Your questions seemed rather rhetorical to me. As long as you act on the premise that there's no solution, any conversation about the topic - including this one - is a monumental waste of time. So let's just leave it at that.
Ah, a doomer. So let me guess, there's nothing we can do and every form of activism is useless?
Just go on with your day then. This protest certainly isn't about you. They didn't hurt you personally, so why not just let them do their thing. The people who believe solutions exist can continue to search for them and you don't have to bother.
Or do you actually have something helpful in mind?
Ah okay. So deinstitutionalization in that context was meant to include psychiatric institutions into general hospitals? Because that I can totally get behind.
Based on the other comments I got the impression that there simply is no inpatient treatment plan for mental health in the US.
My experience does not come from movies. I am an outpatient psychotherapist (in a country with a reasonably functioning psychiatric system). I have repeatedly seen patients slip into psychomental crises where outpatient care is no longer sufficient. The local psychiatric clinics were sometimes real lifesavers. That's why I find the idea of healthcare without emergency institutions confusing. I would find it terrible not to be able to offer my patients anything in such emergencies.
I don't quite understand how deinstitutionalizing was supposed to work here. That's like dissolving the fire department because we want to avoid cars. Was there no way to reform or replace the institutions? Just getting rid of an emergency service seems kinda like the situation you're describing was part of the plan.
This idea of "actually, all Germans secretly think this way" is a common excuse of modern day Nazis to justify their increasingly brazen behaviour in public. Just so you know whose talking points you're reproducing here.
I understand the frustration about the injustice behind it, but it's missing the point. Justice should never be the reason to support something thats so harmful to our environment. Imagine giving a private jet to every economically disadvantaged person in the name of equality - we'd be fucking ourselves over big time. Meat is actually a luxury product that's only kept affordable based on some of the most environmentally destructive tools of capitalism.
It sucks that luxury products exist. It sucks that ultra rich people exist, but it's the unfortunate fact of our times. Overturning this system is a seperate fight. And eating red meat won't win it.
But that's not how it was framed at the courts at all, proven by the fact that all the other product names containing "milk" were considered okay. It was specifically argued that customers could be confused to accidentally buy the vegan variant. Based on your arguments "coconut milk" should be problematic, but it isn't. Soy milk and almond milk could have been grandfathered in, but they weren't, and the reason very specifically was pressure from the dairy industry targeting their competition.
Guess you're right. But except for this scenario where your religion tells you it's better to kill an animal than not to kill an animal, I would still expect most if not all ethical considerations to eventually conclude that not killing something is preferable. Otherwise I fail to see how someone could not agree with this as lowest common denominator.
I find that hard to believe tbh. Maybe if someone doesn't think about it at all. But the second you do it should be pretty obvious that killing an animal and not killing an animal are different scenarios, and very generally speaking one of those is better than the other.
The only alternative I could think of would have to be based on the assumption that an animal's life absolutely doesn't matter at all, and I never did (nor would want to) meet anyone who honestly believed that.
Weird source, they absolutely identified the person, and it was Abu Sitta. He was the reason the conference had to be stopped.
edit.: I've looked for a somewhat decent German source to share and found something interesting. The Palestine conference was banned because a speaker named Abu Sitta wanted to hold a speech, who is banned from political activity in Germany. This guy is specifically pro Hamas and said, if he was younger he would've participated in the Hamas attack himself. At the same time this other person was banned from entry into the country, also named Abu Sitta. I'm now left wondering if this Schengen ban was mistakenly issued and meant for the other guy.