sazz

as fascism and capitalism are just labels you can put on anybody you like (as this is just a subjective opinion), you have a cheap excuse to harm everybody with violence as you like.

and where is the difference than to a mad dog?

I could equally ask "Is capitalism terrorism?"

And I would bet that a quite few people from those bubbles would answer yes.

For me, statements like "antifacism and anticapitalism are not terrorism" is propaganda hidden in political slogans, not meaningful definitions. Their intention is to shield acts committed under those labels from being judged by the same standard as politcally less sympathetic violence.

Terrorism does not stop being terrorism because the people claim to fight capitalism, fascism, religion, imperialism or anything else?

Is Christianity terrorism? As a religion obviously not. But still horrific acts were done in the name of Christianity and the Islam. Just ask the witches...

So labeling yourself an anti-fascist or anti-capitalist does not magically makes you a non-terrorist.

By stating "Antifascism and anticapitalism are not terrorism" you create a hard statement: Anything labeled as anti-capitalism is not terrorism.

And far too often people downplay their violence and ruthlessness by using those labels as an excuse.

Leaving 50,000 people – including the elderly, the vulnerable and the sick – without electricity in Berlin in the middle of winter during the festive season is being passed off as activism? The terrorists who caused this suffering also argued with anti-capitalism. So anyone who claims that anti-capitalism and anti-fascism cannot also be forms of terrorism is simply a propagandist.

yeah. lets plan the conference in one of the hottest weeks in the year and then cancel it due to hot weather.

Well ... it speaks for their competence. It's like creating a Teams meeting about classified security issues on Windows 95 systems...

I don't need politics on my desktop, so no to Chimera Linux.

The hope that humanity has learned something from wasting its time clicking away completely useless cookie pop-ups on websites has probably died once and for all.

...because you don't have to modulate renewable energy?

That's right, Germany sells electricity to other countries during the day and buys electricity in the evening because there is no sun then.

The problem is that other countries also have solar and wind power during the day and don't need this electricity at all. That's why Germany has to “sell” this surplus electricity, even though no one needs it. To ensure that the electricity is still "purchased", Germany has to pay money for it. In the evening, Germany has to pay money to buy back the missing electricity.

Paying money to have something purchased is generally referred to as garbage fees.

WTF about your understanding of the German power grid, I would say.

Germany is not in a position to continuously meet its own electricity needs, but is dependent on daily aid deliveries of electricity from abroad. The electricity needs of industry cannot be met in a market-oriented manner, but taxpayers have to spend additional money so that industry can continue to produce at all.

The absurdly high prices for electricity in Germany prevent any competitiveness. Ignoring all of this can only be described as WTF – what country do you actually live in?

As an Asperger it is very funny to see how people react on that bot behaviour. That behaviour is 100% trained from human behaviour especially that constantly whining and that pathetic self expression of how progressive and inclusive everyone is.

Never thinking about that this actual rude behaviour might come back at some point to yourself - and it was not a question of if but just of when.

Well, question answered.

Certified by agencies of the left extremist government which treats the justification as classified information.

Moreover, one of these agencies is run by a left-wing comrade who is a qualified social education worker. However, the agency should actually be headed by a lawyer, as in the Thuringian law, which was simply reinterpreted in the case of Stephan J. Kramer.

So yeah, that's an trustworthy argument.

An actor is already impersonating somebody else in a play, movie or television. This bill is there to protect the income of an actor.

Actually it is recursive: Why should it be forbidden to create an artificial person which impersonates the actor impersonating the role in a movie or play?