to restrict them. So unfortunately we have to exclude some things from the protection Democratic values can deliver. For example the swastika in Germany - all it represents, all it refers to in that context is anti democratic, anti freedom so if you show it outside of a educational context we have to assume it represents exactly that - that you want to get rid of democratic values like free speech, so we exclude that symbol from the protection of our democratic values TO protect said democratic values.

    It’s a little paradox and a lotta complicated. We should never take those measures lightly but imo they have to exist, because history showed that if you don’t protect them , some forces are willing to use them to destroy them.

    Your first link shows what happens when we don’t apply those measures carefully and too broadly, the framework has to be very precise for them to make sense, otherwise they do the job of the deconstructors of democracy for them.

    Your second Link refers to a private entity, those can not restrict free speech, they can censor what speech they want to host and it is their right under free speech to do so, so it is irrelevant. Like if you’re in my house talking shit I can kick you out, no free speech was impeded by that action, I just exercised my free speech to show you the door.


  • Nope. They’re right, you’re wrong.

    You didn’t even give specific examples as you pretended to, it was just a blanket “both sides do it!” You just used more words.

    And " the only answer to bad speech is more speech" is just factually and provable wrong. The Nazis and their enemies had free speech during the Weimarer Republik, they all used it extensively, the social democrats, the liberals, the communists, the clerics, the workers, the unions, they all used their right to free speech to try and fight the “bad speech” the Nazis could deploy openly, do you know how that story continues? They all lost their free speech because they were forced to let the cancer that is fascism roam free, with lies, propaganda, misinformation, calls for violence and just pure hate.

    So the “bad speech” got plenty of “more speech” to counter but it didn’t change anything.