Are you sure?

Yes.

This seems pretty nazi to me.

Tolerating civilian casualties within war-efforts is an extremely different thing than specifically favouring to hunt and eradicate them while possibly propagating some narrative like they are lesser humans or some fucked up racist shit like that. If that’s your standpoint on labeling Nazis however, then every nation which ever participated in a hot war with civilian casualties is probably pretty nazi to you.

Also germans online are one of the loud supporters of yet another genocide.

Not in my experience. But sure, it’s good emotional bait to blindly generalise over all germans and call them Nazis who favour genocide. How about you look for some verifiable numbers before reasoning from your individual experience with “online germans”?

Here:

Die militärische Reaktion Israels auf die Terror-Anschläge der Hamas vom 7. Oktober 2023 geht inzwischen für mehr als die Hälfte (57 Prozent) zu weit (+7 im Vgl. zu März), jeder Fünfte (21 Prozent) hält sie für angemessen (-7), für 4 Prozent geht sie nicht weit genug (-1).

Source: press report about a representative survey on the opinions of german’s regarding Israel’s war efforts.
https://presse.wdr.de/plounge/tv/das_erste/2024/08/20240808_ard_deutschlandtrend_israel.html
(From last August.)

Translation:
“The military response of Israel to the Hamas terror attacks on October 7, 2023, now goes too far for more than half (57 percent) of people (+7 compared to March), one in five (21 percent) considers it appropriate (-7), and for 4 percent it does not go far enough (-1).”

On a side note, the article you’ve linked from middle east monitor cited the foreign minister of Germany a bit wrong. Here is the official full translation of her speech: https://www.auswaertiges-amt.de/en/newsroom/news/-/2679832

With the following section in the middle east monitor article:

‘Self-defence means not only attacking terrorists but destroying them. When Hamas terrorists hide behind people, behind schools… civilian places lose their protected status because terrorists abuse it.’

And here the full official translation of that part:

That’s why we have made it clear time and again that self-defence means, of course, not only attacking terrorists, but also destroying them. This’s why I have made it so clear that when Hamas terrorists hide behind people, behind schools, then we end up in very difficult waters. But we’re not shying away from this. This is why I made it clear at the United Nations that civilian sites could lose their protected status if terrorists abuse this status.

The article did not appropriately mark the sections which were omitted in the quote. It also changed words, omitted words or sections without marking it and thereby changed the tone of the quote and misrepresented it in a way significant enough for me to be so nitpicky about it.

Most importantly, the minister highlights, that terrorists abusing protected civilian sites poses a very difficult situation which could potentially lead to a loss of the protection status.

Furthermore, she goes on about the importance of humanitarian aid in Gaza. And also remarks how Germany supports the two-state solution to ensure security in the region, peace for Palestine and peace for Israel.

Does that sound like Nazis to you?

Please, before shitting all over Germany again with Nazi accusations and whatnot, keep in mind that this was demanded by populistic, right-wing politicians, who are – luckily – currently not running the government, but are in the opposition.

From the article:

Politicians in Germany think that climate activist Greta Thunberg should be banned from entering the country over her participation in pro-Palestinian protests, according to the domestic policy spokesman for Germany’s biggest opposition party, the Christian Democratic Union.

Surely you can call them out for it, but neither do they represent Germany, nor are they even running the national government.

Due to the “being allergic” part this is unfortunately not possible for me. But thanks for trying to provide me with a different perspective.

Fair point. Although one may say this is fine here for comic purposes.

The same argument could be made about the statement “Gods perfect creation”.
But I’d argue that the suggestion of a creationist god expands the distance to scientific contexts even more while simple speech bubbles are fine due to less ideological conflict potential.

Admittedly, I am also rather allergic to religions, which is why I am having a difficult time with that part of the meme.

Nice!

Me too. It’s a science meme community after all.

There’s no evidence for gods though.

Shit! They found me! crawls away

But, consider you’re stranded in the wild. All technology lost due to an accident. It’s just you, nature and your skills. How will you know then for how many days the melons you’ve foraged will suffice if you’ve found N of them and eat one a day? /j

Another one, Frontiers:

https://www.frontiersin.org/

There is a neat Firefox addon which makes visits to yubbtub more tolerable by getting rid of unrelated suggestions:
RYS — Remove YouTube Suggestions

It has a lot of options to tailor it to your needs.

deleted by creator

Don’t drink alcohol.

It can save or ruin lifes apparently.

I don’t know, but have you considered to contact the developer if you want to report this issue? /j

One thing I learned as an information technology engineer: language is a tool for communication. As long as the sender can send its message unobstructed and as long as the receiver receives and understands the message as intended, the information transmission can be considered a successs.