Moving to a different country isn't quite that easy, it usually requires some money and a job in the country you want to move to.
Also, even if you hate your government, you still might have a social circle that you don't want to leave behind, or maybe responsibilities within your family you cannot just abandon.
One thing I like about having human friends is the shared human experience. No AI could replace that.
Admins don't need any qualifications, and neither do the mods they choose.
If you like a community but not its mods, you may be able to find a similar community on another instance, alternatively you may try starting a "competing" community yourself.
As an object, "Germans" is usually some subset in the set of all Germans. "I met Germans in the park today." --> I met some people in the park, which are German. As a subject, this subset can be the entire set. "Germans are racist." --> Germans are generally racist.
"The Germans" is the subset of all Germans in some other set. "I met the Germans in the park today" --> If you are talking to a colleague, this likely means something like "I met all the Germans of our team in the park today."
As you point out, "the Germans" needs a context, i.e. which set are the Germans a subset of? Without context, that set is the set of all humans.
The question is then, which context does OP provide? And I think this is where our difference in how we understand comes from. I read the title first, so I read it as "Germans (as a subset of all humans) are racist". But, given the posted image, you may also read it as "German officials (as a subset of all officials) are racist", which is probably how you read it. I still wouldn't agree with that message, but I wouldn't reject it quite as strongly as the first one.
I think both readings of the title are valid, and this ambiguity could be avoided by using "Germany" or "German officials"
Another point: I agree that Germany has an issue with racism. But how is an ethnostate constitutionally supported? The constitution straight up bans racism in article 3: "No one may be disadvantaged or favored because of their gender, ancestry, race, language, homeland and origin, faith, religious or political opinions."
Looking at some of the other replies to my comment (e.g. ElChapoDeChapo, Flyberius, CyborgMarx), I am not sure your comrades share that sentiment.
And I would agree if we were talking about "Germany", but "The Germans" is usually used to refer to the people of Germany.
I think it is important to clearly distinguish between a country's people and its government. Conflating the two only serves to mobilize ethnic hostilities.
It would, but I suppose OP's intention was not to make constructive and nuanced criticism, but rather to rally against a supposed homogenous and evil 'other'.
The lack of self-reflection required to say 'People of nationality X are racist' is mind-blowing to me.
Ich hab immer ein paar Konserven mit Eintöpfen für solche Fälle zuhaus.
Ich halte es für unwahrscheinlich dass das UWG auch Wahlwerbung betrifft.
Ich glaube juristisch hast Du wenig in der Hand solange die Menge der Werbung nicht exzessiv ist und die Inhalte selbst nicht z.B. verfassungswidrig. Daran ändert auch deine explizite Aufforderung nichts, solange die Wahlwerbung adresslos, also nicht speziell an dich adressiert ist.
Edit: Da habe ich mich wohl geirrt: https://discuss.tchncs.de/comment/23984982
Here you can see the effect of increasing global temperature on precipitation:
There are two ways of handling security vulnerabilities.
One is to try and find them before the "bad guys" do, then fix them. The other is to do nothing and just hope the "bad guys" don't find them (or have already found them and are already exploiting them)