Providing drugs and alcohol to “entice” women into having sex is predatory behavior, whether or not the women partake consensually or not.

So you’ve never asked a romantic interest or Tinder date to have drinks? Because the moment you pay the bill, how is what you’re doing any different?

The point was more that the argument of “no phones allowed” doesn’t really make a sex-on-drug party any worse.

Nobody points to Al Capone sane-washing tax-fraud. Nobody argues about what an evil cunt he was based on his tax returns either. It was just the logical consequence of his racketeering, violence and general mob-boss-ness. The only reason people know about his tax fraud is because it’s how he got caught. From a moral perspective, it makes no difference in how people consider his character.

Similarly, in this discussion about sexual abuse, not allowing phones backstage at a Lindemann afterparty is of no real consequence. You wouldn’t be allowed to bring a phone to a drug party, whether it’s organised by Charles Manson or the freaking pope. I wouldn’t go to a gay orgy in Brussels expecting to keep my phone around, it’s just part of the package.

Now if there wasn’t any drugs backstage and you still weren’t allowed to bring your phone, yeah, I think that would be a red flag, because the obvious reason for it is now missing.

Rule 34 strikes again!

I think it was more about inviting them to do drugs with him than to watch, and you wouldn’t want any selfies of that going on instagram.

Yes, obviously doing drugs around strangers is a bad idea. But if you truly insist on inviting strangers to do drugs with you, asking them to not bring any cameras in the room seems like a good move PR-wise.

By you saying “aware” I’m assuming you’re insinuating “Wir habben das nicht gewusst” ?

No, I’m not ok with pretending not to know someone can’t consent.

But I’ll Devil’s Advocate this one: There was alcohol & drugs present and being used consensually. I’m going to assume Lindemann did so as well. If at some point someone looks inebriated, are you gonna think it was involuntary? If two people go to a bar, meet eachother and agree have sex, is that abuse? And what if they both willingly got drunk first?

Imho, the key factor is intent, trying to make somebody do something against their (sober) will is always wrong. Spiking someone’s drink is coercion, because you force them into another state of mind without their consent. But if a stranger at a party at a bar acts drunk, would you immediately think they got drugged? Or does one’s informed consent to get inebriated also include the common consequences? And would you think differently if that person was drunk at a work party vs a dive bar?

I don’t know enough specifics to be certain what happened either way, but as someone who has willingly opted to get inebriated in the past, I always considered the consequences as part of that choice. (As long as the inebriation occurred voluntary) I’m aware that some people may see that as a “blaming the victim” argument, but I do draw the line at knowingly abusing someone’s state of mind vs both parties being inebriated and trying to have fun.

The main logical discrepancy I see is Lynn’s account of Lindemann running off angry. If he was a serial rapist, he probably wouldn’t do that, he’ld coax her into having more of her spiked drink until she was too inebriated to say no. I think Makeeva got those women just high enough to agree to try some (more) drugs to get them going, to make her look like she knew how to pick the party animals.

But that’s just my opinion based on the evidence I’ve seen. YMMV

The question did specify 2028, which would’ve excluded Finland, yet you deemed it necessary to grace us with your opinion about a 2030 election.

Rather, if you wanted to consistently pedantic, you should’ve replied with “Nobody, because Finland’s presidential election is in 2030”

If you’re going to be obtuse, atleast put some effort into it ;-)

I’m not fanatically defending or accusing anyone based on my feelings, I’m trying to be objective and rational.

This mob mentality “everyone not agreeing with my view is disgusting and a fanatic idoliser” argument isn’t helping your case.

Arguably, you don’t want camera phones near an artist doing illegal drugs. You don’t need to be a rapist to find that logical.

That said, I don’t tend to follow “celebrity news” and definitely not German football, so I wasn’t aware of his friendship with Boateng (up to 10min ago). Having read the cliff notes, his choice in friends does say something about Lindemann’s character.

I hope you are wrong simply because that means those women weren’t violated. But honestly, the firing of Makeeva sadly indicates she did spike those women to provide to Lindemann’s parties. How much he was involved, I don’t know. It wouldn’t be the first time an entourage does shitty things to keep the golden-egg-laying artist happy without their knowledge. That’s unfortunately too common to exclude it at this point, although I wouldn’t advice anyone to rely on it being the case.

But if you wonna convince people he’s a rapist, maybe try presenting evidence first, rather than just ordering people what to do. People tend to be more accepting of a conclusion they made themselves.

“We have reviewed ourselves and found nothing wrong”

Sorta, depending on your exact definition.

More of a Lassalle flavour of socialism than Marx, at the very least.

Pragmatically, state-less communism is a utopia reliant on all members following its principles. A state is required to defend against greed, both from the outside as from within.

Wwhether you call it market socialism or social democracy, the concept of a state limits capitalism to serve its people first, while also granting as much freedom possible by “allowing” capitalism, seems to be the closest one can get to Marxism while still defending against tyranny.

Society is a living thing and must be able to both change and defend itself. Socialist states are prone to tyranny from within, where as pure communist utopia has little to no defense from foreign entities. A democratic government in service of the people is the best way I’m aware of to achieve the core socialist principles.

Thinks it’s also part of “please stop deporting the migrants we are exploiting with illegally low wages. They work so hard for our next yacht!”

As extra benefit, plowing them back into the soil means the nutrients get recycled, so less fertilizer needed next year.

In Germany we have “Erfrischungsgetränk” (= “refreshment beverage”)

That’s basically what it is, and the distinction is usually for regulatory reasons.

“Limonade” in Dutch is essentially non-cola soft drinks. In general, carbonated or sweetened drinks are all frisdrank, unless they are juice or plain water. Cola, lemonade, tonic, … it’s all the same category.

The US presidential elections are in 2028 … probably.

I also speak a bit of French and German, but I’m nowhere near fluent in those.

Top Flemish linguist confirmed!!

Still beats the Dutch “frisdrank”

Literally “chill drink”. Technically, it doesn’t include juice, water, nor beer, chilled or not. Although most menu’s do put juice/water in the same category.

Socialism is a form of government where the equality of people comes first.

The entire US anti-socialist kneejerk is because Marx said that socialism as a stepping stone to communism is the only non-violent way to get there

Socialist democracy allows for capitalism, as long as the government protects its people from the capitalist tendancy to turn into an oligarchy.

Yup, this.

I started atleast buying from european companies, regardless of parts.

Some industries like textile just aren’t local enough anymore to support through consumerism. But at the very least I can make sure my money goes into european pockets, so we can then tax them correctly!

The anonimity breeds extremist behaviour, because there isn’t evidence to sweep under the rug to start with. See also: the internet ;)

Alledged rapist. And the original accuser firmly said he never touched her, even though the media/tabloids happily claimed so.

It’s possible some enablers around him like Makeeva or Letz would spike woman so they’ld sleep with Till (would match him getting angry when Lynn refuses to do so) but that doesn’t mean he himself was aware of it. Makeeva was fired shortly after the allegations.

Authorities both in Germany & Vilnius investigated and found no evidence to continue on.

Doesn’t mean he’s not a weirdo with an unhealthy interest in sex, but decadence isn’t “if you’re famous they let you do it”.

I’m certain that Lynn was drugged (random bruising is an indicator), but I’m uncertain it was Till, and until there is stronger evidence than now-retracted tabloid articles, I would consider him innocent until proven otherwise.

You mean like the US media landscape does??