Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by JoannaL

  1. I have also noticed this and think it is definitly ridiculously wrong . It really should not matter who writes about what. It also leads to finding one of the in-group to hide behind, if you want to criticise the in-group, which is hypocritical and cowardly. I think the who writes what thing is really quite annoying. IIRC there was a discussion not too long ago who may TRANSLATE the poetry of Amanda Gorman into German (or was it Dutch?) , and the translator who was first hired was dismissed because she was not of color and so could never translate this correctly. (?) I believe this way of thinking is fundamentally wrong and will lead- if thought to the end , to an extrem tribalism: Only some special people can write about something, only some people may translate it and only some people may read it (or at least can read it correctly). this is the opposite to empathy and mutual unterstanding of differnt groups and accentuates and enhances the differences.
  2. Yes that is bad and wrong but that is not the discussion here: the people in favour of free speech are also in favour of free information on abortion. but as you can see in your own example: free speech is important for everyone and its suppression (regardless of left or right) is wrong.
  3. I have also heard the "Poland was it" theory (because they hated nordstream and got their very own pipeline on this exact day) but I think it is more likely that the russians destroyed it themselves as a terror move (like: look we can destroy pipelines in the baltic see if we want to; implying also other pipelines)
  4. the FDP is not proposing tax cuts but a change in the tax progression formula so that the inflation is not in fact a tax increase. Why is that a bad thing? Why do you think a tax increase helps against the living and energy prices?
  5. No, you may think it provocative, but I think they were heros, activly fighting for the right to find things ridiculous. Their death has shown us all that we have lost that right. The parallel to the woman clothing and rape is correct but not far enough. This is about a woman fighting for her right to go on the streets in clothing that she likes even if there are rules to have a certain way of clothing. And this womans fight ends with her rape. we should be much more enraged than we are
  6. " first, do not kill" In relation to lifeguard post: we as a society kill all the time in not providing enough organ/blood donors to the critical ill. But still we do not force people to donate. Why is it differnt with potential mothers? Why should they be forced?
  7. How will state-wide abortion laws even work? Can a court in Mississippi punish a woman for driving to California to have an abortion?
  8. Yes, this will save some beings which will become babies. It will also kill women, especailly poor ones
  9. Thats sounds an awful lot like victim blaming. Perhaps this wouldn't have happened if men would not always stand aside and make this a women-only-issue. They could also fight for what is right , for their wifes and daughters and sisters- totally regardless of color- but they don't, do they?
  10. I have not followed the trial, I only read some articles about the end of it. It left me with a bad feeling. As I understand it Amber Heard wrote an article in the Washington post in which she implied that she was a victim of abuse and for this she was sued by her ex- husband. and now she has to give him 15 millon dollars. As I see it: this evening if you are a victim of violence not only will your abuser say: "shut up no one will believe you anyway", but also "if you say something about it I will destroy your life and ruin you financially" Even if he is innocent (which I don't know) I think he is a bad person for ruining his ex-wife financially and socially.
  11. As far as I know the monkey pox virus is related to smallpox, so everyone who got that vaccine in the 60 and 70 is fine. On the other hand monkey pox is not related to chickenpox, so having had chickenpox or the respective vaccine doesnt help
  12. That is exactly the question: Is the UK word still good? Just this week they are planning to break the brexit treaty (northern Ireland protocoll, which the Johnson goverment signed itself). So they are breaking a treaty with Finland (as a member of the EU) but tell them that they are surly on their side. It could go like this "sure we signed that we would help you, but we didnt know that it means that we really need to help you" As in: "sure we signed a treaty that we will install border checks on goods in Northern Ireland, but we didn't know that it means that we really need to install border checks in Northern Ireland" Personally I think it is easier to comply with border checks on goods than to send soldiers into war.
  13. No, I think its bad and a propaganda victory for Putin. while Steinmeier is an idiot and was always on the wrong side, and I can personally understand why no one in Kyiv wants to see him, he is also the president, which means he is a symbol for our country and people, it doesnt do to snub him, because you symbolically snub all Germans. Really bad, doesnt help in German politics at all at the moment , and I feel that Scholz will now not be able to go to Kyiv and that the fraction in his party against more weapons got a major boost. Its bad enough with all the putinversteher and now they can feel in the right again.
  14. Yes, but while the US and UK had their war crimes while there was an actual war - bad enough. The soviets also killed continue afterwards to kill millions of people by expulsion.
  15. Yes, I have read this argument in the last weeks a lot, preferable in US and UK newspapers - so countries which dont accept any refugees in large numbers anyway. It makes me angry. We did take in 1 million syrian refugees. But on behalf of our eastern neighbours, Poland and Hungary and Romania and all the others, which are doing such a great job, and which should not be called racists for all their efforts here a defense: there are at least three - non racists- reasons why there is a difference between this refugee crisis and the last: 1.) neighbouring country: this is also in the Geneva convention, refugees come from neigbouring countries , its more diffcult to explain when they crossed several borders. In this case I would say the EU is the neigbouring country, and they are doing great. 2.) the refugees are women and children and the old , not young men (like in the last refugee crisis) young men are the most problematic group, also in criminal statistics (totally regardless form which country they are from) 3.) the Ukranian refugees don't want to stay, they just seek temporal shelter and protection, they do not plan (though it may happen) to stay in the new countries permanently You can like these reasons or not - and you may prefer that more could be done also for other refugees. but these reasons are not racist.
  16. I get what you want to say but I believe it is not so, at least not in Germany. Our perception of the Russians is friendly . We like to think the best of them, there is no hostility. (Which means we were willfully blind the last 20 years). I think what really got us to see the error of our way and to care for the Ukrainians was the way they stood up and started fighting for their right to determine their fate, for their right to western values. We are often so saturated that we do not have any longer the clear and decisive way of speech like the Ukranian leader. He is admirable and brave and the Ukranian people are admirable and brave. And we should have seen in 2014 what was going on and we didnt (exactly because we are not hostile to the russians and also because it was so comfortable to stay blind and to take their gas).
  17. Ok, lets say the people of Kazakhstan share western values and just want to live in a western style democracy. Please explain why you think, that under these conditions, the West wouldnt care as much? How do you know that? I think we would care as much. Please show me proof why you think it is not so. My point with afganistan was that there are cases that countries just want us gone. And then thats fine as well. And I mentioned afganistan because you mentioned it as sign of western rascism.
  18. The US brought free elections to Afganistan, and schooling for women. These are no small things. And Afganistan is starving now, because the Taliban rule it, it wasnt starving last year.
  19. No, I say this is no racism. We should let the states be which want to be left alone and help the ones which share our values? So no imperalism and interference when it is not wished from our side.
  20. I think this is an unfair assesment. If the West IS interested and does something -like in afganistan- it is critized permanently for imperalism and colonisation. It is implied by western critics and the states in question that bringing democracy is something bad. Indeed Afganistan (their not fighting the Taliban at all) showed that not all countries and cultures embrace our way of life (which is their right). So when should the West be involved and when shouldnt it? Surly it is not racism to be more involved for people who want you to be involved?
  21. About the invasion of Estonia: The Baltic countries were historically not part of a greater Russion empire (neither orthodox christians nor speaking a slavian language) and surly they will not be attack being NATO countries. I believe the expansion into Europe of an aggressive Russian empire would be more likely starting in serbia. They are orthodox christians and thought historically positiv of russia as their protective power. They were (totally justified but still) bombed by the NATO. They had the only pro Russians demonstrations in the last weeks in all of Europe. What if Russia extents their protectiv military might to them (like the old warzaw pact, the opponent of the NATO). What then if they attack kosovo or bosnia (which is not so unlikely, they are not happy with the way the borders were drawn) and then e.g. north-macedonia or croatia (which are NATO members) intercept on behalf of their population in these countries. We would then have a NATO-Russia confrontation in the middle of Europe. I personally do not think this scenario is unlikely, but I am not from the Balkans and would really like to here from board members of this region , who know this more closely, how likely they think this is.
  22. Just now my daughter told us at the evening meal of her friend from class whose family has taken in a Ukranian refugee. A woman, highly pregnant, with her 7 year old son, no relatives , no connections, just a backpack, no other belongings in a foreign country where she doesnt speak the language. F*** Putin This family are good people with a large old country house, but when they told her (with gestures and some broken russian ) that she can stay as long as she wants, she just broke down. F*** Putin My husband has a russian PhD student with relatives in Mariupol. Two week ago she had a mental breakdown in his office. Since then she is highly depressive and he fears for her. F*** Putin An Ukranian PhD student also in this group has a one bedroom apartment. Since Monday his grandmother and two of his aunts are staying with him. F*** Putin
  23. About the "all Russians are to blame" (and the Ukrainian letter to former Russsian friends) No, not on an individual level. But - we had, obviously, much discussion about this in Germany and I think a nation shares responsibility for its leaders and system. It is the nation/people who gets this person/system in place and also the nation/people who keeps it there. So there is responsibility to get this right, to not sit back and say: well I am a good person and not harming anyone, it is not my fault that my government does something evil. You can NOT become NOT responsible for your government even if you have not elected that government and have to listen to propaganda all the time. Obviously it is much harder to resist and protest when the system is already autocratic and broken. so for the democratic western states where protest is always possible without fear for personal reprecussions, there is even less excuse to not fight about system failures or evil autocrats who want to destroy the democracy (like e.g. an election theft). Still, although this is tough, the Russians are responsible for their system. That does not mean that one should blame every one individually. This does also not mean that every Russian is a murderer because Putin is a murderer. Resistance in a dictatorship is hard. Who of us knows if he/she were brave enough under the circumstances? The responsibility doesn't go away though.
  24. Whats up with the UK refugee rules? I just saw in the news that they are now really proud because they will let in family members of in UK setteled Ukrainains? Is this a joke? The EU will grant every Ukrainian entry for 3 years. Meaning Viktor Orban is MUCH more gracious about this than Boris Johnson??
  25. Yes, Germany has a rule that the weapons they sell may not be resold into warzones (so they only sell with the right to veto reselling).This is a major shift in policy.
  • Create New...