dzsimbo

While I cannot see any outright solution for our collective Orbán problem, I can definitely say it's a great learning experience in adjusting requirements for newcomers.

We need to attach joining a common public prosecution to list. Something with teeth, that only autocrats need fret (I have no clue what and how, though).

My reasoning is that if a country would not qualify for entry in the current state there should be pressure to change things. At least they shouldn't be able to extort the Union like they currently do.

I whole-heartedly agree. I am definitely biased on the matter, but I feel the whole separation direction is antagonistic to the EU cause. Like right now Orbán is definitely antagonistic and causing disruption to the common goal, but if we separate Hungary from the EU, we take away Orbán's tight-rope act and the problem only further festers (albeit, outside the EU).

There is definitely an argument to be had against this, as the EU has acted as a valve for people who were fed up enough. So maybe we can make a pressure cooker, but for some reason I doubt the government will be the first casualty if that happens.

Are you being dense on purpose?

~(sry)~

Fidesz didn't dissolve democracy, they hacked it. I feel the term captured state fits, but they also talk about it being a hybrid regime.

Your concerns are very much grounded, but I just don't see booting HU as a good solution. While there might be merit into 'scaring Hungarians' into getting rid of Orbán and co with a chance of losing EU access, it would only be good as a hail mary. I'd say half his voter base doesn't really care about external (or internal) politics or is convinced that Brussels is the new Moscow.

Let me ask you one thing: is it better to have an ally that is visibly corrupted than to try and support the partizans in a neighbouring Russian vassal?

I guess if we can establish a protected class, it could deter violence. While I am the furthest thing from an Italian lawyer as possible, I highly doubt that there aren't a handful of laws already in place that couldn't be enforced to combat violence against women.

This could be a solid step in the right direction and enough to hand out harsher sentences where the motives are clearly misogynistic in nature.

Maybe I'm a bit in over my head, as I do have to think about the terminology, and many things come through fuzzy, to say it best. I just can't shake the notion that at best this is only a loaded signaling, at worst another loophole to somehow horrificly abuse.

We have yet to see how this makes things better. If I were having an especially sceptic day, I'd just say this is a propaganda play (y'know, with women's day around the corner). 'Meloni is standing up for the weak' - is the message I am getting.

If we can take it at face value, we can pocket the win. But having a gender-related rule created by a right-wing politician that hints at pushing conservative points makes me wary.

Luckily it doesn't really matter what I believe, because there will be metrics on the matter. I do hope this new law helps curb violence. If nothing else, it's a PSA that revenge porn is bad, which is way better than not talking about it.

Don't fret it, Trump probably just wants in on the famous Hungarian-Uzbekistanian potato research on ground floor.

I am pretty sure there is no separate pipeline. We are landlocked and EU members with the common market. This is just lip service.

While domestic violence needs to be curbed, this somehow feels like a step back for feminism. Just the word itself.

The bill could emphasize domestic violence and the rape/murders. Mostly women are the victims, so they could have kept this ungendered. The only reason I see to specify femicide is because women are generally weaker and cannot defend themselves as well (please correct me if I'm wrong, as this seems to be the problematic part).

If it works, sure, let's do it. I want people to be able to walk on the street confidently. It just feels like a red flag.

It was going downhill the same way reddit did after the v4 exodus. There was fun to be had there as well.

Damn dotcom bubble. Can't have anything nice around.

The system definitely encourages and rewards explotation, but why do people do it at all? Will this behaviour stop if we penalize it? Or just gently teach the children after the bloody revolution?

How do we get past the notion of power corrupting people? All I'm arguing is that communism is not an outright solution for society.

I promise to read up on dialectic materialism, but the end of link you sent mentions getting a gun. That's just bad advice.

I genuinely don't know what you mean by Communism requiring everyone to "act in good faith."

What if someone doesn't adhere to 'From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs'? We can go and imagine a real utopia, but there are very real ways it can go wrong and the system will have trouble handling it.

The main thing I am arguing though, is that communism doesn't really account for imperfect behaviour. At the moment, no one system does.