22 Sep 16 06:59, Robert Bashe wrote to Gerrit Kuehn:
GK>> "conspicuous" to you?
RB> No, to anyone with eyes to see. Do you really think I'm the only one RB> who sees people who intentionally distance themselves from the RB> general population?
No, but draw the wrong conclusions from what you see. And you put yourself in the centre of the universe.
RB>>> That would eliminate all those who like to wear strange dress RB>>> (scarves, burkahs and the like) to make themselves conspicuous in RB>>> public
GK>> Hm, like Punks, Gothics and the like?
RB> As I've never seen such things on the street, I can't say.
Now you're making a fool of yourself. Ever been out during the last 30 years?
RB> But at RB> least they don't claim they distance themselves because of some RB> "religion" that dictates that women are inferior to men and should RB> cover themselves as completely as possible so that men don't want to RB> rape them.
This is utter rubbish. You put so many people you don't know and never met under universal suspicion here. Please take a step back and think again.
RB>>> - what they do in their own four walls is their business, since as RB>>> you shozuld knoe, religion is a PRIVATE matter in Germany.
GK>> In which law can I read that?
RB> Unfortunately, none.
So your statement is void.
RB> who enter a religion in any official paper. This is a holdback to the RB> "good old days" of Hitler, who codified the "religion tax" in the RB> hope of keeping the churches quiet while he carried out the "final RB> solution".
Now you come around with the "bad Nazi stuff" argument. And it is not even true here: what you call "religion tax" came to German law already with the Weimar constitution in 1919.
GK>> So only things are allowed that are already there. How is a society GK>> supposed to change or evolve then?
RB> By revolution?
Nope, that would not be "evolving".
RB> And why does a society have to reject customs that are RB> centuries old to adopt those which have only been forced on it in the RB> last 10-20 years?
There are quite a couple of customs we got rid of during the last 100 or so years. Some examples:
- women's suffrage (in Germany again in 1919 with the Weimar constitution) - until 1957 women were not allowed to have a bank account without her husbands' agreement - same for picking up a job
For a long time it was frowned upon - women riding bikes - women wearing trousers (forbidden in Germany partly until 1970ies) - women driving a car - women playing soccer (forbidden in Germany until 1970!)
And look how the US have changed, too: - with respect to women's rights - with respect to coloured people's rights
And now you want to require people to wear or not to wear certain clothing? If that's not backward oriented, I don't know what is.
GK>> Why not get rid of Bavarian or Saxonian dialects in northern Germany? GK>> I don't understand a word they say, and many of them cannot speak GK>> proper German even if they try.
RB> Like you? Or do you come from Hanover, where - people say - the best RB> "high German" is spoken?
If you ever talked to someone living in the rural areas around the city, you might know what to think of this claim.
RB> You're confusing native dialects with an inability to speak the language.
No, I'm talking about people refusing or being unable to speak a language properly.
GK>> I don't get it: Why should a society require anyone to wear or not to GK>> wear certain clothing? Is that freedom?
RB> No, it's integration. Identifying yourself with those around you.
Why should I need to do that? I'm neither an ant nor a sheep.
RB> People who intentionally distance themselves from the population have RB> no right to cry "discrimination" when their intentional differences RB> are registered.
Luckily, you don't decide what is considered discriminating and what not.
GK>> We could start by agreeing on the simple fact that the middle is not GK>> on one of the extreme ends.
RB> Possibly. Depends on what the "middle" is.
Something between the extremes.
GK>> Of course they do. Our society is definitely changing dramatically GK>> since WWII, the speed of change is still on the rise.
RB> Believe what you will.
See the list above with only a few examples. Especially when considering clothing for women, we had a huge amount of rules, and I'm very glad they're all gone and history. No need to bring that back.
GK>>>> I doubt you ever saw a burkha.
RB>>> I can speculate, too.
GK>> What did it look like?
RB> You have the Internet, too.
So you don't remember what you saw and actually can't tell.
GK>> As I said: You are vague and have no real arguments that would be GK>> verifiable.
RB> And you? Lots of verbiage and few real facts.
One or two orders of magnitude more fact than you have. Should suffice.
GK>> Problems that you are refusing to name, apart from the obvious fact GK>> that you feel threatened by people wearing different clothing and GK>> speak different languages than you do.
RB> Gerrit, I have the feeling that you're still living in the 1980s, and RB> haven't really realized what the present situation is.
1980ies have been worse in many respects for integration of foreign people. I don't want them back.
GK>> Calling for censorship?
RB> In such a radical case, yes. Why should a foreign ruler - now RB> effective the Kaliph of Turkey - be allowed to whip up his mindless RB> supporters in a foreign country, where religion is supposedly a RB> private matter (but effectively a state matter because of the RB> "religion tax")?
You're asking the wrong question, again. It is: Why should it be forbidden? Is there a law against it? If not: shut up, or come up with some really compelling reason why we should have another law banning something (and remember that you usually take lots of time complaining about the many laws and things they prescribe or forbid).
GK>> Yes, I prefer to stick with the laws we have and only forbid things GK>> that are forbidden. Right now I cannot see any urgent need to come up GK>> with even more things to ban.
RB> "Don't worry, be happy" I learned to hate that song. Just plain RB> stupid.
What is the last record or CD you bought?
GK>>>> "not a threat to democracy"? They have been under observation by GK>>>> the Verfassungsschutz from day 1 of their existance until 2014.
RB>>> Presumably you're confusing Die Linke with the NPD.
GK>> No, as you could easily verify if you cared for facts.
RB> I note you avoid providing a URL.
You just called upon me to make use of the internet in such cases. This is so evident, it is even on Wikipedia.
GK>> The only one I know of from the top of my head. There may be others.
RB> Nice turnaround. But unfortunately obvious.
Don't try to twist my words: your facts are wrong, and that is obvious.
GK>> Back to the topic: Apparently this prosecution of the party's members GK>> is too weak in your eyes. What do you suggest? More occupational GK>> bans? Detention centres? Reeducation?
RB> You're trying to twist my words. Give it up.
You've come up with a long list of things you'd like people require to do or not to do. Which clothes to wear, which language to speak, which religion to turn to. The question how you intend to enforce your new laws is only consequent.
RB>>> Which would not be surprising, given that the state is very RB>>> conservative in its politics.
GK>> Maybe you should move there?
RB> Maybe you should move to Russia.
Why? I like it here. You're the one complaining.
RB> Just a pity the GdR doesn't exist RB> anymore. Whatever, such comments as you make are not new or RB> particularly original, just irritating. "Go back where you came" is RB> something you say to people who refuse to integrate into a society. RB> That has never been my problem, but it does exist among those you RB> please to defend.
I don't know what your problem is, and you certainly did not come from Bavaria, so why should you go back there? You do not make any sense at all here. Also, I do not defend anyone in particular. I just point out that you're trying to stigmatise a substantial part of the people living here, mostly based upon clothes, language and appearance. I won't follow.
GK>> Same for the left: I remember far more than one campain that was won GK>> by the conservative parties by pulling the "red socks" card.
RB> Long time ago.
For short values of "long".
RB> Leftist are "in" in Germany, whereas anything more RB> conservative than the CSU is "Neonazi".
And the CSU is trying hard to close that gap at times.
RB> People have such short memories.
Indeed.
RB> You read no newspapers or news sites in the Internet, right?
Like you're not even reading Wikipedia.
RB>>> So leftist terror is totally impossible?
GK>> No, it is just statistically not so relevant these days.
RB> "These days"... and how long will they last?
The latest came out only one or two days ago, and they show exactly that. You certainly know about it as you spend so many time with newspapers and internet sites.
GK>> 2nd Wake-up call: terror from the right did not cease in 1945.
RB> But terror from the left started. Never visited the GdR? I did, RB> several times.
And that makes you an expert in deciding what's left and what's right and how many of each we should have. Sure. Just overwhelmingly logical... not.
GK>> We have something like 75-200 (depending on how you count them) GK>> political murders from the far right since 1990 alone.
RB> Sure, sure... whereby you count teenage punks and crazies in the "far RB> right". Seems like everyone who resorts to violence in Germany these RB> days is a "Neonazi".
And you're the one claiming that I talk down things and have no facts? You are cherry-picking your fact all the time and blindly ignore what does not fit into your world.
I don't count anything, I just look at the official numbers. I'm still waiting for you to come up with a number for political murders from the left side...
GK>> I notice that you are scared shitless by a certain kind for GK>> foreigner. You are not alone with that, and this has to be taken GK>> serious. But I strongly oppose having fearmongers run the country.
RB> I'm not scared shitless, but I do see a threat to our society by RB> religious extremists, one which didn't exist before the year 2000.
And that's why you try to stigmatise people you claim to be responsible for your fears.
RB> But you can "don't worry, be happy" all you like.
Indeed, I'm happy here and I see no reason to leave. But I won't continue this discussion, it's fruitless.
