tbh if youve been in vienna and only went there you cant be helped anyway. no matter if uneducated low wage jobs are mainly done by immigrants. especially low qualification gastro and tourism "depends" on them. but you get real food at a similar price in a real restaurant with service (especially burger king is pricey, ive never been to kfc)
i wasnt joking when i said you missed out if you went to some fast food chain. even the not so nice looking places (we call them "beisl") often have tasty food at decent price (especially at around noon). as tourist you probably wont find them so easily though since those left are in the outer districts a bit off the "interesting" places - but vienna isnt this big either, just wander of the tourist paths a few streets.
It was a school trip and I was 15 years old. Couldn't wander off much. However we went to restaurants for dinner.
oh really? is there a special reason for vienna or was it just another city in another country? here schools mainly go to england or france for language reasons.
It was about technology. We visited the museum of natural history and also went to m'u'nich for the museum of technology. That was my first school trip in highschool. The year before they went to england tho. Later after Austria and Germany I went to Spain, Madrid and Toledo. Next year I went two times to Italy and Switzerland. And last year was in Hungary and Vienna again. France and England are my next destinations. No more school so I have to save money as soon as I start earning it and go alone
no wonder you guys went bankrupt if you travel 1200km to visit museums im kinda jelly we didnt go anywhere with school at all.
It was the only good thing about school and my school is well know for its trips abroad. This years no trips were scheduled because the new noob principal was afraid of the terrorist attacks. victim of terrorism. It's like skipping christmas holidays for me </333333333
To be fair, I'm a little nervous about going to live in Al-Emmania myself. After Paris and Brussels it's definitely going to be England or Germany that's attacked next, Europe has become a game of minesweeper with high stakes
sitting infront of your computer typing scared bullshit is more likely the cause of long-term health issues or even death than terrorism - and this by a factor of several thousand. we have this saying in german "zu tode gefürchtet ist auch gestorben". directly translated it means something like "scared to death is dead aswell". live your life, you dont know what you die from anyway and once youre dead its unimportant to you aswell. why give up on everything making life worth living just because you are scared of something which is about no threat to you at all?
I'm not giving up on anything, but I hate the Grünen argument of "if you're scared of terrorism you must be a dumb redneck because heart disease/obesity/car crashes is more likely to kill you" People are afraid of the unknown. If I eat too many donuts and don't get enough exercise, then I'm aware of the health risks. If I go skydiving, I'm aware that I may die. If I swim on a shark beach, I know I may die. If I go to a concert in Paris or an airport in Brussels or a bus in London or a train in Germany or to work in America or literally sit at home and do nothing in Italy, I don't expect to get shot/blown up/bombed/stabbed/plane rammed/raped then murdered respectively by some muslim jihadi. The point of terrorism, why people do it at all, is to instill the notion that it can happen anywhere at any time. Terrorism has been that way for hundreds of years in dozens of countries for hundreds of reasons. Even the name terrorism tells you exactly what it intends to do. So every time someone says "but yeah you could totally die in another way so this way to die isn't so bad" is the biggest copout apologist shite I hear all day. People who were bombed in the London Underground by the Irish didn't go around saying "well I lost an arm and a dozen people died but at least it wasn't falling off a ladder - those things kill a couple more people each year so are obviously way scarier". The Boston Marathon victims, the ones who survived by induced comas and massive blood transfusions, didn't talk about how dangerous drink driving is. It's important to put give the appropriate level of response to threats and dangers, like you're saying, but that doesn't give a license for people to say "random bombings are scary but so is giving your kid sugar so don't worry about it guy".
i only mean to say, "dont shit your pants", because thats what this panic is all about. you act up like there wouldnt be surveilance up to a level where it curtails civic liberties already. we have police forces armed so well they could invade a small underdeveloped country. you cant do shit about terrorism. there was a resistance in the 3rd reich. there have been assassinations attempts on hitler - and they had the gestapo and about null civil liberties ... ... so what you want? a curfew and fire command for violators? give up on everything our societies stand for? do you want terrorists to win, because thats how terrorists win. we have another saying, "angst ist ein schlechter ratgeber" (fear is a bad counselor)
I never said I want totalitarianism for safety, nor did I imply anything could be done about it - I just said its a concern.
but a rather pointless one - if you dont want a totalitarian state, theres fuck all you can do* and even if its questionable as i tried to show. worrying about what you cant influence isnt very smart. and because i talk so bold - its not like i can keep my cool all the time, ofc it takes its toll on me aswell, but i see no reason why i should go out and promote the panic. *except for the things we already do.
I guess it depends on your definition of a governments responsibilities. The Austrian election was essentially a referendum on immigration. 50.3% want more refugees. Of course this is a massive simplification but someone who says that the refugee crisis wasn't the major issue of the election is a liar. Do you think a government restricting immigration of certain groups of people, such as refugees, is totalitarian?
devourawr moved to britain like 3 months ago from australia and now he acts like he's always lived in europe
I obviously haven't, but isn't everyone allowed to express opinions on politics no matter which country it's in? By the amount of donald trump hate in every newspaper and this forum I would have thought that was the case.
im just surprised you know so much german that you are able to boil what the austrian election was about down to one thing from your flat in britain
its even hard for me, mainly because its so faceted. sure refugees played a role, but - contrary to what his political opponents insinuated - van der bellen is no proponent of open-boarder politics. he clearly said that and its nothing he could do anything about either. thats just none of our presidents business, he has no say in this whatsoever - but did that matter? no ofc not, since the masses filled with hatred for everyting not austrian - whatever austrian might be, not even schnitzel is austrian, its from milano and before that from china, they were the first to coat meat in dough - are dumb. not in the meaning of unintelligent, but in the meaning of making uninformed decisions. its this kind of people that put all the blame of their misarable lifes on a weaker group - a hundred year you would have called that fascist, but omg you cant say fascist today. its certainly not that bad ... nono ... its just poor people. poor in mind and heart if you ask me. anyways - another reason is that austrias policial system is extremely lethargic. with short intermezzos we had the same two parties ruling the country since '45. theres also no tradition of strikes, austrians like to nag (we call it "sudern"), but thats it. we carry every burden with almost stoic apathy. if we revolt, we revolt against those below, certainly not against those above. metternich still is strong in the austrian soul. the most important - but probably less noted in foreign media - thing that happend though is : none of the two candidates was from a ruling party, both of their candidates (we have a coalition government, atm its 2 parties, spö and övp) ended up on the last place out of 6. thats a novum for austira. and then theres the EU - no business of the president either but thats never a reason. since the eu still only is a free-trade and customs union and people have no idea about who makes laws in the eu and who doesnt* its always a good scapegoat for all sorts of things. and then theres a million other bigger or smaller reason, actually none of them even slightly related to presidency. even though mcgyver certainly disagrees, i think van der bellen is a good candidate and certainly the best of all we could chose from. in his old days he grew to be very reasonable, even though this makes me disagree in ceratain, mainly economical points. though ofc, if im honest, his approaches on that matter are a lot more realistic than mine. but politics is complicated and the outcome of this election is nothing more than a huge portion of people having no idea but an opinion. because opinions are best. opinions and emotions, patriotism for example is a great emotion. its so full of love for everything wrong because the country is great ... ... no matter that it most probably is not. there is no such thing as a perfect society, thats an oxymoron. society will always be a struggle among different interest groups. edit: and while i was writing i wanted to add a little known fact but i forgot lol. austria is among the states with the strictest immigration laws in the eu. ofc that doesnt count for eu-citizens, it would be against "freedom of movement" which is part of the eu contracts. and concerning refugees - as soon as a person steps on your countries soil and says "refugee" its not part of national or even european legislation anymore - as soon as this happens, in a constitutional state, the person has a legal right of a fair process. at least thats how it was originally intended and that what austria still abides to. we should not forget what preceeded this international law, nothing less than world war 2, actually we should not forget international law at all. and please note, dublin, because its always brought up, is "only" european law. a refugee can come from any country of this world, if the status is legit or not has to be decided by a court and not a mass with pitchforks and has nothing to do with which country the person passed through either (though it got handled differently as long as it worked) also imagine dublin 2 wouldnt have been suspended by lets just say germany for simplicity. should the peripheral countries, who aint exactly economically strong (greece, bulgaria, spain, ...) have managed that all by themselfs? who believes that? only people who dont believe the strong eu countrys can - because its absurd nonsense. the real shame is the lack of solidarity especially in eastern countries - first and foremost poland which profited a lot from the proximity to germany - they fully profit from freedom of movement, yet they are the main blockers. since everything the eu does has to be done as one - the unanimousity principle because we couldnt find a european constitution thanks to nationalist animosties. but also and it should not be ignored, the united states of its none of our business even though we bombed two countries to pieces and left behind nothing but chaos and the worlds biggest terrorist organisation known to history (or as blizzerd likes to call it, a state with a not so nice culture :p) could also care a bit for their mess. but i dont mean to be anit-american, since it probably sounds like, its a big country run by companies, the people living in it, as far as i met them, are really nice people. sometimes blinded, but really nice nevertheless (scnr :D) my people knowledge tells me the amount of real tards is about the same as everywhere else - as long as its not like in syria atm. and ulitmatively the human perspective. its not refugees, its actual people - actual people fleeing from war. its most probably not their fault that there is war, why should we deny them the chance of a decent living and pile them up in camps like cattle? especially not since we live like kings in this part of the world**. thats my - say its naive or simple - understanding of morality. i feel human and i dont want to have other humans suffer, simple as that, end of story, no economical or legal bullshittery. *hint: the guys you vote for dont, its those in the individual state governments and all eu-wide rules are nothing more than unanimous contracts among the governments we voted for in our countries. yes the same governments that complain about that they cant do shit because of the evil eu - funny isnt it? **want terrorists, thats how you get terrorists. there is barely any better help we could give with recuiting. no matter if our intention is to help, such camps provide no perspectives and a lack of perspective is what brings people to stupid ideas. sure at first its gonna be the fault of war, but after the years? dont fool yourselfs, its evident how this is easy to turn around.
