• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited


About Toth

  • Rank
    Council Member

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

2,035 profile views
  1. Goddamnit! It's like I am not even allowed to express the tiniest amount of happiness before getting overwhelmed by my anxieties once again, ruining a perfectly fine weekend. Yesterday I just exclaimed that I am glad how much progress I've made with my master thesis, which is now 95% finished and today I just wanted to make a few adjustments so that I can talk with the professor tutoring me about this progress. Two things happened: First abovementioned farewell barbecue my oral examination group got invited to. That one is tomorrow. Though beforehand the host wanted a confirmation whether we are all coming and suddenly half the group replied that they can't and the other half remained silent, making me fear that I'd be the only one appearing. The idea that I alone as the least social person of our group would go to a party of a college acquaintance so personal her parents are throwing it and in which mostly only close friends and family of hers are invited to, caused me days in which I was worrying whether this would be an acceptable thing to do. So for once I went against my policy of never ever confronting an outsider with my anxieties and just wrote to her how conflicted I feel and asked her outright whether she wants me there or not, which might be just a craven way of shoving the decision to her, but still better than just keeping her in the dark while I felt myself incapable to make a clear reply. She then immediately agreed with my worries and wished me farewell... which, I think, should be relieving to me. If not for the fact that immediately afterwards the rest of our group replied that they wouldn't come either, making her entire group invitation for naught and making me feel sorry for her getting turned down by even the people I assumed the invitation was actually aimed at and also somewhat guilty since I was the only one without an excuse except my crippling doubts. In any case. I tried to ignore that and thought to myself that even if I just abandoned one of the very few and very last opportunities of my college life to actually work on building some kind of flimsy interhuman relationships in favor of staying at home as usual, I wanted to make the best of it at least by being productive... and this failed utterly. I wanted to wrap up my master thesis, but instead my mother was lazing the whole day in my room, wanting to go someplace she had to go to since wednesday but instead she is just surfing in the internet, forcing me to work with my laptop in my bed but never actually accomplishing anything worthwhile but to reformat some quotations. I've spent the last 10 hours doing that. Without pause, without any workout, because of my constant anxiety of getting mocked for it. Now I have horrible tensions in neck and shoulder, a massive headache and am just super pissed about my incomprensible lethargy whenever my mother is watching what I'm doing. Damn it. I just really hope that at least it gets better monday when I stop getting constantly reminded of the regrets of a craven.
  2. Parties and organizations, yes. Regulating them is easy because you have to have some kind of written down aims and articles when you found such a thing. If it advocates to go against the constitution and the freedoms granted through it, BAM. Just to take away the illusion of lawfulness.
  3. To be fair, the German constitution I keep referring to keeps making the same connection. All the laws that are screaming "Please don't screw up again, please don't screw up again!" are worded in a way that they are there to protect the constitution and the "basic order of freedom and democracy" and the people theselves who are affected by anti-constitutional groups are more a of a hindsight. For Germany protecting your country from Nazi takeover means protecting democracy itself.
  4. Well, there is a difference between writing a book that is critical of democracy and founding a party with the intention to destroy the constitution and ethnically cleanse your population, isn't it? Just to be clear, I am only talking about taking away your right to officially found political groups to further such a goal and give it the air of being a valid political standpoint. ... and of course to show up at a protest rally with a fucking armed militia...
  5. I just want to emphazise that our Grundgesetz Article 21 was only ever used 1956 to actually ban the communist party and that was solely for the political risk of their natural ties to Soviet Russia, not because they would have something in their constitution that incites violence. So you are right that it is a little concerning how such a law is effectively used. The actual Nazi party, or at least the closest thing wie have to it (the 'National Party', effectively only omitting the socialist and the worker part of the actual Nazis) was always kept intact because people think they are too small and harmless to pose any risk. Though the law itself did help to force them to restrain their speech out of fear that they'd get banned anyway. But there should be no denying that the situation in the US is getting out of hand and you should muzzle your resident dipshits before they manage to normalize their speech any further.
  6. There should be laws about unlawful assemblies in the US. They need to be enforced. And like we have in Germany, there should be a law that allows the banning of anti-constitutional parties and symbolism, a law that takes away their 'freedom' to demand the restriction of freedom of others. Of course this law is barely ever used here as well, but it forces Nazis to avoid openly declaring their intentions and with that constantly reminds them that what they are doing is antithetical to the rights they themselves profit from.
  7. I guess I am the last one not feeling schadenfreude when a Nazi gets beaten up, but I have to admit that I think anyone advocating a violent reaction against this just feels helpless in regards to governmental protection. Let's face it: Your country is currently run by people who either don't care about or openly support white supremecy movements. Your council of cartoon villains doesn't care about that anti-constitutional idiologies are spreading, they are working hard to dismantle the constitution themselves. In an ideal world people wouldn't need to advocate a policy that takes away human rights from Nazis. Because the government would make sure that anti-constitutional groups and their meetings are illegal and that their symbolic is illegal and that they would get fined or imprisoned if they have or do any of this. I say this because I somewhat trust my country to do just that. Of course there are problems, there scandals abound where the state failed to handle threats properly and I was only very recently very disappointed when the federal courts decided that yes, our 'national party' is anti-constitutional and therefore laws to ban it would apply, but decided not to with the excuse that it is too small and too financially struggling that they would pose any risk (and I suspect that they didn't want their remaining voters to run to the right-wing populists of the AfD, so this was a political move that just ended utterly harmful due to the anti-constitutionality being confirmed). But this all doesn't change the fact that my country has laws in place to keep these people in check. Which forces them to sugercoat their 'völkisches Gedankengut', their eugenic thinking and their hostility towards migrants, because as soon as they would actually start to make demands of genocide the federal police would jump them in no time. Sure, the beaurocacy is tedious and somewhat sluggish, but it is needed to root them out in a process that is still in line with democratic liberal thinking. With such a system in place, regular citizens never need to talk about violence because they trust the government to use its figurative 'violence' to protect them (except antifas, who are notably distrustful of the government as well, that's kinda their thing). When I read comments of a Richard Spencer, I'm fucking shivering, because I think sprouting genocidal demands and the advocation of violence shouldn't be allowed within the safe space of an organization that gives it credibility as a valid political view. Groups like these need to be dismantled, 'free speech' my ass! If you advocate the taking away of basic human rights of other human beings, you threaten the stability of your society and it is the duty of a government to prevent that. This is my view, this is the view of my constitution, and I would wish the US would act like it as well. But alas, it doesn't. And that's why I completely understand why people feel helpless and why people might come to the conclusion that they need to help themselves against constant agitation of violent threats (and actual attacks, mind you).
  8. First thought of the day: You've got to be fucking kidding me...
  9. Well, he said he is a "front-stabber" instead of a back-stabber. Whatever the hell that means...
  10. Of course he does. But my point is that he will only face repercussions if the Republicans turn against him and start an impeachment. But come on, 35 to 40 percent is a hell of a base. And at this point, given the high polarization of being for Trump or against him, I imagine Republicans to be kinda cynic about the possibility to get votes from outside this base. I imagine that as a Republican, you have to weigh two possible options and the repercussions felt by them: 1. Allow Trump to get impeached. This means admitting defeat, admitting that the whole Trump administration was the flaming trainwreck the left portrayed it as. Now given these 30 odd percent... There are two possible outcomes for them. Either they are hardcore Trumpists who don't accept that impeachment was necessary and blame the Republicans for betraying him or they are the 'anything but Hillary' crowd ThinkerX mentioned who will loose trust that the Republicans can get shit done. Either way, the Republicans loose the trust of both groups and reelection becomes haphazard without these voters, given that the Dems will feel vindicated. 2. Support Trump no matter what happens. This means that the hardcore Trumpists keep their koolaid and the 'anything but Hillary' crowd is allowed to think that they are at least trying to get shit done. The worst that could possibly happen is that Trump blames them themselves for his administration failures and throws them under the bus, pitting the Trumpists against them and getting primaried against ultra-right stooges. But opposed to option one, it is not a guaranteed funeral. The Dems will feel somewhat vindicated here as well if Trump completely axes his investigation, but given that they would feel vindicated by option 1 as well, it is a risk that the Republicans have to take. From my perspective, it really doesn't look good if there isn't any factor I have missed...
  11. Okay, I have written it kinda weirdly. My train of thought was this: Republican politicians care more about getting re-elected than ethics -> Republican voters care more about healthcare and a vague sense of 'winning' than having corruption incarnate in office and will swallow every excuse they can come up with -> therefore it is save to cling to Trump no matter what he does. As long as you don't admit that he is a failure, he isn't. Abandoning Trump means admitting defeat and they can't possibly do that without enraging their voters. So they have to keep handing out the koolaid and pray for the best. I'm also not really thinking that the Republican base would ever get angry at Trump for screwing them over. He blames the Dems right now for the healthcare debacle and they believe it. And if that stops working, he will blame the 'traitorous' Republicans. Though I'm somewhat optimistic that the Republicans could become more inclined to give up on Trump the moment he does the latter.
  12. And yet the risk is there that this 'political peril' will be pulled under the rug by Rep's who are far more concerned with keeping 'their' president in office than with saving their own hides. Because as far as they are concerned, they have no hides to loose. Their base seems more concerned with the healthcare debacle than with having a guy in office who is corruption incarnate. Add to that the "collusion is not a crime" narrative and how his followers will accept that it is completely legal to pardon oneself and legality means that there is nothing fishy with it and we are just crying snowflakes who don't give him a chance because we are still sore about Hillary. I don't say Trump pulling a Nixon will necessarily lead to autocracy. But the possibility is definitely there. Up until now I was clinging to the believe that this administration is too stupid to be Hitler (even though they behave cartoonishly evil), but this doesn't mean that Trump can't stumble into autocracy through sheer thick-headedness and the Republicans let it pass because they don't care. The possibility is there! And that's frightening enough!
  13. I guess my situation has significantly improved. There isn't really anything that has changed, the weather still sucks, my body is still not in the best shape and my master thesis hasn't moved an inch over the last month and I am getting slightly nervous about the deadline in late october that I expected to not even come close to needing. The main problems were exams and homeworks though, as well as courses that kept me away from the library and bursts of headaches that kept me from staying long in the library when I finally managed to free an afternoon. This is now over, at least, the semester ended with this week and now I have only one small paper and my Master thesis left to do. Just because I have a better mood my relationship with my mother has improved as well. She has a lot of trouble at work currently with nonsensical intrigues from her collegues that make her think about getting a different job (again, and again because of bullying) and I try to support her. She still lashes out at me at every opportunity due to her own frustration, but for some reason I'm not taking it as personally as I did one or two months ago. It doesn't bother me much anymore and I don't give her any opportunity to turn reproaches into outright arguments. Well, anyway, the real reason I have come back to this thread is that I was once again confronted with my godawful social anxieties. Thing is, a fellow student with whom I have worked together in an oral exam group just invited this group (apparently including me) to her relatively private farewell party that her parents throw before she goes abroad. And the first thing going through my head is that she cannot possibly have meant to include me, because I'm no 'real' part of any group whatsoever and that it should be best to not presume any belonging to anything and that I should just act as if I haven't been directly addressed. It also reminded me of a scene nearly a year ago when I tagged along with three French studies students with two of whom I am acquintanted with. I felt really, really uncomfortable when in the end the third one went on a long-winded speech about how awesome it was spending the time talking about teaching with 'us' because I was pretty damn certain that she could only mean her two friends and that I could have only improved her feeling by getting rid of myself. Now it's the same feeling. Despite the fact that she knows the other group members just as little as she does me, which makes it less likely that she did indeed meant to address only her friends like in the other case. And now I am in an odd position. I liked the group. It was the first time that I have thought about keeping in touch with people, even going as far as exchanging numbers as they kept pestering me that I was initially the only one who didn't and now they are talking about meetings during teacher training where we can exchange our ideas. It would be cool to further hang out with them, but the thought that I have simply no right to join them is just too overwhelming. The thought that I'm being presumptuous when behaving as if I were invited...
  14. I think this implication just broke Keith Olbermann. I happened to stumble upon his Twitter account yesterday and he posted the timestamps a dozen times. Either that or he doesn't know how to use Twitter...
  15. On the paper my university also has only 22% female computer science students but when I was a first-semester student we had 30% new female entries and this percentage rose with each passing year. When I was recently passing through the faculty and peeked into the bachelor course rooms, I noticed that the numbers were fairly even or that in some of the courses women formed the majority. Considering that the old master and phd graduates keep on harping how lucky 'we' (guess they meant the male bachelor students) are, even they seemed to notice that gender barriers soften up a little given enough time. Can't say much about hostile work environments given that I'm neither a woman, nor going into business. Aside from aforementioned older students 'appreciating' the female company our campus environment is, I dare say, pretty open-minded. It also helps that we have several vocal female lecturers and regular 'Girl's day''s and other events to attract female students to STEM subjects. When I shortly enrolled in another university to catch up a course my university wasn't offering that semester and that I needed to for my bachelor, the atmosphere there was noticeably different. The lecturers were your stereotypical geneatric old white men who had repeated the same lecture for decades on end and were just waiting for retirement by now. They also noticed the increase in women in the course (though there were far fewer than at my university to be seen). And... they appreciated it with absurd scenes like the one where one said he would only put his Powerpoint online if "one of the pretty girls asks him nicely". The student body reacted with a combination of stunned disbelieve and careful indignation, but despite our protests he kept playing this game for minutes in which he shot down the boys' attempts to dissuade him until one of the girls was fed up enough to stand up and ask him. It was such a ridiculous scene that it still makes me mad and embarrased for my own gender... So yes, I'd say I can understand that our society can only move on when scenes like this will be unthinkable. Still, I'm optimistic that society is on a good way (reactionary backlash aside) and that given enough time the gender inequality will be overcome by the next generations as long as we as a society stick to the values of an open-minded society in which sex and gender should not be treated as obstacles. Of course for the whole STEM department and Computer Science in specific we do have the problem of very few new enrollments. At least in Germany I partly blame our education system. There is the certain bias that CS is only something for geeks and math cracks and students are too scared to really delve into the possibilities, preferring to remain a user only. It's not helped by the fact that we have only very few computer science teachers, or at least teachers who actually got a CS education before being put in front of a class. Among the entire CS Master students at my university there are only 13(!) who study it with the intend to become a teacher. In addition to this, for the past three years our chair for computer science education remained empty because they couldn't find a single lecturer to replace the one who left. This is utterly ridiculous. We seriously have to do something in this department so that more teachers can show more students that CS is nothing to be afraid of.