Close but no. As I said, you’re not actually qualified to discuss with the adults especially if you can’t see how this is relevant here.

Oh my god, do you seriously think you can analyse laws and case law of a different country in a different language if we’re just gonna link the articles?

Well, if you like you can read §111 Strafgesetzbuch but in German legalese and not in a google translated version please. To see how this law is interpreted, you could read this relevant court decision: https://openjur.de/u/2271522.html

The court opinion is interesting, because the posters were lawful because they wrote “Nazis töten.” and not “Nazis töten!” which leads to the posters not being actionable. Do you see the difference? Do you understand the fine line the party “Die Partei” walked here?

There’s a difference of fighting back including killing to defeat an enemy or denying someone the basic right to life.

The first means you fight back until you defeat the enemy, the second one means after you defeat them you round them up and put them in camps to exterminate them.

It also means it limits your actions to those targets who actually hold power and not just anyone who has a Trump / Vance flag in their garden.

I don’t think the paradox of tolerance works here. Popper argued that a truly tolerant society must retain the right to deny tolerance to those who promote intolerance. It doesn’t say kill them, it says don’t tolerate them. Meaning exclude these topics from public discourse or make basic right non-negotiable and unalterable. One of these basic rights being the right to life. Ironically, by calling into question such a basic right, you are actually the intolerant one Popper means.

Of course, this only applies as long as we are still in a tolerant society. A better argument at the moment especially in the US would be the right to resist.

You’re not gonna see this as you blocked feddit.org, also geh dahin wo der Pfeffer wächst!

For everyone else:

Saying “nazi lives don’t matter” isn’t even “dehumanizing”.

Doubtful from a legal point of view

Dehumanization is Trump calling immigrants rapists and criminals, and associating them with insects, rodents, and pests.

Dehumanization is banning every government department from acknowledging the existence of women, LGBTQ+, minorities, etc, and ordering them to erase any mention of their history.

Basically everyone on feddit.org agrees with this, so this whole rambling doesn’t make any sense. Two things can be true at the same time.

I guess that’s a no

As they blocked feddit.org, they’re not gonna see your comment I’d assume

Can you be less annoying? No one owes you anything here.

You are misrepresenting the facts here. Nobody said that calling Nazis pieces of shit is actionable under German law. That’s not the problem. The post specifically states that “Nazi lives don’t matter”, questioning a person’s right to life is dehumanizing and might very well break German law. I’m not a lawyer, so I’m not gonna quote specific case law but if I were an admin, I’d also would err on the side of caution here.