These days the AfD, a German political party of the extreme-right, wants to install a platform (on a website) where pupils can denounce teachers (publish their names) who spread anti-AfD or left-orientated ideologies in the classroom. The state now wants to check if this AfD initiative is against the law. That is one of the advantages of living in a country with a constitution and an independent judicial system.
Another advantage is that I can write what I like and that I don’t risk to get exiled from my country, or expelled from the country I live in.
There are other countries with other systems. And there are organisations that apply different laws. They poison journalists, cut them to pieces, rape and murder them or simply shoot them, for no other reason that they have spread inconvenient news.
Now the least you can say is that we live in times of turmoil. There is a true massacre going on on social media. Where and why did this all start?
Hans Magnus Enzensberger said that the 1968 revolt was about changing relations, changing the relation between doctor and patient, between professor and student, between parents and child, between man and woman. Ever since then, in our western world, religion, traditional systems, ideologies lost their influence on public life. There is no more place to hide. Everyone has to think for themselves and make up their own mind. A new common ground has to be found. And I hope that common ground will be reason and dialogue.
There is a movement that spearheads changes in society. The discussion is about gender. And maybe this discussion exists because already on a broader scale the traditional man-wife relationship is under scrutiny. And yes, maybe it is an interesting experiment to raise your children in a gender-neutral way and change the traditional man-woman role models. After all, gender has nothing to do with biology.
Radical changes, radical movements should be prepared to encounter radical opposition. The views will be countered with different ideas. I think this is normal. Radicalism often leads to emotional involvement. All the retorical tricks will be applied. What sounds like an offensive rant sounds different when you strip it from the emotions. So instead of %&*,<<<#©ø you could understand: “Hey, I differ with your view, could you please give it a second thought. Do you care to discuss this?” But the other radical party doesn’t answer. The retoric counterattack is to label the other person as some kind of phobe. Attack the ideology means attacking the leader, in this case, the movement that they think to defend and protect.
It all happened on the internet.
Now, can you imagine what the discussion could have been like if the people involved had met eachother, not once, but a lot of times. One to one, no alcohol, no drugs, no weapons, no sleepless nights, just words and the willingness to listen to eachother.
There is a clear line.
More in part 5