“Hard but fair”: Jürgen von der Lippe talks about discrimination

FRank Plasberg and his guests spoke on “Hart Aber Fair” once again about the things they are supposedly not allowed to talk about. The title of the program: “Dispute over the language: what else can be said and what should not be said?” However, who is forbidding whom to use the words was not very clear until the end.

The excited debate was filled with shaking heads, angry muttering, and more or less absurd descriptions of individual cases. Verbal battles over “canceling the culture,” racist terminology, and discrimination beyond words were confused. The revealing moments of the show were rather sparse and spaced.

Plasberg’s guests were Stefanie Lohaus, publisher and founder of “Missy Magazine,” Svenja Flaßpöhler, philosopher and editor-in-chief of “Philosophie Magazin,” writer and columnist Jan Weiler; The journalist and theologian Stephan Anpalagan, who is also a co-founder of the management consultancy “Democracy in Work”, as well as the moderator and comedian Jürgen von der Lippe. Andrew Onuegbu was also invited to the studio for a personal interview. The chef named his restaurant in Kiel “Zum Mohrenkopf”.

“Son” should be called “boy with a penis”

The opening round provided quotes that clearly showed how far apart the guests were from each other. Von der Lippe first quoted Goethe. Because, as an artist, you don’t want to be subject to any linguistic regulations. He concluded by saying: “The white elder is a triple discrimination based on age, skin color and gender.”

The group’s moans reached him in mid-sentence. Weiler said that it is not the language that should free itself from discrimination, but the discriminated one. “It has nothing to do with language, and language is innocent,” says the author. He wanted to defend himself against the fact that you should no longer say “son” in kindergarten, but “boy with a penis.”

Plasberg thought it was a joke: “They made it up.” Weiler laughed, but insisted that he had actually heard it that way. In that case, no factual check will help either. Overall, Weiler and von der Lippe’s strengths tonight were more anecdotal, causing more excitement, but not a deeper understanding.

Language tag

Lohaus completely opposed the claim that language is innocent. “Language is our thinking and our feelings,” he said, “it’s about using language consciously and not using certain terms.”

Anpalagan made it clear that there have always been limits to what can be said, whether through legal norms or social values. “What was later called Political Correctness or today Cancel Culture has always existed.” After all, it was mainly the Germans who wrote carefully what is allowed and what is not, on the label, for example. “I really think it’s wrong that this is not a development,” replied Flaßpöhler directly.

There are different values ​​today than in the past, and that narrowed the way of what could be said, perhaps not in the legal sense, but in the moral, political and moral sense. He cautioned that individual words would no longer be seen in context but instead would be labeled as hurtful per se and therefore should not be used in art, as quotes, or as historical evidence. “For me, this is not a linguistic sensitivity, but a linguistic rigorism, not to say totalitarianism.”

Above all, it was the arguments of these three, especially when they contradicted each other, that provided the brilliant moments of an otherwise poorly reflected discussion.

The peak of irritability

What is “Cancel culture”? The group discussed this question using numerous examples. One of them put von der Lippe into play. It was a short poem on the facade of the Alice Salomon University in Berlin. Eugen Gomringer’s work is about avenues, flowers, women and a fan who contemplates all this.

He was dropped from college a few years ago after students criticized the debasement of the woman in the poem as a mere muse to the man. For von der Lippe incredible, for Lohaus fair, after all, a democratic process led to the decision that this was not censorship.

For Flaßpöhler this demonstrated how high the level of sensitivity is in society. He warned: “Sensitivity is becoming absolutely destructive.” A liberal society can only function if everyone is “immunized” to some degree against this over-sensitivity.

For Lohaus that was too big: “To pretend that people are being canceled en masse and that our free speech or the culture of debate or liberal democracy is completely over, that’s really wrong.” For Lohaus it was almost somewhat correct rhetoric. Flaßpöhler protested loudly against this. Lohaus admitted that he knew Flaßpöhler was not on the right, but it was a question of who he was talking to.

Can you call a restaurant “Zum Mohrenkopf”?

About the individual interview: In 2007, black chef Andrew Onuegbu opened his own restaurant in Kiel and called it “Zum Mohrenkopf”. At Plasberg, he explained the reasons: he could personally identify with it, and the name would have represented fine cuisine in the Middle Ages. Onuegbu has been criticized for this for years. Several times people asked him to change his name because he was racist.

Onuegbu disagrees and, above all, does not want others to tell him. “I think it’s really bad when people try to tell me when my feelings are hurt.” Despite all the admiration for the Kieler, Anpalagan thought the restaurant’s name was inappropriate. Onuegbu could not speak for all black people, Anpalagan said: “I know black people who say that this word is very troublesome.”