Enlarge image
Polish security forces repair a barbed wire fence on the border with Belarus
Photo: Irek Doro¿añski / Dwot / picture alliance / dpa
It's the time of comebacks that nobody needs. »Wetten, dass«, »TV Total«, bell-bottoms ... so far, so harmless, but then also: Discussions about air filters in schools, about the obligation to work from home and the prospect of an infectious Christmas. Plus debates about whether or not to save refugees. You could be emotionally and intellectually fully occupied with the horror of how incredibly few people can learn. And how divided we are when it comes to saving lives.
Two of the politically particularly acute problems - pandemic and flight - have striking similarities: The terms slip. »Morality« and »freedom«, »authoritarian« and »totalitarian« have become extremely suspicious markers that are intended to serve as demarcation and are constantly used in a curious twist.
"Freedom" used to be a mainly positive term. Since the corona pandemic, it has to be assumed that those who loudly demand »freedom« have the scariest definition of it and in principle wash their hands for a maximum of five seconds. It's actually fascinating how much you can drag a term into the mud: freedom as the freedom to consciously behave unsocially. This has been known not only since the discussion about "free travel for free citizens", where "freedom" means endangering oneself and others at irrationally high speeds.
Speaking of which, it occurs to me: "Anyone who allows compulsory vaccination disregards freedom," wrote Ulf Poschardt in the summer. Forcing people to vaccinate "would turn the already irritable mood in society into something pre-civil war", and it was "spooky" to think about it. It was clear that he was writing that, one might think. But not that clear either. Because in 2013 he still wrote: "The freedom of the individual ends where it causes irresponsible things at the expense of the general public." very to collect the angry citizens from the right edge.
"Morality" used to be a relatively neutral term for a collection of values of certain individuals or groups. That doesn't really apply anymore. When "morality" is spoken of today, it is mostly for the purpose of delimitation. This is weird, because actually every person, mostly before learning to walk and / or speak, has some kind of morality, but "morality" has now gone through the same thing as the "good" in "do-gooder". "Good" used to be ... well, positive connotations.
"Opening the fence would be morally good," wrote Nikolaus Blome yesterday about the situation on the Polish-Belarusian border, "but not the right decision." has made it clear that people are already dying there at the border. It is not primarily about an abstract debate on values, but to be honest, it is about life and death.
And even more twisted terms: "authoritarian" and "totalitarian". Both terms are now used to refer to people who are in favor of mandatory vaccination. Sure guys. Just as totalitarian as the ban on smoking on trains and the obligation to wear seat belts in the car and the ban on beating children, even if they are your own! People who call it "authoritarian", "totalitarian" or "fascistoid" when others speak out in favor of protecting people from a deadly disease, try to play a rebellious-casual sound on their mob, only that what they rebel, unfortunately they are solidarity and reason. Awkward.
It is particularly bizarre to listen to this talk about a "totalitarian" and "authoritarian" vaccination requirement while people are locked in mortal danger a good eight hours' drive from Berlin - on the border between a state with a totalitarian and one with an authoritarian government. People who hope for freedom, by the way. Suggestion: If you want to do something against authoritarianism and totalitarianism, you shouldn't abuse Karl Lauterbach on the Internet, but speak out in favor of accepting the refugees. To ask too much?
Of course, terms like “freedom” and “morality”, “authoritarian” and “totalitarian” can be defined very differently.
But not that different.
Anyone who says "freedom" and means egoism, who says "morality" and means human rights, who says "authoritarian" or "totalitarian" and means "protecting health and life" doesn't just have a special definition, but tries to create an image to create as a noble fighter where survival has long been at stake for others.