• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

4,442 Awesome

About zwiebelfisch

  • Birthday 06/24/1976

Profile Information

  • Location Wilmersdorf, Berlin
  • Nationality British
  • Hometown Kingston upon Thames
  • Gender Male
  • Year of birth 1976
  • Interests Good coffee
    German Language
  1. Convenient Censorship

      and this appears to be factually wrong. I would agree that there is probably less than many people think and that much of it is self censorship by private cmpanies rather than anything governmentally enforced.  But we know that it does actually happen to some extent.  See here for some other examples:    
  2. Convenient Censorship

      Thats quite a bold statement.  Germany notoriously has laws which make some subjects illegal, did we not see a thread a month or so back about the game Wolfenstein which was not available here because of what I would call censorship?   I offer this as evidence that there is *some* censorship here:   I presume that when you say there is no censorship you rather mean that there is no censorship of the subject of "cultural enrichment", despite the reports of Merkel and Facebook being in discussion of exactly such a thing?  
  3.   I think you are missing the difference between a legal technicality and how people feel.
  4.   You may not, but I know plenty that do.  Id say there is a good mix of both people who feel guilt and shame, and another group who are pissed off because society them to feel guilt and shame.  I cant say which group is larger, or the under 30s Id say the latter group win by a nose.  Of the over 30s a clear majority of those that I know think germany is irredemably guilty and many at least of my close german friends seem to think that this is not only an inherited guilt but that germans are somehow intrinsically evil in a way no other nation is.  That might sound like hyperbole but it isnt from me its a (no doubt slightly fumbled) quote of a good friend of mine who said exactly that.  I have also heard germans say that the german people are every bit responsible for the Nazis because they elected them to represent them (for what its worth the same people arguing that blame all of america for the iraq war etc so at least they are consistent).   For what its worth I dont think present day germans should shoulder any blame for the past.  But to argue that they dont is clearly missing the mark, at least in Berlin.
  5. Refusing to pay TV license fees (Rundfunkbeitrag)

    If you are the only one who has to pay then you have to pay the whole amount.  It sucks, but thats the way it is.  Your alternatives are:   * Convince the others to pay even though they dont think they should * Simply dont pay and wait for the baillifs (seems a popular choice here on TT)
  6. Terminated for cause vs. position elimination

    It is completely normal for a company to give no reason for termination.  It comes down to them having the right to terminate for no reason but of course once they give a reason there is potential for you to start a fight about it.  Just like when someone applies for a job and the company says no, it is almost always impossible to get feeback why. As someone who works in HR you will no doubt have bene told that the company never gives a reason it just says something vague about the position having been filled.    It is also pretty normal for a company to go into a panic if someone starts sending mails with wide distribution including the betreibsrat.  It isnt that its an unfair question its that people normally include the betreibsrat when they want to kick up a shitstorm.   So I dont think you can read anything into their actions, they sound to me that they are acting as most companies would.    Is it worth seeing a lawyer?  Noone but a lawyer can really tell you but in my experience termination for no reason in the probezeit is not normally a viable case for the employee unless the company slips up (ie tells you why).  Which at its core answers your question, of why they wont they tell you anything more.
  7.   Because the word has become politicised. For someone to say that a crime intended to cause terror or a person that commits such an act is "terorrist" is now used as an excuse to call that person saying it racist and is often followed up by "we are the real terrorists, look at iraq and afganistan".
  8.   Not much point.  For anything you need a passport for you also need your anmeldung papers.   Contrary to popular belief there is no need to carry your papers at all times.
  9. Brexit: The fallout

      I cant answer that with certainty, Im not a constitutional lawyer.  As far as I know the uk voted to leave with the best deal that could be negotiated whatever that might be. If no deal gets signed then yes, apparently we did.   But like I said this is all too little too late.  Screwing around with things like in the lords trying to guarantee the rights of people before a deal is just timewasting and that directly hurts people like you and me who depend on a good deal being thrashed out.  We voted for this so we should stop trying to sabotage the negotiations and trust those we elected to follow the mandate we gave them.   As for scotland, we can only guess whether having gone through brexit they stil have an apetite for yet more breaking things up.  I think for once Im on your side on that one, I hope we can finally get shot of the place, scotland never seems to have wanted to be part of the uk and I think they should stop moaning and get out.  Much like the uk and europe, time to put our money where our mouth has been for the past few decades and leave.
  10. Brexit: The fallout

      Im not sure that I agree, the time for opposition was before the referendum.  Had scotland voted to leave the UK would you seriously be saying scotland needed an effective opoosition working to prevent it from happening?
  11. Brexit: The fallout

      Looking to Corbyn to stop Brexit is ludicrous he has been anti europe since the 70s.  In fact at the time of Brexit it was the Tories who were anti and labour indifferent.  There is a reasonable case for saying that since it was mostly the poor northern working classes that voted for Brexit that this whole thing lies squarly at the door of labour who failed to get their vote onboard.  Quite how the Tories were meant to get places like Sunderland to support them is beyond me. That was a task for comrade corbyn.   The SNP arent even really interested in Brexit either, they see this as leverage to force scotland referendum 2.0.  Which is also a pipe dream as far as I can tell.   I know everyone likes to sulk and say this is all an evil Tory conspiracy, and have wild fantasies about the Brexit being stopped but the truth is simple.  Labour dropped the ball, the tories who virtually all were against it resigned (yes, I know, dont forget Boris) and put themselves back together and are doing what we voted for.  My guess is that if you took May for a quiet beer off the record she is just as pissed off as everyone else, but what does she do?  She has a job to do, and that job is to make the best of a situation that noobody really likes.   It was a damn fool decision to go to the people, but suck it up people, its happening.
  12. Antifa - Freedom fighters or fascists in disguise?

      You think it is ok to use violence against people because they are on a different part of the political spectrum to you?  All that talk of liberalism and even part of being liberal is being open to non liberal thoughts?   I never expected to hear you cheering for violence on the streets, I am honestly disappointed in you.
  13. Only in America...

      Im not certain if this is the exact point Kreig was making, but in normal parlance a goal is a point on the field but is always refered to as a goal.  A point normally refers to the points awarded for winning (3) or drawing (1) a game and are used for calculating position in the league.  So winning a game 2 goals to 1 is worth 3 points for example. 
  14. Post inaguration fall-out

      Well kind of.    In scenario A, which clearly isnt going to happen because its in the past, then scotland would pay for it leaving the uk.  They would then pay whatever part of brexit that lands on them, for example they would possibly anyway be kicked out of the EU (Note this is a contentious point and we will never know for sure), but in any case the whole loss of business, changes in investment etc would most likely somehow hit scotland due to brexit.  However as scotland would not be part of the uk it would in theory be isolated from the costs, just as other countries that are not UK shouldnt have to pick up costs.  Whether 1 year separation would really be enough time to get everything untangled I dont know, I suspect it would not have made much difference and scotland would still have suffered almost as much when brexit came along.    In scenario B the uk pays for brexit (of which scotland is a part) and then if the country subsequently exits the uk then scotland gets to pay most of the costs for that.  If scotland then wishes to rejoin the eu there will again be a large set of costs which I presume they will also have to pay, who else?   The key factors is that the uk is leaving europe, and as long as scotland is part of the uk they have their share of the costs and benefits.  This isnt just a logical ivory tower thing, it is practical. IWhen we talk of 60 billion in costs, its not like the uk is going to get a bill for the total and england cuts a cheque. It is various costs which will arise over the union some of which just plain simply will be in scotland.  Scotland has for example a whisky and an oil industry which will both need to negotiate trade deals, face trade barriers or taxes and probably lose business and its hard to imagine how those  costs would not be payed by scotland.  Scotland will also lose out on eu subsidy, Im not sure if that is factored into the 60 billion cost or not.   Another caveat is that had scotland decided to leave the uk before the brexit referendum they would have an argument for not being part of brexit and perhaps being insulated from the costs.  By the same logic, having decided not to be part of the uk perhaps they should also not have been entitled to vote on it.  But as it happens scotland didnt vote for independance and did, as part of the uk vote for brexit.  The uk voted as a block, those who say scotland voted to stay are in a sense lying, there was no scotish vote as such.   TL;DR  If a country or region is part of the uk then they have costs associated with Brexit.  Countries which are not part of the UK may end up with some costs but in theory they shouldnt and they will for sure be lower than those for the places which are part of the UK.
  15. Post inaguration fall-out

      If the uk devolves it will cost the full 60 billion plus a whole lot extra for the devolution.  If any scots (or welsh, but that doesnt seem likely) are hoping for independance as a way of saving money they are in for a nasty shock.  Not to mention there are several country like spain who are quite nervous about independance movements are are likely to do their best to torpedo the chances of such newly independant countries which will no doubt rack up more and more costs.   FWIW I am strongly pro scottish independance, but I expect scotland to carry the costs and I expect it to be painful at least as painful as brexit.  But that seems to be  what scotland has wanted for well over a century so I say get on and do it.