Talk:Germany/Archive1

Grotesque
That's. . . honestly a touch on the grotesque side. I don't believe in just censoring someone, but. . gah. Researcher 23:14, 22 October 2007 (EDT)

I'll accept it. My sense of humour - and the source's - tends to border on the macabre/grotesque/unacceptable to many. I think it's hilarious *because* it forces the audience to confront ugly truths in a new light. But not everyone thinks like that...PFoster 23:18, 22 October 2007 (EDT)

Industrial Age
Apart from being one of the greatest minds of th 18th century, Kant is famous for not leaving the area of Koenigsberg for the whole of his life. So, he most probably never drank a drop of Bavarian beer... --LArron 04:15, 9 October 2008 (EDT)
 * He would put on a fake beard and sneak down to Munich. He and King Frederick II were buddies. Tschüß und Grüß Gott!--Der Meister des Marionettestalk! 08:40, 9 October 2008 (EDT)
 * What did Fritzi do in Munich? Gmb (talk)

Sie können sich in meiner Wanne gar keine eigene Meinung erlauben!
Akademiker wollen Sie sein? Pfff! I like the section on German humor - RationalWiki should always look for the things which are claimed to be non-existent: the Yeti, Intelligent Design - and Deutscher Humor -- 21:07, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * So RW should look for god(s)? --85.182.145.82 (talk) 20:43, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * germans do have ze humour. zere's even a website called http://www.german-jokes.com/win_old.html. well, zat must be proof enough, right? i quote: Man 1: My dog's got no dictionary. Man 2: How does he spell "terrible"? - oh dear <_< EauDeCologne (talk) 11:14, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

"Wirtschaft"
The "Wirtschaft" part ist heavily biased towards left-wing views and not funny enough to justify this. It's really faaar left. "Faux News in reverse" far. 87.78.185.129 (talk) 15:58, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Na dann änder mal, was dir da falsch erscheint, vielleicht wird es nicht gelöscht. --Arisboch (talk) 10:45, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * You know what it is, too? Factually correct. This trope of "you have to balance views" is only mentioned when right-wingers don't like their BS pointed out to them. The section in question is more balanced than your average FAZ-article cos it not only talks about how Germany fared better in comparison to other countries in recent years but also takes into consideration the bigger picture... again with indisputable facts. Since the early 2000's there has been a campaign in Germany for the dismantling of the social safety net and of worker's rights (a.k.a. 'structural reform'). Slowly but surely professionals, some journalists and officials are becoming aware of what those reforms mean in the long term and in the context of the whole EU. The Socratic methods demands that you eliminate weaker hypotheses for ones with more explanatory power. Is the language too on the nose for some? Perhaps, then go ahead and soften that aspect if you're feelings need it so. But if you want to reduce this section to only have the official(!) unemployment rate and Germany's austere GDP numbers (excluding the post-recession bounce-back) mentioned as proof that all is well thanks to German-style neoliberalism (Hans-Werner Sinn comes to mind) than it's you who's actually being biased. EauDeCologne (talk) 07:32, 5 September 2016 (UTC)