nonstickcoating

The wording might be off, but public advocacy is basically what is meant by "in a manner to disturb the public peace". This does not include discussing facsim in your home, but does include you not being able to hang a NSDAP-flag from your window.

I wonder why so many free-speech advocates are hell-bent on enabling fascists to spread their propaganda. They are certainly not the first but not the last group they will drag to their camps or shoot.

To compare this kind of law to fundamentalist religious law is a special kind of ignorant.

This is not correct at all. You are perfectly entitled to be a fascist in your own four walls, even discuss your fascist ideals with your friends. You can not, however, advocate for fascism in public or use insignias or texts of the NSDAP for anything but educational purposes.

EDIT: The comment below phrases it even better.

I do not think different is a good qualifier for good television. As much as I'd like to see more about the character Mike for example, I would not like to see him in some action movie. His character shines in it's very personal moments, while his prowess regarding violence etc. need only to be hinted at.

The action laden sequences are by far the least interesting aspect of Breaking Bad, serving at best as a somewhat believable and tension-relieving climaxes for emotionally taxing, morally difficult and thrilling parts of the show.

The team behind Breaking Bad managed to tell a cohesive, character driven story despite all the creative restrictions making a show for a large TV network causes (think profitability, playing to as broad of a set of sensibilities as possible).

Telling a thousand different stories in the same world and with the same characters drains them of believability and lessens the emotional impact of the stories significantly - they become arbitrary.

Better Call Saul was a good show because it divorced one of the more important characters (but by far not a main character) almost entirely from the original and focused heavily on humor, with light aspects of drama. Breaking Bad was the other way around.

Therefore, I cannot think of a show that is running for it's 21st season as anything more than at best the visual equivalent of easy listening music, at worst a continued cash grab by the studio producing and network distributing it. For a work of art to be meaningful, it needs to come to some kind of conclusion regarding it's content lest it reiterates the same points again and again, becoming boring in the proccess.

Of course, there is something to be said in favor of easy listening music or TV productions intended mostly for basic entertainment, I recognise this discussion is largely predicated on taste. But I think calling something like that art misses the point that has made art historically so important for humans: The intentional representation of thoughts and experiences of the artist(s) in a specific medium meant to elucidate active engagement with the topics at hand.

EDIT: Added a word for clarity.

That just sounds horrible to me. Breaking Bad was interesting precisely because it had to end. It was about very specific characters, their changing motivations and development.

Rebooting every episode just because the premise is kinda cool and someone wants more of it diminishes what the series achieved both visually and conceptually.

Cannabis can very well lead to dependency, I struggled with it for the majority of my adult life. I totally agree that illegalising it is laughable and it's by no means as dangerous or easy to get addicted to it as is the case with benzodiazepines, but it is also no joke. Of course I am talking about "recreational" use, not medical.

I really dislike the handwaving nature with which the very real and especially psychologically quite harmful side-effects of Cannabis are discussed for the most part. Mind you, I believed it to be harmless for the longest time, too.

I do not think the article argues that Agile somehow incites racism and bias, it argues that it doesn't account for them while it should.

You are propably right, even though my experience with explicitly socialist (using the European meaning of the word here) topics nd discussions like this one is, that it does not get much traction outside of already quite leftist circles. I for example didn't know of the discussion they had until I read the article.

The prevailance of gang violence has it's root in social and economic imbalance, too. I do not disagree, police violence is different and not as "brutal" (can't find a better word) where I live, but of course I look onto the US as an outsider. I also do not think that letting society splinter into rackets would be preferable to the status quo, but I do think the status quo leaves a lot do be desired for the majority of people. EDIT: This shows itself e.g. in the organisation of precarised people in gangs. That police brutality and the state upholding it's monopoly for violence have nothing to do with each other seems far-fetched though. The police is the instution that guarantees this monopoly within the borders of every Nation state, it's quite literally their raison d'etre.

I think for this kind of niche, academic topic (even though the discutants are quite well known) 100k views per week after publication is nothing scoff at.

Police brutality is the direct effect of a state trying to uphold it's monopoly for violence. This monopoly in turn is (in the current situation) neccessary to uphold the expolitation of labour and the functioning of the state itself. Of course this is not exlusive to the capitalist system. The expropriation of serfs in feudalist societies through the armed forces of nobility serves a similiar purpose under a different economic and political system. Just the same as capitalism has a tangible effect on how the pandemic is dealt with. Where I live for example there were multiple cases of industrial workers (often migrants working for a few month and then returning to their home country) contracting the virus en masse, which in turn had a lot to do with overcrowded houses and flats where they were forced to live.

Because it is a fallacy to attribute to nature what is clearly at least significantly product of social relation. This is one of the very interesting things everybody (no matter their political affiliation) can learn from Marx and the whole group around Adorno and Horkheimer, but you will find this echoed by more conservative sociologists and historians, too. Zizek also frames this quite nicely in The Perverts Guide to Cinema, where he explains, that ideology is never a pair of glasses [EDIT]you wear[/EDIT] but the very eyes through which you see. Right now I sadly cannot look through my books to find you less leftist references for the topic. If you are interested I can link to some less controversial works of sociology once I have access to them again. (Edited for some typos and the marked addition.)

You could also look at the cheaper Arturia synth. I really like how they sound (though AFAIK a lot of people don't - maybe take a listen to some Demos on YouTube) and find them decently intuitive for a beginner. The microbrute for example comes with a small patchbay (be careful of the modular rabbit hole though). A cursory search suggests prices between 150 and 200€ (sorry, to lazy to do conversion since I'm on Mobile). I only played with the Behringer clones a little at a friend's place. They sound totally fine, I think Arturia's build quality is way better, though. They have the benefit of being clones of popular (some may say famous) synth like the Moog Model D or the Roland 303, so they have a familiar sound.