For some context: This protest took place in the context of the Rosa Luxemburg conference, which is a yearly event organized by the newspaper "junge Welt". As they reported, multiple participants of the protest were heavily injured, including broken bones and a life threatening injury of an elderly man (German interview with a paramedic). As far as I can tell, the injured policemen are, unfortunately, not in a life threatening situation. The headline that they are injured is probably only right wing propaganda.

This is not accurate. It is possible to say that Adorno and Horkheimer could have done more to get Benjamin into the US (Horkheimer did get Benjamin a visa at some point), but they didn't leave him to die because he was friends witch Brecht (?). I also don't really know how easy it was to get someone out of Europe during that time. Also Benjamin stayed far too long in France due to his depression and his suicide in Spain was a result of a very unfortunate miscommunication.

Yes. I don't really know where to start criticizing it and I'm also not really interested in doing so. But for one, having read some works of most of the philosophers the author names, I don't see the big difference between the historical view he solely assigns to Lukács and that of other philosophers like Adorno or Derrida, who repeatedly argued for recognizing the continuity of fascism in human societies. Also, the connection between the so called post-structuralists tradition and Nietzsche or Heidegger is a critical one. When Derrida draws on Heidegger or Nietzsche, this is to be understood as an engagement with the negative at work in the tradition of Western philosophy. What seems kind of strange here is that the author dismisses any dialectic at work in the philosophy he's out to criticize, especially when he is drawing so heavily on Lukács and Hegel.

This comes off as needlessly insulting. Declaring a bunch of philosophers as Hitlerites (Adorno had to flee from the Nazis, you know, and psychoanalysis didn't have such a good standing with them either) without elaborating and then saying someone is seething with Hitler particles (whatever that means) because they expressed a genuine interest in discussing philosophy is some weak ass shit.

I'm also confused about how they blew it up. I assumed they bombed it when I read about it but it looks like they used controlled explosives to collapse the building, or am I wrong? The fact that they filmed it in this way seems to affirm that they did it with controlled explosives (at least I haven't seen them film a bombing in this way).

I don't know yet. Many people seem to like the game but I also heard that it somehow misunderstands the core themes of its predecessors. Mainly because of its depiction of religion and use of certain characters, so I was told. Have you played it and would you recommend it?

I played Baldur's Gate 1 and started playing 2 a few days ago. It took me some time to get used to how things work in the games (I have no experience with d&d so some things where quite hard to understand in the beginning), but I really love the games. The themes and story are great and I am really amazed at the amount of interactions that are possible and what kind things you are allowed to say. Like, you can criticize Baldurans colonialism in 1 in a random dialogue that is not really important for making progress in the game, for example. Or you can rescue the drow Viconia who is basically only prosecuted for her skin color in both games. Also class difference is a major theme in 2 and I like how it is even present in your own party. I'm also really looking forward to kill some slavers when I'm powerful enough.

Whenever I read about this shit I always have to think about Adam from Doctor Who.