Racism or satire? This is how ARD viewers react

Reactions to Hallervorden in the ARD

“Satire should be broken”

Indecent racism or legitimate satire? Dieter Hallervorden’s appearance on the ARD anniversary show divides the opinions of the T-Online readers.

199 minutes includes “the big anniversary show” in honor of the 75th birthday of the ARD. But afterwards there is only one scene that is less than two and a half minutes: Dieter Hallervorden’s “Palim Palim” appearance in which he uses as racist terms.

Some spectators get upset about the performance, so that both the ARD and Hallervoren were prompted to publicly take a position. There were also many T-online readers among the spectators. Most letters read a lack of understanding for the outrage, but some position themselves against the 89-year-old.

Peter Auer writes: “Just because certain words should no longer be said today because part of society mocked it does not mean that the person who uses it is a racist. There are people who grew up with exactly these words, but do not dream of discrimination with non-German origin.”

“The statements of Dieter Hallervorden are tasteless and stupid,” says Emanuel Stanley. “He is apparently not aware that we live in a time when such terms are completely inappropriate within the satire and are no longer funny.

Elke Grünwald-Schwantes says: “It is correct and important to no longer use discriminatory terms in everyday language use. But you often have the feeling that the target should be shot out and the satire is to be broken.

“If a detached comedian, who was once in and in his time, can only draw attention to himself with such racist statements in order to secure the affection of a certain group, it is time for him,” says Andreas Cock. “Such backwards people are not needed to continue our society.”

Dagmar Behrendt mail: “Dieter Hallervorden did it very well and has my full support. The fact that the N and Z words can no longer be said is bordered on paternalism, intolerance and misunderstood tolerance. This also means that the efforts not to show Karl May films.”

Margit Lenssen The following opinion is represented: “If an ancient man is racist, then it is his thing and it does not seem to be instructive. But if the ARD reproduces racist sayings on its best transmitter, it is not forgivable. Racism is not a satire. The ARD should know and in any case.”

Frank Female It looks different: “As much as I understand that grievances like racism begin in language and language is an expression of thinking, but at the same time thinking also determines thinking, so terms that were common for a long time should not be ‘prohibited’.” Rather, they should be used in a targeted manner to critically reflect thinking.

The T-Online reader also writes: “Hallervoren does not criticize the fight against racism, but the meaningfulness of the speech as a means of combating false thinking, in the sense of silence. As if the thinking could be shown in barriers.

Frank Weigele thinks the ARD’s statement is good: “On the one hand, it distances herself from racism that she does not want to promote. On the other hand, she supports the art form satire, which relies on freedom of expression and speech. This is the right mix for a discourse that has to be more as a reflex-like outrage that only polarizes.”