Hmm, ich hatte das so interpretiert das nur Absatz 1 sich spezifisch auf Deutsche bezieht. Niemand heißt niemand. Ist aber insofern auch unerheblich als das der Internationaler Pakt über bürgerliche und politische Rechte eine relativ gleichlautende Bestimmung enthält. Das ist also unabhängig von unserer Verfassung ein Menschenrecht.
Grundgesetz für die Bundesrepublik Deutschland Artikel 12
(1) Alle Deutschen haben das Recht, Beruf, Arbeitsplatz und Ausbildungsstätte frei zu wählen. Die Berufsausübung kann durch Gesetz oder auf Grund eines Gesetzes geregelt werden.
(2) Niemand darf zu einer bestimmten Arbeit gezwungen werden, außer im Rahmen einer herkömmlichen allgemeinen, für alle gleichen öffentlichen Dienstleistungspflicht.
(3) Zwangsarbeit ist nur bei einer gerichtlich angeordneten Freiheitsentziehung zulässig.
So erodiert sie vor sich hin die Verfassung...
You are flipping definitions here. Originally you said by a descriptive definition it's sarcasm when you do not mean it (which aligns with the dictionary definition by the way, so I'm still confused why you made that point at all). He says he doesn't mean it, in his speech, verbatim. Your or my interpretation of his other actions and politics doesn't matter to the question of whether he is being sarcastic. I'm done with this conversation now, good bye.
I know this is a made up state, but please don't ask how I know...
Rather than using the dictionary as a kind of set of physical laws for what words mean, prescriptive, it’s relevant to consider how people use words, descriptive.
Yes, I am aware of the two basic schools of thought in linguistics, thank you. When people use words as defined in the dictionary then it is still descriptive though.
I think your argument is missing the forest for the trees here, because your argument’s logic seems to be he isn’t using the definition of the word properly therefore it isn’t possible for him to mean that he wants to destroy that thing.
No, I'm saying that is entirely unrelated to the question of him being sarcastic or not.
When people say he’s just being sarcastic, they mean he doesn’t really mean what he says.
He doesn't mean it, according to his own way of thinking at least. By our way of thinking he wants to destroy democracy, but not by his. That is why I'm saying he is being sarcastic.
So by that definition of sarcastic, the one people are using, he is not being sarcastic.
Apart from my disagreement on this point voiced above, in that case people should change the dictionary. They haven't. If everybody uses their own definition then language becomes useless.
Edit: typo
If you rise anywhere above lever 5 or so, the difficulty ratchets up so much it makes the main quest nearly impossible to complete.
Didn't Oblivion already have the difficulty slider? You could just adjust that, no?
I know level scaling is a big topic in the industry, but for me, the way it’s implemented nearly ruins what is otherwise a mostly great game.
Two of the first RPGs I played were Gothic and Gothic II which released approximately alongside Morrowind and Oblivion, and they just had no dynamic level scaling at all, so I don't really see the appeal either. A tiny Mole Rat being roughly the same challenge as a big bad Orc just breaks immersion. If you were to meet the latter in early game it would just curb stomp you, which provided an immersive way of gating content and a real sense of achievement when you came back later with better armour and weapons to finally defeat the enemy who gave you so many problems earlier. Basically the same experience you had with Death Claws in Fallout New Vegas when compared to Fallout 3 - they aren't just a set piece, they are a real challenge.
The games had their own problems, for example the fighting system sucked, and I'm told the English translation was so bad the games just flopped in the Anglosphere, putting them squarely in the Eurojank category of games. But creating a real sense of progression and an immersive world were certainly not amongst their weaknesses.
See my reply to you up-thread.
He really wants to destroy democracy.
That is irrelevant.
He describes destroying democracy in the second part of his CPAC speech.
Also irrelevant.
There are, by definition, two conditions to be met for his statement to be sarcastic.
It is entirely possible for him to want to destroy democracy and still say it in a sarcastic way at the same time. Those two things are not mutually exclusive.
Plus, as we have established down-thread, you seem to agree that he doesn't believe he wants to destroy democracy, because he has a twisted notion of what democracy means.
I don't understand why that is so hard to grasp for people in this thread.
Edit: a word.
“Don the Magic Cloak of Plausible Deniability and come with us!”
GP didn't say these people or this speaker aren't trying to destroy democracy. GP said they were being sarcastic in this specific video timestamp with the "ending democracy" quote and the context around it.
But nobody in this thread has doubted that the Republicans are anti-democratic in general.
Delivering something in a sarcastic affect doesn’t necessarily make it a joke if the context doesn’t support it.
Well did you actually look at the context in the video? Because if you don't see that he is being sarcastic there then, no offence, you have no idea what sarcasm is. Or you are hugging your confirmation bias like your life depends on it, which to be fair it actually might. The speech in its entirety is clearly a fascist screed, but that doesn't mean the beginning of it isn't sarcastic. And obviously so at that.
Read the wider context.
Yes, context matters. On that we agree. And unless you think he is actually proposing to "flood the nation with millions of invaders [sic] who vote the way we want" then he was being fucking sarcastic there.
Well he clearly is being sarcastic though. Frankly this whole thread is an affront towards the concept of language comprehension.
Fair enough, but none of that means he wasn't being sarcastic. Merriam-Webster defines that as "a sharp and often satirical or ironic utterance designed to cut or give pain", which this clearly was. That is of course not a get-out-of-jail-card for being a dumbass, but he doesn't intend to abolish (his twisted idea of) democracy.
I mean suppose for a second, just for arguments sake, that the Democratic party did indeed steal the 2020 election and you would have to re-evaluate things like January 6th being an insurrection, because violent resistance against somebody undermining a country's constitution is legitimate. Which is a stance you might have to take yourself sooner rather than later, especially if Trump wins again.
On a side-note, as a German growing up on copious amounts of Nazi history in school and some TV channels running 24/7 documentaries about them it seems rather clear to me where these MAGA people are headed. Already was in 2016. It's fascism. But it is important to remember that such movements aren't as monolithic as they might seem from the outside. There are many people in them who are just high on their own supply of bullshit, and you don't do yourself any favours by misinterpreting them and fielding arguments which are then easily refuted, doubly so if you are fighting against their confirmation bias.
To be fair though, the article in the OP seems to make that very same mistake.
Ja mein Reden. Die sollten einfach in die existierenden Sozialsysteme eingebunden werden, re "herkömmliche allgemeine, für alle gleiche öffentliche Dienstleistungspflicht". Beim Bürgergeldbezug heißt das halt so gut wie jede Arbeit annehmen falls dir eine angeboten wird. Was jetzt auch nicht das Gelbe vom Ei ist, aber hey. Sprachkurse und Jobtraining machen die Jobcenter eh schon.
Wie sollen die Flüchtlinge sich denn hier integrieren wenn die hier ankommen und erst mal random 3-9 Monate mit so einem einem Scheiß belästigt werden? "Hey, herzlich willkommen. Hier ist dein Passierschein, da vorne ist deine Baracke, da hinten ist die Fabrik. Husch!" Einfach abgefuckt.