• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by zeino

  1. OK. I confess. I said this in my head "Yeah but how many ponds would a ponderer pond if a ponderer could pond ponds?" I tried more than once for the rhythm, felt very successful when I decided I can do it. I'm now pondering whether this will stick with me the whole day and whether everyone does these things secretly in their head.  


  2. On 12.07.2017 00:19:14, French bean said:

    It was developed as a way of dealing with IRA terrorists. They were not allowed to touch a wall because they may have had explosive residue on their hands and rubbing them against a wall could destroy evidence.. These guys were hard and trained to fight a terrorist war and so were unlikely to be passive.


    Thank you for the explanation. So maybe this is a more intricate method that works in more combat like situations, a step-by-step process of passivising someone. I am sure the British army has more expertise about this than I do :) I was just wondering why there are so many steps to passivise someone in a protest where the police will probably be higher in number, and protesters may wiggle a bit but if you push them against a wall, it wouldn't be so difficult to handcuff. That's why I was wondering if handcuffing is perceived to be worse than this entire process. 


  3. On 11.07.2017 08:38:22, SA618 said:

    My guess is that you are assuming a process is much more stable and organized than it is.   


    No, to the contrary, I was wondering why there are so many steps in a situation that may turn messy - like why not handcuff right from the start? (Just as a technical process, but Frenchbean has already explained that.) The only sort-of political aspect I got curious about this was the minimum force principle - which is a fair principle- but there seemed like a contradiction to me because it seemed ending up in something that (in my eyes) was not better than handcuffing from the beginning. I wondered if different cultures may be looking at handcuffing differently. 


    Other than that, if we will link this to say, torture, I think that's not only defined with an act but how an act and a circumstance interact in most cases. Like, someone handcuffs my elderly mother for attacking a "goblin" on the street (we think she tries to say "troll" but the word escapes her each time, she however does not admit this :)) and then makes her walks around her community unncessarily in that state, I would think that is something that harms human dignity. But if the same elderly mother decides to go more violent for instance and needs to be controlled with more force than this, then it may be necessary to use more force on her and that may not be attacking dignity. 

    On 11.07.2017 08:38:22, SA618 said:

    Take the other side of the argument and work through it.   You are part of the police.   The people rioting can take a break any time they want and stop rioting whenever they choose.   You will finish your shift and probably work much longer depending on the situation.   The chances of you getting injured are high.   Over 200 cops were injured in Hamburg.   You don't get paid so much and you have 2 kids and a spouse at home who depend on you.   The people standing across from you want to hurt you and you are expected to maintain some semblance of order while applying as little force as possible.


    My argument is not "how can they ever touch anyone". TBH, I also think anyone who attends these things is sort of prepared for things getting heated. I personally agree with evaluating the degree of force used afterward because that is also a democratic reflex. I would not like to live in a society where no voice is ever raised. And whether we like it or not, the police and soldiers do exist in modern state, that is the modern state. Like we may say they are this, they are that but ultimately who do we call when we are in trouble?


    Per the human side of the police, sure everyone has that. The police have that, the protesters have that, too. What I dislike in violence is that it becomes a habit to forget about humans in their entirety, people are objectified I think, kicked out of categories that require something else. I can understand this in extreme conditions like war, where say, soldiers, need to focus with a particular set of skills which are then motivated with different discourses. I don't think a sniper in a war situation can shoot someone thinking "well, their children will be orphans now." Painful as it is, this is the realistic situation we are in. But when this becomes widespread in a society, I don't like that, either. That's why I believe certain things must be sorted through politics, in this example in planning stages with priorities properly discussed. Even in war situations, a lot of scapegoating may occur about soldiers for instance. I have a close friend who served as a ranger of the Norwegian army in Afghanistan - they are a bit like an explorer team. To be culturally sensitive, they were not even allowed to fold their sleeves just a bit upward when it was boiling hot in towns. People do what they are told and it is IMO the job of higher ranks to arrange or manage things properly so that things don't go crazy. 


    As for the overworked police, you are right. And I think defending one's worker rights is a whole different thing for the police force. And for medical staff when they go on strike etc. And I totally disagree with scapegoating when there is a scandal or something. If there is a real problem, who are the truly responsible people exactly? 


    In my context, this issue came to the forefront with a certain slogan (from the 70s) during Gezi Riots in Istanbul and other cities. People shouted "police, sell pretzels (we have these round pretzel like things that is the cheapest and most commonly eaten street food), live honorably." This was very much discussed, its elitism, arrogance, but also how it refers to the concept agency correctly or incorrectly. There are book chapters on it now. Surely every practice needs to be evaluated in its own context. But I think if some people are saying there have been many violations of law and arbitrariness during Hamburg protests, I think it's important to look into that and ask for accountability, too. But for instance, in the world, there are opposite examples of this, too. It will be an extreme example, but today there is the court case of a soldier who took part in the assasination attempt of Erdoğan in a hotel during that coup attempt day. He came to the court wearing a t-shirt that says "Hero" on it, non-comissioned sergeant or something. Whose fucking "hero" is this? Self-declared hero. What the hell does he represent? What does he want to bring for us? Do we have an idea? No. Zilch. Hero my arse really. But he has guns. (Our guns actually, our taxes.) We may like Erdoğan, we may not like Erdoğan, it doesn't give an army worker the right to decide to do things on people's behalf by killing anyone. They cannot kill anyone they want just because they were trusted with this military power, which is under civilians, not above them. So patronizing. So tomorrow, maybe they want to kill us, they will do that or theoretically we are at their mercy. Horrendous. Obviously I don't think something like this will happen in Germany but yeah, the law binds everyone. 


  4. 12 hours ago, J0ker said:

    The problem with experts is that they become so indoctrinated and entrenched in their opinions that they take it personally if something conflicts with it.


    It would be the most horrible thing if this turned into an ego fight with someone's life at stake theoretically. As medical people and ethics experts, I just want to believe that they have enough decency to avoid that and I want to believe that laws will protect the entire Gard family against that. As doctors working with very difficult illnesses, I think they are used to defeat because of the nature of their profession. 


    But this "what if?" is such a difficult thing, especially if this is your child. I hope the parents are receiving support through all this, it must be a terrible situation trying to make up your mind about the life of your child in the midst of legal cases, a changing medical situation and so many other difficulties.  


  5. 22 hours ago, yourkeau said:

    In Germany it's Beihilfe zu Mord, not allowed.


    What is? Becoming a member of an euthanasia support network (at idea level?) or going to Switzerland for euthanasia? Or Switzerland providing this in Switzerland to German citizens? Except these, yes, Germany is not one of the countries providing this. (It is more physician assisted suicide actually nowadays

    22 hours ago, yourkeau said:

    Your only option is to get a hunting license, which allows to own a hunting rifle and a gun. 




    22 hours ago, yourkeau said:

    I only shoot with the camera.


    Me, too, and I miss in that one as well :) I think I would have a higher rate of success with simply anything from the Bunny Suicides series :) 


    22 hours ago, yourkeau said:

    All other ways to commit suicide have one problem: they involve pain and suffering, and most of them are not 100% guarantee. 


    Nope. But I don't think it's a good idea to discuss these on forums because maybe that counts like promoting suicide and we don't want to do that. 


  6. 9 hours ago, yourkeau said:

    In Germany rightleft nanny state supporters are united against euthanasia for terminally ill because JESUS CHRIST THIS IS MURDER!!!111 It is very difficult for them to understand why terminally ill people are not happy suffering from pain every day.


    In this country you have somehow to think about trip to Switzerland in advance in case this happens. I wonder, when to start researching on this. At the age of 60? 75? 80? You never know.


    Many people become a member of some associations when they have this worry, so they are organizing their stuff in advance. It works more efficiently that way, especially if you are non-EU of course. In the case of the EU, too, it would work swifter I guess. There is this interesting trend though, the age of people wanting euthanasia from these places is getting lower. It is thought to be related to fears that the person who wants euthanasia will lose their mobility for some reason and will not be able to make it to Switzerland at the very end of things , so the are going there a bit earlier than people did in the past to ensure things.  


  7. 9 hours ago, J0ker said:

    Hmm so should we also euthanize cancer patients against their wishes because they are undergoing "needless pain and suffering"?  


    I think Charlie's case is a bit different. But in the case of some cancer patients, too, there comes a point where the chemo or other therapies are basically doing nothing and the patient is very weakened, suffering from many difficult side effects. At this stage, they are moved to palliative care, where they will be treated for their day-to-day problems but will not be given anything that will weaken them and will have no effect. This way, they can hopefully spend the rest of their days more in peace and maybe together with their loved ones. This is different from euthanasia in the sense that this is not usually given right from the start or more or less whenever the patient wants it. Stopping the ventilation machine when there isn't anything left to do after treatment is different from euthanasia where the criterion is not that there is nothing left to do but that the patient wants this to be stopped. But ultimately, scientifically unnecessary doses of chemo will not be given to patients just because they want it because they may be harmed - and then we can also turn to the doctors and say, what the hell did you do? 

    9 hours ago, J0ker said:

    The difference is that another doctor in the USA is offering baby Charlie a glimmer of hope however small.  



    The heartbreaking problem is, if I have understood correctly, he isn't, either. Both the UK and the US doctors had some hope about this experiemental therapy at some point but after Charlie's condition deteriorated - the brain damage- they again agree that this is futile. The US doctor, however, agrees to provide this experimental therapy if it is financed. So, as far as I understand, we are not talking about the hope a doctor is giving but hope of the parents that they are building up (very understandably) based on the existence of this therapy that all doctors agree to be futile. (But I read the files very quickly, so maybe I misunderstood it. Eupathic Impulse shared them in his post where he quoted me.)


    9 hours ago, J0ker said:

    And yes parenthood means the right to make decisions and raise your children.  End of story.


    Within certain limits, yes. And only if they comply with the child's best interest - the core of the issue here. In the video, the ECHR clearly states that the best interests of the child/the child's rights are privileged over parents' rights. And this should be so in principle, wouldn't it? In Charlie's case, I don't think anybody (including parents) is debating whether it should be what the parents want or what the doctors want. Parents also want what they want believing this is for the best interest of the child. That is they are rightfully and honorably fighting for what they believe is best for their child - this not the same as fighting for their right to decide. We come to the same point of what should be done, but with different reasoning, which may then change the course of events with different medical evidence etc. For instance, the parents were OK with taking Charlie off the ventilation machine before this experiemntal therapy idea and that's not euthanasia, either. 


    I think "hope" is experienced in many  different ways in these situations. So is guilt. Even with adults who are comfortable with their decision to stop or reject treatment for instance. (Sometimes you want to force them to continue treatment for instance and it requires a certain acceptance to come to respect their wishes.) Painful, painful situations. 


    In Charlie's case, I imagine parents to be going through so much torment, having to make so many decisions about something they were toally unprepared for. This illness came up sort of abruptly and is now half of the short life of a tiny baby. Very painful. 


    I personally think (based on nothing though) that if a baby can be kept on "pending" ventilation for a court decision, it actually shows that there are certain cases where decisions can be suspended - here, for the law to decide for instance. I haven't thought of its implications but that's there. 


  8. Eupathic Impulse, thank you very much for the rulings, they really give a much better perspective and are the most solid information.


    9 hours ago, Eupathic Impulse said:

    Not every medical opinion is equal.  For example, there are a lot of alternative quacks who offer relatives false hope.

      They cannot be given equal weight.  J0ker is arguing that even if there *were* consensus among doctors, the final say should rest with the parents as to what to do with their child. 


    I agree with you on this. In futility evaluations, the medical opinion needs to base itself on a reasonable basis, so it won't be just quacks eliminated but also medical opinions that are not found scientifically reasonable. From what read, in Charlie's case, on top of this, the US doctor also changed his assessment of futility after Charlie's brain started deteroriating and it was actually the UK hospital that considered applying for this treatment before this unfortunate development.


    That is, the UK doctors actually considered this experiemental treatment at one point but later, both the UK doctors and the US doctor said it's futile. The US doctor, however, is ready to provide a treatment that he considers futile if the parents are able to finance treatment. (AFAIK). This would clash with the very basic understanding of futility.   


    Everyone agrees that brain damage will be irreversable, even after experimental therapy.


    The Uk doctors have also brought arguments about his new seizures and pain. The first do no harm principle I reckon. 


    Our life on ventilation and interaction discussion is partly related to this. 


    9 hours ago, Eupathic Impulse said:

    Suffering is not just pain as such, there is a viewpoint that all life must be lived to the very end even if there is no further "living" to be had.  This case is ultimately about that, see J0ker's concern about forced euthanasia.


    I have just glanced through that but I'm not sure. There is palliative treatment somewhere in this, which can be read as forced euthanasia if we force it somehow but that too is a protective measure because at some point, at least in some cancer cases, it becomes scientifically quite clear what the patient can and cannot handle and where treatment will take them - in some cases, the collapse of the system basically. It  would really be abuse to continue treatment in that case I think.  



  9. 33 minutes ago, Eupathic Impulse said:


    But in the meantime, the child suffers.  Does a parent have the right to inflict suffering on their child for no reason?


    But this isn't a case about parents versus the medical consensus actually. There is disagreement among the doctors, too. If there was consensus among doctors, I don't think parents would have a say. 


    Disagreement 1. suffering / a life worth living. There isn't agreement among doctors about how much suffering Charlie's situation causes, is a life on ventilation not worth living? (Value judgment) and how about treating suffering with medication. 


    Disagreement 2. The US doctor needs to examine Charlie in detail and provide a best interests case. Same for those who disagree with the suffering argument above. 


    Finances is irrelevant at the moment. There must be medical grounding to counter the UK doctors and to decide to keep Charlie in intensive care. (Aren't they treating pain - if there is some- with something during the court process anyway?) 


  10. 2 hours ago, RainyDays said:


    The crux of the matter was/is IMO that the organisers of the anti-globalist/anti-capitalist protests conciously didn't distance themselves from the violence that was announced beforehand by the black block network.


    I read something about this, a translation of an article written by Emily Laquer in TAZ. (I personally don't agree with the reasoning there, but she brought an explanation to this, which was the most "inside" I could read.) 


    Basically she says this entire debate about violence of the protesters is hypocritical and it is enough to look at world news to see who is pro-violence and who is not. She says the narcissistic man in the White House tells proudly how he threw the mother of all bombs, mentions women murders in Argentina, lost/disappeared people in Mexico, wars caused by G20 countries, hunger, homelessness, freezing. So she says basically nobody asks Merkel is she is distancing herself from violence, putting distance between herself and dictators, or Frontex violence. Death of refugees as a violence of capitalism etc etc. 


    She then justifies the protesters by asking "to whom am I accountable to when a window is broken in Hamburg", to thousands of arrested people in Turkey, or to a refugee family drawning in the sea? She is on the side of the arrested and those who drawn in the Mediterranean. She then says showing protest within boundaries "they" design is submitting and that's why she is not putting distance between herself and violence. She then admits that the left is in a conflicted state in the sense that while battling for a world without violence and oppression, they are having to follow a path that accepts violence as a form. 


    I agree that we tend to close our eyes to structural violence that has a way of abstracting itself depending on how far we are from it but I personally don't accept this "we are having to do this" reasoning for more than one sense. But I think, here, the real problem of the left is that in the non-violent areas of the events, like forums, solutions to crises did not go beyond ideas referring to UN level etc so from a theoretical point they seemed more or less as helpless as what they were protesting against (I should admit though, I read only comments about this so maybe this is unjust.) I personally believe imagination is more necessary than burning and violence nowadays but recognizing people's anger is also important. People are so angry. Obviously I feel very naive when I write these things but I also believe we must remember some naivity :) 


    On a personal note, I'm Turkish, I don't want any violence to be justified through my country. What's going to change anywhere when a couple of street protests during a limited amount of time block life in Hamburg? Surely I cannot dictate on anyone how they wish to protest whatever they wish to protest but really I don't read accountability this way. I also cannot comment on how people of Hamburg see these space/rescued space wars, how they wish to react to the police within that context, but in my understanding, there isn't that contradiction for the left to find itself in. Civilian space is civilian space and turning it into a war area with molotovs and whatnot is regression of that space. When the public does not cooperate, it really is serious and should be considered because in some left theory, too, you cannot go beyond people, can you? You cannot "rescue" anyone despite themselves because it runs the risk of another form of dictatorship (theoretically) where you just assume that you know better than those people in those houses. And if they are your people, if you do not separate yourself from these people, then you cannot control their space this way. It is very authoritarian. This is a 99 year old debate and I think "we have to do this" attitude actually regresses this debate, too, as if other perspectives did not exist. I mean even Che says when there is a parliament, use the parliament. Violence beyond Che, theory beyond Marx, the left needs to question itself within its theory, too. Seriously. :)  


  11. 7 minutes ago, msam said:

    If the G20 is taking place in Hamburg, a lot of media will be in Hamburg, so making large protests in Hamburg will get the attention of more people, which in an ideal world would ask themselves: why are these other people protesting? What is wrong?


    If the meeting is done in some remote location:

    1. It will be difficult to organise large protests, because: where? 

    2. They still won't get as much attention, because the protests would be detached from what they are protesting


    I think these are valid and important questions in terms of effective protest, from within any movement, but ultimately the state is responsible for ensuring many things at once independent of what can be expected from protesters. States achieve this or fail in various degrees of course, but if they want to improve themselves along the lines they declare themselves, and then surely justifications and criticism will be brought from all directions and people will decide on things - sometimes emotionally, like you say with a picture in their mind. (I think visual history is tremendous in that sense like photos of Tiananmen Square or August Landmasser are still in circulation today in the digital media, giving people messages even though people may know very little about the history of events themselves.) But I think, really, if a state comes up with a logic of "this was a good opportunity for them but they ruined it", (not that Germany is doing that though) I think there are certain problems in that understanding of democracy. The way I see it, the responsibilities of the state are clear, in no hierarchical order, ensure the safety of protesters and protect their rights, and ensure the safety of others and protect their rights. Basically, ensure everyone's safety and protect their rights. Good intentions about encouraging democracy, opportunities etc are nothing separate from this I think. Granted, it's very difficult to be a state in this sense,but I think it's extremely important. 


    Other than that, in relation to question 1:


    I personally believe that non-violent but sustained, going on for years if necessary, is as effective as one-time big actions which is like a tour de force really. Where, whereever the problem is believed to be occuring. Like everyone, antiglobalists think G20 is sort of the executive force of G8 and their reading of capitalism and its problems is extensive, connecting immediate crises like refugee boats with other things. This makes all spaces an area of protest or politics theoretically. I cannot say anything like this is better this is worse, but there are options and choices. 


    Number 2. Attention does not depend on close proximity to an event only. It depends on the creativity of action, how much a voice resonates with people or maybe how shocking it is as well. There were hundreds of forums in this event, lots of ideas but our attention went to some Porches used in barricades ultimately. 




  12. 2 hours ago, msam said:

    Hamburg is a city of about 1.7million people. About 100,000 protesters were expected. Even if all protesters were from Hamburg it's still a minority so saying "it wasn't wanted" is a big stretch.


    What I mean is some "not wanted" statement at a political representation level. And I would like to correct/edit myself if what I have written reads like the majority did not want it, so how come this event was organized there. I can see how it reads like that as it represents one side only. At the same time, I don't think these are majority / minority issues. Basically, IMO, opposing comments should be considered even if the majority statedly wants something else, and I would say this for the cases where, say, beliefs consist of the majority against a minority I don't disagree, too - to avoid the tyranny of majority basically.  


    In this case, AFAIK, the message came from unions, NGOs and platforms more than once. They do not necessarily represent all these protesters who burnt stuff or the entire public of course, but I believe their word has a weight that should be considered because they somehow speak on behalf of people who organize active participation into what may turn into conflict or at least have this in their focus. Some are also aware of the extent of networking. In a high risk event, I think this matters. And it will inevitably have to happen in a political power framework, too, especially before the elections. I don't think the events took an unexpected turn in this G20, some companies had given workers time off beforehand so that they could go outside Hamburg (from what I read), university classes had been cancelled etc. 


    Other than that, surely individuals will have an uncountable number of wants, some will want these events for financial vibrancy, some will want it for the political power, heck, if these things go on for a while, the value of water tank company shares may increase in the stock exchange and people may even put up fights against these or use these during the day and invest in the stock exchange in the evening. That's how we are all intertwined in capitalism. But again, considering the opposition is important if one has a claim for ensuring security IMO, if these opponents come to power, then I think they are accountable in that way, too. I personally think there is too much externalization in the world today as a style.   


    2 hours ago, msam said:

    Also, consider the following: holding the G20 in a big city gives an opportunity to many opposers to go out and protest. If it were held in some inaccessible location they would not be able to gather in large numbers to show their dissent. So in a way, holding such a meeting in a big city, is good for democracy. Unfortunately this also implies that the arseholes who went out burning cars also had the opportunity to gather.


    I agree that any event comes up with the possibility of a protest although I have difficulty calling this an "opportunity" - but I don't exactly know why myself :) I mean the left talks about this, too, like how this gave them the "opportunity" to stage a big thing, which again sounds strange to me. But I think there is a nuance when we look at it from the side of administration and from the side of protesters. Surely organizing something in an urban area creates space for a high number of events near each other, like forums, creative things - like those people taking off gray clothes for instance. At the same time, it is only a choice to do these in a concentrated area. But if the state comes forth with representing this as something good for democracy, I would question it in some senses TBH. I mean, it is people's right to gather, to protest things etc, and it is an earnt right already. Objectively people can do this whenever they want and I think te duty of the state is to ensure safety in this within its definitions of criminality, public safety etc. And democracy occurs when the state is able to ensure the practice of this right, certainly in a good and lawful balance with other responsibilities it has. (That's the area where I would evaluate whether democracy is occuring or not.) 


    In this example, again, I think it can be discussed whether the police should have the right to remove tents from camping areas even if the protesters had legal permission for instance. Ultimately 300 tents were allowed arbitrarily. Some buses were stopped, some people were not allowed into Germany (from Italy I think) because they had a certain style of clothing or something. These are obvious suspensions of human rights and democracy. I'm not saying this cannot be done etc but when or if it needs to be done, I think it is the state's job to improve itself to do these with democratic lawful solutions rather than arbitrariness. I think I'm saying a pro-state thing actually, something ultimately based on the institutionalization of control. 



  13. 13 hours ago, French bean said:

    It's called the rule of minimum force, you use just enough to achieve your objective but you can ramp it up if neccessary. e.g. Police want to arrest someone, so they stop him, he starts protesting and becomes violent, so they then have him facing a wall, next stage is to put him on the floor spread eagle, he then tries to stand up and fight, next stage would be to put his hands behind his back, cuff him and we were taught, knee in his back with your size 10 boots in his crutch resting against his bollocks. if he carries on, just wriggle your toes against his bollocks.


    I would like to hear a version of this with "her" or is it just men passivised through hurtful parts of their body? 


    Really, what makes it more acceptable than being handcuffed while facing a wall? (not a rhetorical question, trying to understand how this logic works because what happens when one doesn't oppose after being faced to a wall, probably handcuffed again? Or why not handcuffing when one is on the floor already? I really don't understand how the rule of minimum force somehow ends up with no handcuff but with someone's genitals or hurtful parts coming into this, after which they would probably be handcuffed again? I mean handcuffing is not nice, but this method sounds a bit off, too.)  


  14. 5 minutes ago, Eupathic Impulse said:


    Fine, the Gobi Desert?  I thought of the Antarctic because it's not easy to leave. :P



    I was thinking more the middle of Antarctica, not the coasts.  And sponsored by whatever Vietnamese rice farmers have left over.


    I was thinking about Frontex boats usability as cruise ships with empathy exercises as some sort of ice-breaker event but don't want to trigger another refugee debate with that. Taklamakan can be a good choice, too, as the word is interpreted to mean ""once you get in you cannot get out", which I think would make it a good metaphor for crisis. Again Ambre-Solaire and Nivea sponsoring. Whatever rice farmers left should be returned to rice farmers :) 


  15. On 09.07.2017 09:51:46, jeba said:

    Not in Bavaria. Why didn´t they have the G20 meeting there again (last time it went relatively smoothly)? Or on a cruise ship? Or an aircraft carrier where those riotists don´t have access? It was a stupid idea to hold it in a big city in the first place. Just as stupid as not to give the police rubber bullet guns (or what about those tranquiliser guns vets are using for lions or bears).


    Those living in that area which was unpoliced for 4 hours while the mob was looting shops and burning cars might disagree with that statement.


    I have read one article that says the choice of Hamburg was problematic right from the start, with unions, antifascist platforms and other platforms asking/warning over and over that this even should not be held in Hamburg. However, Scholz and Merkel closed their ears to this, with Merkel conversely stating Hamburg was a good choice indeed. To me, personally, this does not justify any sort of violence on behalf of protesters that existed or could have happened, even if accidentally. But at the same time, I don't understand why anyone insists on organizing something at a place where it is not wanted, probably they perceive it as defeat if they don't do it or as some tour de force when they do it, no idea. I think this "pre" period is important to plan things reasonably.


    But I don't agree with justifications like "if they are going to do it, we will have to organize something (that may go violent)" logic of protesters, either. People are responsible for the violence they create. What bothers me in these is not the damage brought to property only, but what happens if someone from a house needs to, say, go to a hospital urgently when there is fighting on the street? If someone starts giving birth in a house or something? Civilian spaces should be kept safe for civilians who don't want to take sides in this and that is a responsibility of the protesters, too. 


    I'm saying this because no matter what we are perceiving now, it would or could have changed at the face of an accidental death from any "side" or death of a completely irrelevant person, just some person. If someone's eye came out, etc etc. 


    I think the same for rubber bullets or any idea based on military technologies. Rubber bullets are not non-lethal if they are not used correctly (below the torso, on the legs) and I wonder how effective they are when they are used that way against a mad crowd. 


    But altogether the cost was 400 million euro, AFAIK around 100 million euro coming out of Hamburg's pocket and what's the result really? Some decisions that seem to be ticking the right boxes but showing us (IMO) that it is the same old same old when we look at the details of these agreements. The only thing that had complete agreement was Ivanka Trump and Merkel's agreement to save the women in Africa AFAIK and Merkel's "privatized Marshall plan" in general as they have started calling it has already started drawing criticism. I agree with the cruise ship idea. 


  16. 4 hours ago, Eupathic Impulse said:

    "DITIB should be more independent of the Turkish state."


    I don't know how DITIB can be more independent of the Turkish state. I have learnt recently that the head of DITIB. The DI there is Diyanet İşleri which is under the Turkish state and apparently the head of DITIB is part of Turkish diplomatic structure, like his office (or one of his offices I don't know) is in the Turkish Embassy in Berlin. So there can be a TIB maybe Turkish Islam Union but it would mean a different structure but kicking Diyanet out of this would be a move Germany would have to calculate on a completely different ground, its political and perhaps sociological consequences would be different. I think this is a part of the problem, Germany seems to want at this stage the value the name "Turkish State" adds to this probably due to inclinations of the Turkish migrant population in Germany. Turkey in return wants to have control on something that it lends its name to. Interesting situation.    


  17. 1 hour ago, Eupathic Impulse said:

    I gather that Ateş specifically forbids women who wear the "burqa" (or presumably the niqab, since actual burqas are practically unheard of in the West...).  This sounds suspiciously like a sort of "liberal takfirism" -- a sort of excommunication of people who, although they wouldn't attend Ateş's mosque anyway, happen to follow the version of Islamic lifestyle that is most unpopular in the West.


    I think we construct women with niqab in a particular way, like someone who wouldn't visit a mosque like this for instance. And I understand where this comes from, obviously. But when we think about how these women decide to change things (if they ever wish to do so) it's a gradual thing for some. I mean sometimes we may have this fantasy-like narrative where a woman will all of a sudden take this niqab off, but many women go through various transitions where they experiment with new spaces, try new things under the niqab, sometimes take the niqab off a few neighbourhoods away and then put it back when they are around home etc. These add to empowerment whatever the chosen result is. And for these women, the starting point is always with the niqab naturally. But it doesn't mean that they wouldn't visit any extraordinary space.


    They are also constructed as uniformly heterosexual, which is not true. So especially if they are gay themselves, I think a woman in niqab would be happy to be in a niqab when she is trying one of the few spaces available to her in this sense. She could attend meetings in her niqab without feeling uncomfortable. Women in Afghanistan, too, used the burqa to their advantage when they placed cameras underneath and shared with the world the oppression they were under. To my understanding, reform without inclusion turns reform into a consumption space where the already-"reformed" come together. I have nothing against these on an individual basis, but something is not right in my mind still about reform. 


    And no, "people" are not excommunicated, women are. Men who follow the same unpopular Islamic lifestyle also have their not so western clothes. like very lose trousers (I don't know what they are called) with long robes etc. That's not interpreted as man's oppression on man and we also don't know whether men would be able to change their clothing at a whim in some communities. But that's not questioned, all spaces are open to them. Or maybe asking the male attendants if they ever control their spouses clothing? How about those who have jazzed themselves up completely, modern skinny jeans, Metallica t-shirt and all that with a spouse kept in niqab? How liberal is that? 




  18. 20 hours ago, yourkeau said:

    If this woman were to be in history as a first founder of liberal mosque in Germany, most people would forget that she was a Gülen member or something...


    When does "reform" run the risk of turning into "othering"? 


    And have you read this at all? I found it weird personally. I have read something on DW Turkish about some news on Die Welt am Sonntag. It was claimed that Erdoğan asked this mosque to be closed. Seyran Ateş confirmed this saying this yet again shows that Erdoğan has a mentality that does not understand democracy, that does not want democracy at all and he is not on the side of individual freedoms. Die Welt am Sonntag asked for confirmation of this from Foreign Office and got the reply "We are not aware that the Turkish government has any requests from the Federal Government in this regard." 


    How do you read this? Did the Turkish government ask for this from another place, wrong place; is the Foreign Office the wrong place to ask for confirmation or do they not have accurate information, or is this unfounded? Would the media expect Seyran Ateş to state where this confirmation comes from or expect the state to make a correction if they have made a mistake at some point, when the time is more suitable maybe? Is this politics before G-20?  What do you understand from this? (I personally don't understand anything yet, just raised my eyebrows but would certainly want to learn more.) 


  19. 45 minutes ago, yourkeau said:

    I thought you are interested in difference between „alternative facts“ and facts. I, however, can't be sure: your posts are so vague that it seems you do not care. Oder?


    I am interested in how both are produced, what they share and where they differentiate. Basically, I am more interested in where they intersect rather than their difference. I am also interested in conspiracy theories. Zizek - whom I find problematic in a lot of senses but cannot deny how exciting he was for zillions of philosophy and psychoanalysis students at one point- argues roughly that conspiracy theories are a symptom of our problematic democracy today as this form of democracy has a wide information gap between what is and what people are given as truth. I am interested in how a grain of truth or even fact if you like is given many forms especially when I think about fascism.  I am also interested in why Deleuze and Guattari define schizophrenia as a form of fascism.  So basically I am interested in whatever I am for whatever reason and you are free to think whatever you like about me of course. I also don't think everything has to have a serious reason, I'm interested in a number of things because I simply find them interesting.  


    I sure would prefer that you ask me if I sound vague , but ultimately that's your choice, too. I have no control on these things.  


    But yes, I would like to understand how Reichsbürger background got into this or what that is supposed to mean in terms of interaction today - again, from a political perspective if you are interested in answering. I'm not questioning you or your intent in particular, I am interested in background narratives, what we do with them and why when we are discussing politics, democracy etc basically. What kind of "morals" are produced about that one. So my question remains. 


  20. 1 hour ago, yourkeau said:

    Germany is one of the few countries in the world where criminal movies cover things like denial of arrest warrant by prosecutors or disciplinary suspension of a police officer etc. In all other countries movies are about „good people“ fighting „bad people“. German movies cover all the nuances of Rechtsstaat.


    I wouldn't say independent political film is about good people versus bad people in other parts of the world, either, and that includes countries where big industries commonly produce stuff like that. I imagine directors everywhere can have more grasp than that and it's not unique to Germans actually. 


    1 hour ago, yourkeau said:

    You are talking to Reichsbürger living in Canada. According to him, Germany is a BRD GmbH occupied by United States.


    And? :) Why do you find this important when he posts something, is there a certain way of behaviour German life advises us to employ when we come across a Reichsbürger (who is not focusing on that at that particular moment)? Why exactly did you feel the need to remind me of this? (I too want to share my feelings about this - not in relation to Gaberlunzi, I don't like discussing third persons like that, it feels like objectifying them and I also read his thread from time to time etc-  but want to grasp your perspective first.)