Tacheles instead of disclaimer

A disclaimer is a technical term used in Internet law for an exclusion of liability. Translated, the English verb "to disclaim" means "to deny" or "to dispute". Website operators use disclaimers for legal reasons. You must.

Articles identified by name do not necessarily reflect the opinion of the publisher. 

If you scroll a little, you will reliably find this sentence below the text. Actually, the message is unnecessary. Of course, Langemann & Löcke do not agree on everything. The reader knows that and yet the sentence is there. Disclaimers are used to legally cover your own ass. That's what it's all about.

Covering your own ass? Maybe I should apologize. Perhaps it would have been wiser to use less vulgar language. In this case, I deliberately used a crude formulation so that I could make an elegant transition to the actual topic of this column. Our daily communication is characterized by internalized disclaimers. We distance ourselves from ourselves and use phrases that are tantamount to moral disclaimers. These are disclaimers that are intended to prevent incorrect judgments by those around us. We use such disclaimers voluntarily. We do not have to.

Everyone is familiar with everyday situations that lead to interpersonal interactions. The dialogs and conversations take place at parties and family celebrations, in the pub, in the supermarket and in the office. A topical political issue is addressed and even before the actual opinion is expressed, one's own opinion is put into perspective.

Please don't misunderstand me when I say (...). I really don't deny corona, but I am of the opinion (...). I am certainly not an AfD voter, Trump supporter or Putin supporter, but in this specific case I do believe (...).

Have you observed such or other disclaimers in everyday life with others or do you even feel caught out? I don't condemn it, because the reason is understandable. Behind it is the fear of social ostracism and professional exclusion. You want to protect your own reputation. After all, you often don't know what makes the other person tick and what they think politically.

People explain themselves before they explain themselves. You give the other person an instruction manual on how to understand and interpret what you have said. And above all, you distance yourself from your own opinion with disclaimers. I think that's dangerous and also exhausting.

It is by no means just the fear of expressing the wrong political opinion that makes us resort to disclaimers. Cue the language police and cancel culture. What else can I say and how can I say it so as not to hurt someone's feelings?

I really don't want to hurt you, but (...). Please respect this subjective view of mine when I say (...). The criticism I am about to express really has nothing to do with your skin color and your gender, but (...).

We justify ourselves even though we don't have to. We apologize in advance, even though there is nothing to apologize for. We use emojis in the digital space. These are also disclaimers so that the other person in the chat knows how to understand what I have said. There is another way.

Markus Langemann's interview with Monika Gruber [1, 2] spoke to many people from the heart and soul. Thank you for the feedback. What applies to the cabaret artist also applies to Harald Schmidt. The reactions to podium appearances by the TV entertainment icon are similar to the reactions to the recent interview. People are enthusiastic and grateful to receive something they have missed for so long. What exactly is it that people miss?

Is it their quick wit and humor, perhaps even the political views that shine through, that make Gruber & Schmidt so popular? These may be reasons, but I suspect the main reason is something else.

Tacheles! Monika Gruber and Harald Schmidt are still two people who speak freely and spontaneously and don't make a murder pit out of their hearts. At last, two people who don't worry about whether the words they speak might trigger moral outrage. Both of them manage without hasty apologies, without relativization, without a disclaimer.  

That used to be a matter of course. It should be taken for granted, but many people have lost it. The rampant state censorship is bad enough. You can work on the censorship that you impose on yourself. 

Speaking your mind unveiled and without false consideration? There is a forgotten expression for this. Talk straight!