Talk:Schadenfreude

This article sucks, in plain English. I do not think it belongs on a website called "Rational" Wiki. It is biased, it is sarcastic, and it mocks anyone who disagrees with the viewpoint of the writer. It basically supports the notion that taking pleasure in the misfortune or even the pain of others is a positive thing. It even hints that this is a good thing to do habitually, and anyone who doesn't do it is somehow less intelligent or worthy. I think this article should be re-written to impart information and not sarcasm at those whom the writer perceives as weak because they don't get the joke. ^{— Unsigned, by: Sylviamzz / talk / contribs}

It looks brutally honest to me. And it has just the right amount of irreverence without being totally dickish. Go to WP for something encyclopedic. RW never pretends to be an encyclopedia.--Brendiggg (talk) 13:32, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

See SPOV. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 14:04, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

From now on, I'm going to drink every time a RW critic puts the word rational into quote marks. ^{d hominem} 14:31, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

There are support groups & twelve-step programmes for people who do that. Weaseloid^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 14:38, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

What's with the Lisa Simpson quote? It's only a definition of the word: the same thing the article does in the line below. & It cuts the punchline of the joke (Homer: So what's the opposite? Lisa: Sour grapes. Homer: Those Germans have a word for everything). Weaseloid^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 14:45, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I think it's just a thing about headlining articles with relevant pop culture quotes. It's mostly a harmless practice, although YMMV regarding poignancy and relevance. ^{d hominem} 16:31, 25 September 2010 (UTC)