Category Archives: English

21 Questions – How to Disagree, And Actually Understand Why

21 Questions: How to Disagree, and Actually Understand Why

You probably know Twenty Questions (in German also known as Wer bin ich?): A player chooses a celebrity or an object and the other players have to figure out what by asking only yes-or-no questions. I took this game and made a similar one for discussions to be more productive.

Continue reading


How to stop Brexit (well, not literally, but effectively)

In June, the people of the United Kingdom voted for leaving the EU. And a lot of Brits still seem unhappy about its result.

So I’ve got this idea. (Not sure if I’m the first one, if not, please ping me
to the original.)

  1.  The UK government should draft a deal for a hard Brexit, meaning
    • no freedom of movement, thus no free migration from and to the EU
    • no customs-free access to the EU market
  2. They should draft another deal with the EU to leave the union but
    get a status similar to Norway or Switzerland, meaning:

    • freedom of movement, including free migration of people from and to other
      EU countries
    • customs-free access to the EU market
  3. There should be another referendum where the British people can choose between these two deals.

That second referendum should not be in violation of the first one, it would clearly acknowledge the Leave decision.

But the referendum’s question was only about Remain or Leave, not about the conditions or circumstances of Remain or Leave. In particular, it said nothing about the migration and free market issues, and it is well possible that some Leave voters intended a solution like for Norway or Switzerland.

Thus the second referendum would give the British people opportunity to specify what they want, so everyone generally embracing direct democracy should be in favour of it.

If the second deal wins, the UK would still leave the EU but the consequences would be similar to a Remain – so effectively (meaning: how it affects the British economy and people) Brexit would be stopped.

Of course, also the first deal could win. But this would then be at least a much more informed decision – which could be better accepted by all British.

The ideal solution for Hungary’s prime minister Orbán (and the refugees)

  • He builds a refugee camp exactly at the unprotected Austrian-Hungarian border.
  • He brings all the refugees, who come to Hungary, to this camp and registers them (thus fulfilling EU law / Dublin regulation).
  • The camp has no fence, so refugees who want so (currently nearly all of them), simply walk out to Austria.
  • Refugee-enthusiastic Austrians and Germans take them in / let them travel to Germany.


  • No refugees in Hungary while breaking no rules (Win for Orbán!)
  • Refugees make it to Austria/Germany (Win for the refugees!)
  • Germany gets more refugees (Win for Germans!)

Drop the *isms. Just say what you want, and be specific.

Today, I launched a new site, which was heavily inspired by As the original, it contains only two questions:

  1. Do you think all human beings are equal?
  2. Do you think men are human beings?

By saying Yes to both of them, it gives you the honor of calling you a masculist:

Congratulations, you are a masculist!

If you are now saying that you are not convinced, I can understand. The same I felt on

As I can easily say Yes to both questions (as well as on, I am not calling myself a masculist nor a feminist. And that is for a simple reason:

Both terms are way too abstract and have been used for too many different things to convey any useful information. For feminism for instance, you have can find Christina Hoff Sommers, arguing for equal legal and civil rights – as well as Valerie Solanas, arguing for elimination of the male sex. Both called themselves “feminist”, and both are seen by others as feminists. By labelling yourself as a feminist, you leave room for being anywhere in this spectrum.

The same problem comes also with criticsm of feminism, as in “Women against Feminism”: Because the term is so unspecific, some people will misunderstand you and think you also oppose other things they see tied to feminism – things you maybe totally support.

Too often I saw people discussing about an issue X, when somebody threw in “But you said you are a feminist, so you have to support X.” The discussion then continued about whether X is feminist (or not) instead of whether X is good (or not), barely helping the insight into X.

So what instead? I suggest: Be as specific as possible about the things you support (or deny). A good example are the following questions that I found in another “Are you a feminist” test. I liked them so much that I copied and tweaked them a bit in order to address also some inequalities which “masculists” see.

Now, try for yourself, to how many demands from both (allegedly antagonistic) camps can you agree?

Women should be economically and socially independent. They shouldn’t rely on men to take care of them. Men should not be economically and socially responsible for women. They shouldn’t be expected to take care of women.
There is no such thing as a “man’s job.” It is wrong for men to be given preference for any job position, even if women traditionally aren’t in that field. There is no such thing as “natural motherhood”. It is wrong for women to be given preference in child custody, even if men traditionally aren’t in that field.
Men and women should be held to the same sexual standards. If men can sleep around without judgment, women should be able to as well. Men and women should be held to the same standards of sexual abuse and violence. If women feel harassed and receive help for unwanted sexual advances and violent threats, so should men in the same manner. Violence against men should be equally condemned as violence against women.
Women should take an equal role in dating. Women should ask out people they are interested in and take their turn in paying. Women should take an equal role in dating. Men should be asked out by people who have an interest in them and not expected to pay always or most of the time.
Women should accept their bodies as they are. Women should not have to conform to wacky beauty ideals. Men should accept their economic situation as it is. Men should not have to conform to wacky status ideals.
A woman should be able to marry and have kids with anyone she wants – including another woman. A man should be able to marry and have kids with anyone he wants – including another man.
Women should have the right to choose any path in life – from being a stay at home mom to a Fortune 500 CEO. Men should have the right to choose any path in life – from being a Fortune 500 CEO to stay at home dad.
Women should be encouraged to pursue education as much as men are. In education, men and women should be held to the same standards when being graded.
Women should have legal, easy access to all types of birth control – including the morning after pill. Men should have legal, easy access to all types of birth control – the research on the pill for men should be supported.
You would support a woman for president (if you agreed with her politics). You would support an unmarried man for president (if you agreed with his politics).

List of FIFA country pairings that form words

Today, I saw this tweet passing by:

Translation of the linked image: Little question about the World Cup: If Nigeria advances and plays against Germany – will there be written for 90 minutes NIG – GER in the upper left corner of the screen?

The actual answer is No: The FIFA country code for Nigeria is not NIG but NGA. However, there is a country with a code NIG: Niger. So a match Niger vs. Germany would be interesting to watch.

That little question though, inspired me to do some proper research: Which FIFA country pairings do actually form words? And here is the full list 1:

Angola Lesotho angles
Austria Oman automa
Bangladesh Chile banchi
Bangladesh Germany banger
Bangladesh Zaire banzai
Belgium Uganda beluga
Bermuda Germany berger
Bermuda Thailand bertha
Bermuda Vietnam bervie
Bolivia Denmark bolden
Brunei Angola bruang
Bulgaria Germany bulger
Burma Botswana burbot
Burma Denmark burden
Burma Netherlands burned
Cambodia Bermuda camber
Cambodia Palestine cample
Cambodia Peru camper
Canada Austria canaut
Canada Chile canchi
Canada Netherlands canned
Cayman Islands Uganda cayuga
Central African Republic Tanzania caftan
Chad Botswana chabot
Chad Morocco chamar
Chad Nicaragua chanca
Chad Nigeria changa
Chad Zanzibar chazan
Chile Australia chiaus
Chile Chad chicha
Chile Netherlands chined
Colombia Liechtenstein collie
Colombia Morocco colmar
Comoros Bermuda comber
Congo-Brazzaville Angola cobang
Congo-Brazzaville Bermuda cobber
Congo-Brazzaville Brazil cobbra
Croatia Czechoslovakia crotch
Cuba Dominican Republic cubdom
DR Congo Germany codger
DR Congo Russia codrus
Denmark Senegal densen
England Azerbaijan engaze
Finland Germany finger
Finland Netherlands finned
France Czechoslovakia fratch
France Scotland frasco
Gabon Bermuda gabber
Gambia Bolivia gambol
Ghana Latvia ghalva
Gibraltar Bermuda gibber
Guyana Dominican Republic guydom
Honduras Estonia honest
Hungary Germany hunger
Iceland Andorra island
Jamaica Panama jampan
Lebanon Bermuda libber
Lebanon Brazil libbra
Lebanon Kenya libken
Lebanon Netherlands Antilles libant
Lesotho Liechtenstein leslie
Lesotho Senegal lessen
Liechtenstein Germany lieger
Liechtenstein Norway lienor
Madagascar Denmark madden
Madagascar Nepal madnep
Morocco Angola marang
Morocco Canada marcan
Morocco Saint Vincent and the Grenadines marvin
Morocco Thailand martha
Namibia Madagascar nammad
Netherlands Antilles Dominican Republic antdom
Netherlands Denmark holden
Niger Germany nigger
Niger North Yemen nignye
Northern Ireland Lesotho nirles
Oman Guatemala omagua
Palestine, British Mandate Madagascar palmad
Palestine, British Mandate Morocco palmar
Panama Aden panade
Panama Namibia pannam
Panama Tunisia pantun
Paraguay Aden parade
Paraguay Angola parang
Paraguay Palestine, British Mandate parpal
Paraguay Tanzania partan
Peru Chad percha
Peru Norway pernor
Poland Luxembourg pollux
Portugal Germany porger
Portugal Oman poroma
Puerto Rico Dahomey purdah
Puerto Rico Germany purger
Puerto Rico Palestine purple
Romania Peru romper
Romania Peru rouper
Russia Siam russia
Russia Sudan russud
Réunion Benin reuben
Samoa Palestine sample
Samoa Panama sampan
Scotland Czechoslovakia scotch
Singapore Germany singer
Somalia Bermuda somber
Sudan Denmark sudden
Tahiti Singapore tahsin
Taiwan Panama taipan
Tanzania Burma tanbur
Tanzania Germany tanger
Tanzania Guam tangum
Tanzania Netherlands tanned
Thailand Czechoslovakia thatch
Trinidad and Tobago Chile trichi
Trinidad and Tobago Kiribati trikir
Trinidad and Tobago Libya trilby
Trinidad and Tobago Nigeria tringa
Trinidad and Tobago Palestine, British Mandate tripal
Trinidad and Tobago Palestine triple
Tunisia Norway tunnor
Turkey Bangladesh turban
Turkey Botswana turbot
Turkey Kenya turken
Turkey Netherlands turned
Turkey Tanzania turtan
United States Germany usager
Venezuela Germany venger
Wales Russia walrus
Zaire Thailand zaitha
Zambia Angola zamang

1 Obsolete codes are included, word list source

Update June 22: Get the code at Github and check with your own word list (e.g. in your language).

Why “Academic Justice” instead of Academic Freedom is a horribly bad idea

Last week, I learned about the article The Doctrine of Academic Freedom in which the author argues that Academic Freedom should be replaced with something she calls “Academic Justice”:

If our university community opposes racism, sexism, and heterosexism, why should we put up with research that counters our goals simply in the name of “academic freedom”?

Instead, I would like to propose a more rigorous standard: one of “academic justice.” When an academic community observes research promoting or justifying oppression, it should ensure that this research does not continue.

I want to give an example to show why this a horribly bad idea:

Imagine a society which takes the idea of “equal rights for everybody” very seriously. Therefore, in this society there is no age of consent regarding to sexual relationships. People argue that such an age of consent would limit the rights of children and would be “ageist”.

So in this society, adults could have sex with children.

Now, there would be some scientists that see problems with this situation. They have hints that children suffer from this practise. So they want to start a research about if and how sex between adults and children might be harmful to children.

But, thanks to the policy of Academic Justice, which takes the value of “equal rights for everybody” very seriously, which has an agenda against ageism, this research would be stopped immediately.

What the proponent of “Academic Justice” misses out is that values like anti-racism and anti-sexism are not “just there”. They arose and spread out because people questioned racism and sexism. And they could do so because of freedom of thought.

Additionally, it is not always clear how these goals are best implemented in practice.  The recent debate on prostitution in Germany is such an example: Some people argue that keeping it legalized and regulated is anti-sexist because it empowers women while other people argue that banning it serves better.

It is the constant questioning of our values and goals that makes sure they are good values and that their implementation specs head to the right directions or rather should be corrected.

Arguing that this freedom of thought is not necessary anymore is like saying that all our current values and specs are the best ones ever possible.

“Differenzieren sollen mal die anderen”

Wer in sozialen Netzwerken unterwegs ist, hat letzten Montag bestimmt dieses Bild von “extra 3” gesehen. In Bezug auf die am Sonntag zuvor abgestimmte Schweizer Initiative “Gegen Masseneinwanderung” zeigt es, wie die Schweizer Fußball-Nationalmannschaft ausgesehen hätte, wenn “die Schweizer schon früher etwas gegen ‘Masseneinwanderung’ unternommen” hätten:

Mannschaftsfoto - Schweiz

Nicht mehr im Kader: Gökhan Inler (Eltern aus Türkei eingewandert), Blerim Dzemaili (geboren in Mazedonien), Tranquillo Barnetta (Eltern aus Italien eingewandert), Granit Xhaka (Eltern aus Kosovo eingewandert), Xherdan Shaqiri (geboren in Jugoslawien), Diego Benaglio (Eltern aus Italien eingewandert), Haris Seferovic (Eltern aus Bosnien eingewandert), Pajtim Kasami (geboren in Mazedonien). Quelle: extra-3

Und diese Aufzählung hat mich dann verwirrt.

  1. Das Ziel der abgestimmten Initiative war es, die Einwanderung (wieder) zu steuern und damit begrenzen zu können. Die einzigen Länder, aus denen derzeit Menschen unkontrolliert in die Schweiz einwandern können, sind Länder aus der EU und der EFTA.
    Anders gesagt: Für Leute, die aus Nicht-EU-Ländern wie der Türkei, Mazedonien, dem Kosovo, Bosnien und Mazedonien kommen, ändert sich mit der Abstimmung nichts. Für sie gilt weiterhin keine Personenfreizügigkeit, sie müssen sich andere Wege in die Schweiz suchen – wie es ja offenbar die o.g. Fußballspieler taten.
  2. Um in der Schweizer Fußballnationalmannschaft zu spielen, muss man Schweizer Staatsbürger sein, entweder durch Geburt oder durch Einbürgerung. In der Abstimmung ging es aber gar nicht um das Schweizer Bürgerrecht, sondern eben um das Aufenthaltsrecht.
  3. Das jetzt auf der Kippe stehende Personenfreizügigkeits-Abkommen gilt in der unbeschränkten Form erst seit 2007. Da haben aber alle o.g. Spieler schon längst in der Schweiz gelebt.

Der Zusammenhang zwischen der Masseneinwanderungs-Initiative und dem Fußballspieler-Foto ist also ähnlich eng wie der zwischen der Forderung nach der Pille danach und dem Foto eines abgetriebenen Fötus.

Zu Recht haben sich viele über die teilweise undifferenzierte und uninformierte Debatte bei der Pille danach geärgert. Es nervt und ist furchtbar unproduktiv, wenn jemand Fakten verdreht, unzulässig pauschalisiert, wichtige Details nicht beachtet oder bloß zu faul zum Googlen ist.

Das nervt aber bei allen Debatten.

Es gibt genügend gute Gründe für Einwanderung; seien es demographische, ökonomische oder auch moralische. Nur wenn man von anderen Differenzierung verlangt und dabei glaubwürdig bleiben will, sollte man eben auch selber differenzieren.