Kates Playgroundzip Set

culture of debate - I believe, have now I understand how the wind blows ...

Today's FAZ-track commentary by Reinhard Müller, "The nonsense an alley" , deals with the bad habit, on or off radical expressions to respond immediately to prohibition or exclusion, "But the basic idea is correct, that all statements that do not call to hatred or violence, must be endured first," writes Mueller. And: "Since when exactly should we announce in the SPD (SPD, DGB, DFB, EKD, etc.) no more nonsense?" As far as I can follow him, then he makes a statement that contains correct, is defamatory in its sweeping but ". Still there are perpetrators and victims who will be pinpointed on the side of the victim may say almost anything." Well but then the conclusion: "There is no obligation to bore the citizen and against radical views and actions helps first of all calm.."

This thrust came just hours before a thought for public debate culture. So far, I found myself always associated head-shaking induced in the light of discussion courses on various topics. The opening is usually a "agitators" and it answered a "softening". I simplify somewhat, but in any case run the fronts diametrically opposed (which actually fronts always have to be ...). Real arguments are hardly changed, it is usually too general condemnations, to determine the Diskussionsunwürdigkeit of each other or similar controversy. Only gradually settles down - after an increasing number of discussants have turned on - the whole thing, and the Debate gets at least in part a factual level. I've always wondered why it is not possible, from the beginning a balanced result in substantive discussion. Ie why the opponents of anything are not able to lead the pro-arguments - and vice versa. This made me almost despair sometimes about "our people".

But now I think: What if it's just so dependent? If we just have to accept that just runs the hare. When it finally and at last but then in the substantive discussion, opens into the pros and cons are brought up to today, then one on action, compromise, concrete political action decided - then but it is good.

But this means that if again brings someone a steep thesis on the table and is first threshed verbally with each other: smile, stay calm, wait, knowing that it will calm down, bring maybe here and there a subtle reference - but otherwise do not waste the forces, but later his brains invest when substantive contributions actually have a chance to be heard or read.

serenity seems to me in so very many ways the most urgent priority. And we have forgotten how significant progress in recent years. I think the Web 2.0 - as much as I'm moving it - has contributed to a significant part.