It is different because there is no alternative to reliably prevent psychosis afaik.

Why the hell do you get offended by the idea to minimize use of psychatric drugs where possible and to continue use where necessary?

I really wonder why you get offended by “We should try to minimize the use of psychatric drugs, where therapy is a viable alternative”?

Do you prefer taking drugs with potentially severe side effects for the rest of your life? Do you want people to die, because some life event outside their control prevents them from accessing drugs like SSRIs or Benzodiazepines that can be deadly if quit cold turkey?

Nothing of that has to do with maga nutjobs. On the contrary it should be basic human decency to find and provide the least harmful treatment.

Jägerschnitzel (im Osten eine panierte Scheibe Wurst)

Jagdwurst. Die Scheibe ist aus einer JAGDwurst. Deswegen heißt es JÄGERschnitzel.

Ansonsten auch richtig guter Journalismus:

Lebensmittel wie Fleisch waren heiß begehrt und wurden gern auch mal, wenn verfügbar, in Massen gekauft und eingefroren. So sollte unter anderem vorgesorgt werden, wenn Fleisch mal wieder knapp wurde.

Vegetarische und vegane Gerichte waren in der BRD verfügbar. In der DDR wurden die zwar gefordert, doch der Wunsch scheiterte an den Gegebenheiten.

Also was nun? War Fleisch knapp, oder gab es soviel Fleisch, dass vegetarische und vegane Gerichte nicht möglich waren? Wenn ein Gericht kein Fleisch oder Fisch enthält dann ist es vegetarisch. Wenn es keine tierischen Produkten enthält dann ist es vegan.

Es muss nicht alles Quinoa-Soul-Food mit exotischen Früchten sein, damit es vegan ist. Hier scheint die Autorin bei beiden Themen in ihrer westdeutschen Blase gefangen zu sein, die anscheinend mindestens latent kulturchauvinistisch ist.

I agree with the principal sentiment. Except for schizophrenia and other illnesses involving acute psychosis, drugs shouldnt be the permanent solution.

But this requires access to proper psychotherapy, which needs to be part of a consistent concept of slowly reducing the drugs as the condition gets better.

Also this requires a society, where people have enough agency to remove the causes of psychological distress from their life. People getting anxieties is perfectly normal, if they are in constant fear to not be able to pay their bills. People getting depressed is perfectly normal, if they are expected to work a dead end job for the rest of their lifes, etc.

I see none of that coming from the direction of any politician.

EDIT: Wow. People get offended by the idea not to pump people full of drugs for the rest of their lifes, when therapy is a viable alternative. Seriously why do you want people to suffer instead of providing proper healthcare including proper access to therapy and creating life conditions that aren’t designed to make people sick? I never thought this to be controversial.

I also love how the safe prompts in office 365 are putting “this computer” in quotation marks.

The one does not contradict the other. God uses the extreme weather to punish the destruction of his creation by humans.

He just forgot that before the call. That happens often with Scholz.

Because the “perks” of living in Geremany are racism, poor internet and extremely inefficient and slow bureaucracy. If you are brown doctors will not take you seriously most of the time, unless you are in a very bad shape.

Was sagt da die Jugend von heute so?

Wenn so ein ICE mit 250km/h ein Wildschwein mitnimmt, dann ist das bestimmt einige Sekunden in der Luft.

Afghanistan was a NATO “intervention”. The “Coalition of the willing” invading Iraq largely consisted of NATO members and was invoke by Bush at a NATO summit.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalition_of_the_willing_(Iraq_War)

Again you need to differ between formal constitution and de facto actions and perception of them.

Gab lange das Problem, dass Großspeicher regulatorisch wie Verbraucher und Einspeiser behandelt wurden, anstatt einen eigenen regulatorischen Rahmen zu bekommen.

Das Problem war auch schon seit Ewigkeiten vor der Ampel bekannt, wurde aber von Altmailer und co. konsequent verschleppt.

Are you seriously arguing, that no one should feel threatened by the US invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan, because then the leadership of the US changed, while the occupations continued for two more decades?

With that sentiment it is no wonder, that most of the world that is not aligned with the US feel threatened by them. Also you should listen to Putins claims about Ukraine. It is the exact same bullshit. “It is just a special military operation”. “We have to get rid of their corrupt leaders.” “They will have freedom and self determination under us, if they are peaceful.”

Are people actually arguing that NATO membership is the reason for Russian attacks on neighboring nations?

That is your thesis. As can be seen with Russia invasion of Georgia and as it is understood by European politicians and experts, this thesis seems rather weak. This has nothing to do with whether Russias view is justified or not.

But again i’d like to invite the thought experiment. Imagine Mexico or Canada to join a military defense pact with Russia. How do you think the US would react? Which reaction would be justified in your eyes?

If you say that it is different because of how Russia has been using military violence to further its interests, which is a good point, how does that differ from the US invading and occupying Afghanistan and Iraq?

If the US is expanding its influence towards the borders of other nations with power aspirations, it is not perceived any different how we would perceive their influence towards us. Case in point Ukraine. It is not just said, that Russias illegal invasion of Ukraine is a problem because it is an illegal invasion, but it is also said that Ukraine is defending “our” western freedom. But you can’t have it both ways.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Georgian_War#Relations_between_Georgia_and_the_West

During the NATO summit in Bucharest in April 2008, American president George W. Bush campaigned for offering a Membership Action Plan (MAP) to Georgia and Ukraine. However, Germany and France said that offering a MAP to Ukraine and Georgia would be “an unnecessary offence” for Russia.[99] NATO stated that Ukraine and Georgia would be admitted in the alliance and pledged to review the requests for MAP in December 2008.[100] Russian President Vladimir Putin was in Bucharest during the summit. At the conclusion of the summit on 4 April, Putin said that NATO’s enlargement towards Russia “would be taken in Russia as a direct threat to the security of our country”.[101] Following the Bucharest summit, Russian hostility increased and Russia started to actively prepare for the invasion of Georgia.[102] The Chief of the General Staff of the Russian Armed Forces Yuri Baluyevsky said on 11 April that Russia would carry out “steps of a different nature” in addition to military action if Ukraine and Georgia join NATO.[103] General Baluyevsky said in 2012 that after President Putin had decided to wage the war against Georgia prior to the May 2008 inauguration of Dmitry Medvedev as president of Russia, a military action was planned and explicit orders were issued in advance before August 2008. According to Van Herpen, Russia aimed to stop Georgia’s accession to NATO and also to bring about a “regime change”.[83][104]

There is a direct cause-effect relationship for Russias invasion of Georgia and it seems that at the time France and Germany were aware of this, while Bush pushed for an escalation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Georgian_War#Geopolitical_impact

The 2008 war was the first time since the fall of the Soviet Union that the Russian military had been used against an independent state, demonstrating Russia’s willingness to use military force to attain its political objectives.[287] Robert Kagan argued that “Historians will come to view Aug. 8, 2008, as a turning point” because it “marked the official return of history”.[288] The failure of the Western security organisations to react swiftly to Russia’s attempt to violently revise the borders of an OSCE country revealed its deficiencies. The division between Western European and Eastern European states also became apparent over the relationship with Russia. Ukraine and other ex-Soviet countries received a clear message from the Russian leadership that the possible accession to NATO would cause a foreign incursion and the break-up of the country. Effective takeover of Abkhazia was also one of Russia’s geopolitical goals.

The war also affected Georgia’s ongoing and future memberships in international organisations. On 12 August 2008 the country proclaimed that it would quit the Commonwealth of Independent States, which it held responsible for not avoiding the war. Its departure became effective in August 2009.[291] The war hindered Georgia’s prospects for joining NATO for the foreseeable future.[87][292] Medvedev stated in November 2011 that NATO would have accepted former Soviet republics if Russia had not attacked Georgia. “If you … had faltered back in 2008, the geopolitical situation would be different now,” Medvedev told the officers of a Vladikavkaz military base.

According to academic Martin Malek, western countries did not feel it was necessary to aggravate tensions with Russia over “tiny and insignificant” Georgia. He wrote in the Caucasian Review of International Affairs that Western policy makers did not want to alienate Russia because its support was necessary to solve “international problems”.[38] The May 2015 report by the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the European Parliament stated that “the reaction of the EU to Russia’s aggression towards, and violation of the territorial integrity of, Georgia in 2008 may have encouraged Russia to act in a similar way in Ukraine”.[294] The Russian invasion of Ukraine brought the memories of the Russo-Georgian War again into a broader geopolitical focus. In an opinion piece published in The New York Times on 6 March 2022, the incumbent Prime Minister of the United Kingdom Boris Johnson stated that Russia’s actions in Georgia in 2008 was one of the lessons of the past that the West has failed to learn

This isn’t just “Putin said”. There seems to be a quite clear understanding of that being the trigger point for Russia among foreign policy politicians and experts in Europe.

The dutch article that AA refers to:

https://www.volkskrant.nl/binnenland/zorgen-bij-ministeries-over-ongewenste-inmenging-israel-in-nederlands-debat~baa860e8/

The dutch article, that AA refers to:

https://www.volkskrant.nl/binnenland/zorgen-bij-ministeries-over-ongewenste-inmenging-israel-in-nederlands-debat~baa860e8/

Wenn der Magen leer ist, kann auch der beste Lehrer wenig erreichen.

Das ist doch wieder der selbe hasserfüllte Mist von wegen “die Armen wissen nicht, wie man mit Geld umgeht”

Das ist keine direkte Unterstützung. Das ist die Verzögerungstaktik von Künast & co. Der Antrag könnte sofort eingereicht werden. Stattdessen erstmal in einem parlamentarischen Verfahren Infos zu sammeln, zumal unter AfD Beteiligung, dient dazu, den Antrag hinauszuzögern, wahrscheinlich bis weit nach der Wahl.

Depends on the losses on both sides.