|
Gold and a Pager posted:How many Lehramt diplom students did you meet? Maybe you just happened to meet some really poo poo people who happened to study Lehramt, but that's not a quality that is limited to just one subject. I will have to agree that Lehramtstudenten are on average and to my experience less "spirited". Most people who are really good in their subject are that way because they love and it and are interested in it. Most of these don't like to teach the very basics of what they love to bored pupils but would rather study it and dwelve deeper into its mysteries. Those who teach it either a) aren't really good at it b) prefer a steady paycheck to intellectual excitement This leads to a clustering of boring and/or mediocre people. Boring and mediocre people who study for a Diplom or Magister or the fancy new bachelor/master instead of Lehramt tend to drop out because they realize that they won't earn money with a lacklustre M.A. in Medieval German Literature. That said: It sucks for those who aren't lacklustre, but they can't change that there are incentives for mediocre people to study Lehramt.
|
#
¿
Oct 3, 2011 19:51
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 5, 2024 19:41 |
|
|
The Flour Moth posted:Well, your chances of success are significantly higher if you are the child of wealthy parents and not brown. I would be willing to call that an Ariernachweis lite. You've got better chances if you're well raised by your parents. Household income is a confounding variable. Being brown is another confounding variable. Many "brown" foreigners are from backwards region like Anatolia and don't see the point in higher education or if they see the point they do not know how to nudge their children towards it. This would be another case of bad parenting rather than social apartheid. The failure of the school system would be to ignore the incompetence of certain parents. But the solution shouldn't be that good parents (and especiqally their children) are being punished for the shortcomings of others. My girlfriend comes for a typical underclass background (single mom with no secondary school qualification) but was well raised. The Bavarian Gymnasium was the road for social advancement. Plankalkuel posted:Even after Germany stepped up its game after the first so called PISA "shock" we are still far behind Finland. If our best students are so awesome, that deficit will have to come from someone being significantly worse than the Finnish students. It's no big secret who our worst pupils are and that Finland "lacks" strength in the corresponding group of urbanized and squalid families. To really compare the school system we would have to compare Finnish pupils in the Finnish system and Finnish pupils in the German system. Or we would have to put German pupils in Finnish schools and see if they fare better. You would also have to equip the German schools with the same amount of money to compare the systems. It doesn't lead anywhere to compare different input and then claim the school is at fault. Finland is less urbanized (and therefore has less of an urban under-class) and had less immigrants with a poor educational background. Finland also spends per capita more money on their schools (but not on their teachers, they earn less than in Germany, but also have less pupils with behavioural problems so that their work is less annoying). To claim the different results are the result of integrated vs. differentiated school system is mainly the result of wanting the school system to be the reason rather than some kind of empirical analysis. Einbauschrank fucked around with this message at 08:52 on Oct 4, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Oct 4, 2011 08:36
|
|
|
Hungry Gerbil posted:Germany didn't bother with integrating the Turks. It's mostly our fault. And now it's too late. I think it is getting better.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 4, 2011 08:54
|
|
|
DerDestroyer posted:How did the Vietnamese experience differ from the Turkish one in Germany? They are doing quite well. Their "brown" children are on average more successful at attending (and completing) the Gymnasium than the children of "white" Germans. But, of course, the differentiated system is burgeois and therefore a racist instrument of class warfare  The head of the FDP was adopted.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 4, 2011 09:27
|
|
|
DerDestroyer posted:They should've really focused on balanced out immigration between multiple countries around the world but I guess they needed an immigrant group that wouldn't possibly be Soviet spies or something. Actually Germany was rather reluctant to allow Turkish guestworkers in. The German wiki article implies that there was pressure from Washington because the US wanted to stabilize the important NATO member Turkey.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 4, 2011 10:11
|
|
|
dreamin' posted:It is always hilarious to see people rant and rave about how "some cultures" have "incorrect traditions" and how it's their refusal to integrate and the left's blindness about these issues that lead to our current problems. If you enjoy a good laugh you might want to read up on TOPRAK and EL-MAFAALANI who have worked on a study on values of Muslim immigrants and the impact on their life in Germany. http://www.kas.de/wf/doc/kas_28612-544-1-30.pdf?110928101139
|
|
#
¿
Oct 4, 2011 19:34
|
|
|
Plankalkuel posted:I knew American Exceptionalism, but German Exceptionalism is something new. Don't let the fact that I'm railing against the segregation fool you into thinking, that that's my only beef with the system. In fact smaller classes and more money for education would be great. I think "ceteris paribus" is more a matter of widely accepted methodological neatness rather than national idiosyncrasy. Comparing different systems under different circumstances and basing any conclusion on the fact that there is a difference in measured results is a rather strange approach to logic. I don't know any country with a comparable setting (urbanization, diversity, immigration background, per capita spending on education) to Germany that gets better results than Germany which could be credited on the question "tiered or not".
|
|
#
¿
Oct 4, 2011 21:38
|
|
|
StrangeRobot posted:Who the gently caress cares about your xenophobic opinions about turks and muslims? Whom you never tire to bad-mouth at any given opportunity. Your lack of facts is nicely correlating to your lack of manners. I don't think I have stated anything that might be interpreted as bad-mouthing. You can disapprove of my statements and try to disprove them, but in any case I would suggest you behave like a grown up instead of throwing a childish tantrum, because what might be socially accepted behaviour in your peer group is oddly disturbing in any polite society. Edit: wrong reference. Plankalkuel posted:Holy poo poo How can you fail to understand it? Einbauschrank fucked around with this message at 22:11 on Oct 4, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Oct 4, 2011 22:04
|
|
|
StrangeRobot posted:Also interesting that lots of former GDR fatcats ended up not in the Linke but right in the now most vocal anti-GDR parties. (except for the Greens, they were too weak to be attractive back then) But thats nothing new, our wonderfully democratic conservative friends gladly accepted even high ranking former Nazis into their ranks back "then". They somehow never mention that when throwing a tantrum about the Linke having people who may have lived near an SED dishwasher in their ranks. They don't mention it because it clearly is a different thing to stay in a party that was respnsible for 40 years of oppression and to enter a democratic party. Some fun facts: 1. While the NSDAP was forbidden, the socialist SED simply renamed itself several times and is now called "die Linke". The fact that they gobbled up the WASG loonies doesn't change that fact,that there is still an unbroken line of continuity between the criminal SED that ruled the socialist dictatorship GDR and the party "die Linke". 2. There is a difference between leaving a party that was the main pillar of a dictatorship and becoming a member of a democratic party and between staying in a renamed party that was the main pillar of a dictatorship. The NSDAP members that went into democratic parties didn't continue NSDAP politics. Neither do rank and file SEDler who left for other parties continue the socialist stupidity. (Fun fact: Many NSDAP members even worked for the GDR and exchanged one dictatorship for the next.) The SED members who stayed in the SED (95% left this criminal organization as soon as it was possible, leaving only the really pig-headed socialists behind) are still aiming at Socialism. There is a direct line of continuity from the SED to the renamed "die Linke". The "Linke" would be comparable to a non-forbidden NSDAP that simply renamed itself into "Superdemocratic Freedomloving Party" that was rebuilt around the 5% of the most ardent Nazis who didn't leave the party after 1945 and was still trying to get Nazism 2.0 running by "overcoming the system". I guess that would warrant some observation, doesn't it? Ask yourself: What kind of person stays in a political party that was responsible for 40 years of dictatorship and poverty and what kind of lunatic or uninformed moron you must be to enter a party like this after there no longer is a dictatorial system that requires it of you. Even people defending a party like that are to my mind either despicable extremists or fools who haven't learned a thing about history.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 6, 2011 08:16
|
|
|
DeusEx posted:Well, then I'm a despicable fool. Better have me watched over by the Verfassungschutz. Oh, and also all the people in former East Germany, who should have suffered the most from the SED regime, and still vote for the Linke in large numbers must be despicable idiots. We're living in a democracy, everybody - fools and extremists included - is allowed to vote. I consider the voters of extremists parties to be extremists or idiots and I don't think this is debatable. By the way, I didn't call the fools despicable, but the etremists. And I guess that as a fat bourgeois I would fare much worse under your system than you are suffering at the moment. quote:But mostly I like that you accuse of people aiming for socialism, as if this would be something evil and nefarious. Reading a history book or two might enlighten you on how this notion came into existence. quote:It may come as a surprise for you, there are a lot of people out there, that think that our current capitalistic system where we funnel more and more public money into the financial institutions, while financing this with austerity measures for the broader public, is morally despicable. Oh, the rage! Spending money not the way you want it to be spent is of course a crime that makes shooting people in the back who try to leave the shithole called socialism appear like a minor inconvenience that has to be accepted for the greater good. And as this thread used to be about education: The percentage of students at university who had a working class background was higher in ther FRG than in the socialist dreamland GDR. (Sozialstruktur Deutschlands, 4. Auflage, S. 289). quote:Why don't we talk about CDU heroes like Filbinger, who served death sentences as a Nazi judge on the navy martial court and was prime minister of Baden-Württemberg, or Globke, who was director of Adenauers chancellery, and a commentator of the Nuremburg Race Laws under the Third Reich. Ah yes, the fresh and exciting news from 1963 and 1978. About as up to date as Socialism. Either way, I don't see your point. Because Filbinger had to step down after being accused of being a national-socialist rear end in a top hat we have to tolerate socialist assholes? Discussions with supporters of the extreme left more or less always go along the same lines: You tell them what they don't like to hear about the utter moral and economical failure of socialism in the last 90 years, they helplessly try to counter with "But...but... Clinton ... and Filbinger" and then think that because there were Nazis in the 70ies (even in the GDR, by the way) it is perfectly fine to support a party that was responsible for 40 years of dictatorship on German soil. az posted:Calling this wrong unless you provide evidence of some sort of planned reformation into the Linke. As far as the public is aware, the Linke is a collection of socialist politicians that hail mostly from the SPD, Greens and, to some degree, former SEDs. What do you call wrong? That there is direct line of continuity to the SED? It was only in 2009 that the Linke declared: „,Die Linke‘ ist rechtsidentisch mit der ,Linkspartei.PDS‘, die es seit 2005 gab, und der PDS, die es vorher gab, und der SED, die es vorher gab.“ That's not what you would call a clear cut with the ties to the past. There was no need to cling to a smeared name (and a smeared ideology, but that is another problem). quote:Reading the rest of your post, you seem to have a massive bone to pick with the Linke. I have some ideas as to where you got your ideas from but I'd like to hear from you. I hate how people have been able to weasel out of their responsibility in Germany and how they rewrite their own biography. I was not born in the 60ies and 70ies but I can definitely call out on bullshit that happens in the 90ies and 21st century. I am connected to the project "Tapping Hitler's Generals" and "Soldaten" (Neitzel/Welzer) because I am interested in mentalities and political systems. Myself, I would describe as being in the foot steps of Eugen Richter and the Freisinn that itself follows the Scottish Enlightment. It is rather annyoing to me to see how people have always been trying to downplay their support of an inhumane ideology. After the war it was all of Hitler's fault etc. etc. (during the war it was "If only the Fuhrer knew"). After the reunification it was "Socialism is a good idea that was simply badly implemented " or "We didn't have bananas but at least we had solidarity". The cognitive dissonance is nauseating and reading this thread shows me that very old (and very oafish) memes are still at work, even 20 years after unification. StrangeRobot posted:You're a complete nutter if you seriously think the GDR and the loving third Reich are anywhere on the same scale of evil. Phew, then I am lucky that I didn't do so and that one would have to be reading impaired to think so. And speaking of nutters: People who write "The Federal Republic has no constitution" are about as reputable as Truthers and Birthers. Einbauschrank fucked around with this message at 10:20 on Oct 7, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Oct 7, 2011 08:36
|
|
|
StrangeRobot posted:So? First of all you brought up the Nazis because "We weren't as bad as National-Socialists" is considered as the moral high ground among socialists. Then you seem to suffer from bad reading comprehension. To remind you of your own articulations: StrangeRobot posted:You're a complete nutter if you seriously think the GDR and the loving third Reich are anywhere on the same scale of evil. The paragraph "The Linke would be comparable to" was introduced by my statement "There is a difference between leaving a party that was the main pillar of a dictatorship and becoming a member of a democratic party and between staying in a renamed party that was the main pillar of a dictatorship." So I am comparing the SED with the NSDAP in their respective function as being the "main pillar of a dictatorship". Nowhere do I rate them on a "Scale of Evil". Unless you deny that the GDR was a dictatorship and the SED was the main pillar of this dictatorship I don't see how you can find fault in my statement. Do you deny that the GDR was a dictatorship? Same goes for my statement "Many NSDAP members even worked for the GDR and exchanged one dictatorship for the next." The only thing I am comparing and setting equal is "dictatorship". Do you deny that they were exchanging one dictatorship for the next? quote:Also for a guy who claims to care about bad people getting of the hook in Germany you just handwave the Nazis away? The worst case of what you claim to be against just doesn't count because it's too long ago? Are you kidding me? The Nazis are dead or senile and their party was forbidden and doesn't exist anymore neither does anyone form a coalition with them. I am not in a habit of kicking dead horses if there are real dangers still alive. quote:You're all "never forget!" about a bunch of one-party police state with badly managed command economy types but the mass murdering rapists who tried to exterminate several ethnicities, murdered a fuckload of Germans(in death camps or by sending them to fight their war of conquest and extermination) and literally uncountable amounts of foreigners and left Germany standing as a pile of burned rubble before giving the command to basically commit national suicide are just "too long ago"? gently caress that! I don't see even a remote danger of another round of Nazi-induced raping, followed by genocide and suicide on a nationwide level. Do you? Neither do I see how you (the person) are fighting dead Nazis by instrumentalizing them to whitewash the Linke, a political party and ideology that is rooted in dictatorship and oppression. quote:There's also an unbroken line of continuity between the Third Reich and the FRG, so? Or depending on who you ask the FRG even IS the Third Reich. Also it's the GDR. Or the direct continuation of the GDR. It gets confusing now. The FRG has made clear that it renounces racism and socialism and has chosen to take on responsibility for two dictatorships (and that's why they chose continuity: to not shirk responsibility), paying -meagre- reparations to the victims of Socialism and National-Socialism. I don't accuse the SED/Linke of racism (apart from the occasional bout of antisemitism) but I certainly don't see how the Linke is renouncing Socialism. Neither do I see the Linke paying for the damage they have done in the 40 years of socialist dictatorship. On the contrary, they are regularly showing disrespect for the victims of Socialism. Simply look up what is going on every 13. of August when civilized people are commemorating the victims of socialism you can count on "die Linke" to disturb this moment. Einbauschrank fucked around with this message at 10:21 on Oct 8, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Oct 8, 2011 10:18
|
|
|
StrangeRobot posted:Oh yes, the real dangers of the Linke suddenly handing over their party to the minority of utmost extremists loosely affiliated with them, then completely reversing their programme of democratic socialism, then winning a majority of the vote, no wait: summoning a revolutionary military! And then they'll reestablish a Warsaw Pact satellite state dependent on the threat of immediate Soviet invasion to suppress its populace. Sure thing. If "moderate socialists" are running the party and congratulating dictators like Fidel Castro on his birthday or supporting a newspaper that congratulates the building of the Berlin Wall then I don't dare to know what "extreme socialists" would do. quote:Also it's really funny how you're easily giving even high-ranking Ex-Nazis the benefit of the doubt about changing their views, but a reformed SED is absolutely impossible for you to comprehend. I do not have problems with people leaving extremist parties. I am fine with former SED or Blockflöten members who have joined non-extremist parties as long as they didn't commit unpunished crimes. I have a problem with people staying in (or joining) extremist parties even when there is no longer any dictatorship to "nudge" them into party membership. And "reformed socialism" is about as convincing as "reformed racism" or any other "reformed" butcher's ideology with several tens of millions killed and a 90 year track record of dictatorship and poverty. Anyway, if they wanted to "reform" and renounce the criminal past of state socialism why do they have to do so in the very same party that was responsible for the second German dictatorship? It's not like they were prevented from starting over from scratch instead of building upon the garbage bin of history.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 9, 2011 22:15
|
|
|
cremnob posted:All things considered, do you think Agenda 2010 should have been implemented? The left in America frequently look at Europe as the Socialist Utopia ideal to strive for yet here we have the country that is currently keeping the EU alive, seemingly doing the exact opposite. Germany was better off in the 70ies (which is why we could afford a more generous welfare system) but we would be off even worse today without the reforms. There are still many problems attached to Hartz-IV. There are many stupid regulations that can be used as a pretext to harass people. Also, the so called 1-Euro jobbers (people being paid only 1€ an hour on top of welfare) lead to a severe distortion of the labour market.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 9, 2011 22:22
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:My post was specifically adressed to the absurdities posited by Einbauschrank. I don't think body counts are valid for use the way they were used by him - in a completely retarded manner. Obviously, the deaths under Stalin and Mao should be remembered and reflected upon, but discarding socialism with STALIN is similar to discarding bourgeois democracy by saying ROBSPIERRE. It makes no sense whatsoever and I'm so incredibly tired of people doing it. Contrary to State Socialism there have been "Bourgeois Democracies" (e.g.: liberal democracies) that didn't end in a shitstorm and/or bloodbath for all involved. That's why I am tired of Socialists with their "Last time wasn't real Socialism, this time it will work, we swear" blather. And how convenient to leave out your very own name handle in this little list of blood thirsty tyrants. The "Red Terror" of the SU was instigated by a certain V. Illych Lenin. Because, you know, these "reformed" Socialists have really learnt their lesson and feel really sorry and responsible for the victims of Socialism as can be seen by supporters naming themselves after the instigator of the Red Terror.  quote:Die Linke is, like every other radical socialist party in Europe, I was informed that extremist, i.e. radicals, only form a minority of the SED-PDS-Linke. Now the party itself is "radical". You should coordinate your agitprop better, comrades. quote:Die Linke is not the SED. Yes, it's a descendant. Yes, a lot of people who supported the SED then support Die Linke now. The fact remains that the basic statutes of Die Linke are radically different to those of the old SED. It is not a descendant, it is a renamed party. Or can you show me when and where the SED was dissolved? The SED was renamed into PDS and later into the Linkspartei. Even the so called "merger" with WASG wasn't a merger but a take over of the WASG by the Linkspartei which then went on renaming itself once again, this time into "die.Linke". The statutes of radical Socialists aren't worth the paper they're written on as was shown by the constitutions of the GDR. The "Linke" is the SED 20 years later without the power of an abusive dictatorship at its command. But you can easily see behind the thin facade of crow eating. The candidate for federal President named by the Linke showed his respect for the concept of a state under the rule of law by stating he would have the CEO of Deutsche Bank arrested if he had the power to do so. The Federal President is supposed to be a moderating figure and the man Linke deems to be best suited would like to have people arrested as pleases him.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 10, 2011 15:26
|
|
|
Troubadour posted:This is the silliest kind of ad hominem. Please, make me apologize for encouraging the breaking of marriage vows, as choosing this username obviously means I idolize everything their movement ever did and said. So you want to claim that it is possible to separate Lenin from Bolshevik terror and the erection of a dictatorship? Even if you are a Socialist you should feel a certain disgust towards Lenin as he didn't only kill "reactionaries" but also Socialists that didn't follow him. Do you think a liberal Goon who calls himself "Pinochet" would get away with "well I liked Pinochets market ideas"? quote:This is simply not true. There was no forced merger, as you imply [...] Where do I imply a forced merger? I would have written "hostile take over" in that case. It is simply a fact that the PDS did take over the WASG. Have a look at the treaties from March 2007. Especially point I.4. V. Illych L. posted:What the gently caress are you talking about you complete blithering idiot. Paris Commune, Republican Spain, Allende's Chile. We'll have to wait and see, but check out Bolivarian Latin America as well. There's a reason that the socialist parties that've survived have been hard, brutal ones. The ones that weren't were crushed by force - much like the early bourgeois. First I wasn't surprised that an apologist of Socialism would name himself after a master of murder and terror, now I am not surprised that he lacks social decorum. But yeah, as a dirty bourgeois I can be happy not to be put against the wall and watch my dog being assraped by the Vanguard of Progress before being shot. That's socialist courtesy. I also advise you to read before you sperge. I wrote "State Socialism" on purpose, it is a defined term and not one of your examples fits the bill. quote:Hint: A radical socialist party is one that fundamentally aims towards a socialist socioeconomic model w/ collective ownership of the means of production. The extremists previously mentioned are in favour of actual violent revolution. But you're a dishonest piece of poo poo, so I'm not going to get anywhere, am I. And of course, as you stated above, there is a reason why brutal socialist parties tend to survive. If you want to oppress other people and dispossess them (or kill them, like Lenins killed the Kulaks) you need a big club rather than good manners. That's why a radical socialist party is either violent or a failure. quote:Right. So the stated policy of a political party is irrelevant. I... am not sure how to respond to this. The CDU wants to instate a papist theocracy, I guess? Depends on the trustworthiness. Did the CDU ever try to install a papist theocracy? No. Is the CDU following an ideology that once led to a papist theocracy? No. Did the SED ever succeed at imposing a dictatorship upon the German people? Yes, before they renamed themselves into PDS and later on die.Linke. Does the renamed SED follow an ideology that once led to a Socialist dictatorship? Yes.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 10, 2011 23:35
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:edit: In fact, because I feel like not being an rear end in a top hat, let me explain it like this: You seem to have a problem with the fact that there are former SED people in die Linke, but you don't seem to have much of a problem with the fact that there were former nazis in the CDU. This makes it seem like either you have a double standard, or you're an idiot. I think I made it quite clear: People leaving an extremist party (the NSDAP) and joining a democratic one are so much of a problem to me. People staying in an extremist party are, as it rules out any learning progress. V. Illych L. posted:2: Lenin was never the big kulak-killer, that was rather later with Stalin. Of course, he *did* kill a bunch of people who disagreed with him what with the civil war and everything, but the major attack on the kulaks came well after Lenin had died. You completely ahistorical idiot. After "Socialism wasn't as bad as National-Socialism" another fine example of moral high ground is "Lenin wasn't as bad as Stalin therefore it's no problem to name myself after him". I never claimed Lenin was "the big killer of kulaks" but that he was *a* killer of kulaks. I don't think you have the mental faculties to attempt a strategic distortion of my words, so I'll simply admonish you to read more carefully next time. I could have chosen Liberals, Burgeois and socialist opposition memebers as well as kulaks, because your namehandle killed people from all these groups. Hitler admired his ruthlessness, but I guess that you knew that already about your idol. That there were even worse leftists than Lenin is quite clear, which is why I chose Pinochet as a comparison. There are worse people than Pinochet but it is still shwoing incredibly bad taste or an incredibly low level of historical reflection to chose him as a handle and makes one look like a really immature person with a limited power in judgement. quote:State socialism, to a degree, was what Republican Spain was doing Nope. It wasn't, as there was not a monopolization of polical or economical power by a socialist governemnt. But of course a clear world view like yours always profits from not being tarnished by any expertise. V. Illych L. posted:You completely ahistorical idiot. All in all I am growing tired of you fleeing into invective language everytime you are being outmaneuvred or unmasked. So please come back for another discussion after your manners have evolved somewhat.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 11, 2011 13:23
|
|
|
Perestroika posted:Except you haven't unmasked anything. I've read back through all of your posts in this thread to be certain, and literally your only argument is that there is an unbroken line from the SED to die Linke. The entire rest of your posts on this topic consists of you harping on what you consider inherent evils of socialism (which you seem to equate with Stalinism). Oh, and also a bunch of stuff on the bad things Lenin did for the sole reason that one poster happens to use his name. First you suggest that I equate the evils of Socialism with Stalinism, the next sentence you make nonsense of your claim by accusing me of pointing towards the evils done by Lenin. Don't you think that Lenin, the founder of the Union of Socialist Soviet Republics might be considered a Socialist or do you think that he wasn't a criminal responsible for the death of thousands and the installation of a system even more repressive and deadly than the one he overthrew? I am just asking because either you've forgotten about Stalin the moment you wrote about Lenin or you somehow don't connect the inherent evils of Socialism to Lenin - which would be quite extraordinary. And don't you consider it oxymoronic if somebody defends Socialism against my accusations of being evil and names himself after a ruthless Socialist dictator? It is this kind of blindness that leaves me flabbergasted. And that I find quite demasking, by the way.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 13, 2011 19:58
|
|
|
PaulPot posted:I believe there's still a market for skilled 1st world factory labor, you just have to find the right niche. Infineon manufacturing chips in Germany doesn't make sense to me, luxury vehicles made in Germany does. Germany is famous for maintaining a high tech edge across a broad range of products (plant construction and engineering, pharmaceuticals, cars, chemicals, specialized metallurgy etc.) This is a boon and a bane at once. We can afford comparatively highly priced wages because we are selling expensive machinery that few others can produce. As soon as a sector moves from high tech to "the Chinese have it" you can't longer pay those wages. So, in fact, Germany's prosperity is dependent on being one step ahead. If we want lots of people in well paying jobs we have to be one step ahead in many fields (or at least on par with the pack leaders), because German companies aren't really big on an international scale but already within a niche, as you said. These well paying jobs won't be found in manufacturing (at least not in sufficient numbers), but rather in R&D. The turn to green energy (if it happens), e.g., will cost a lot of money and probably give Germany another edge in a specialized sector. But it won't create lots of jobs. Perhaps some 10.000 engineers will be developing more efficient wind plants and storage systems, but 100.000s will be employed in India or elsewhere to construct them as soon as they are going into mass production. So it is a German curse to be pack leader - and to be hounded by the pack. Perestroika posted:I'm saying that the evils commited by someone in the name of an ideology do not inherently worsen that ideology. Be that as it may, I was originally pointing out that neither Lenin nor the crimes he commited have much to do with the subject that was originally discussed: Whether die Linke could be considered a danger to democracy. Whatever people name themselves after (on these forums of all places) is simply not pertinent to the discussion. The way you keep sticking to that is an ad hominem in its purest form. I think it is more or less symptomatic for what I claim: People supporting die.Linke haven't learnt much from hiostory and are even glorifying some of the bloodier aspects of Socialism. They are mainly still on the same track as 1988 - minus the authoritarian state to support their delusions. And lo and behold, in a discussion abouth whether or not die.Linke is seen rightly as a platform for people menacing democracy someone named after a menace to democracy enters, debases my opinion as "retarded" and "reactionary rot" and goes on to defend die.Linke. I think you have to be jaded not to see the irony. I also think that calling other people a "piece of poo poo" is more ad hominem than drawing attention to a tasteless pseudonym. Perestroika doesn't imply bloodbath and repression like Lenin and Einbauschrank doesn't imply much at all. Nobody was forced to pick "Lenin", Perestroika or Einbauschrank - we did it on our own and it reflects upon us. If I named myself "L. von Trotha" and then went on how cool "reformed" Colonialism could be I wouldn't be surprised at receiving flak. Hell, I would be prepared for some totally justified ad hominem for my tasteless pseudonym - in this forum and all other places.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 14, 2011 15:38
|
|
|
Enigma89 posted:I don't want to derail the current discussion but I did have a question. What has the SPD been proposing since to do differently with the Euro-zone crisis. They've recently changed their opinion. They used to support Euro-Bonds (at least Sigmar Gabriel did), but Peer Steinbrück has now changed his stance on this topic. Since Gabriel and Steinbrück are also opponents for "candidate for chancellor" it might be as much a change of heart as a tactical move by Steinbrück to piss off Gabriel. It is more realistic though, that they have realized that Eurobonds wouldn't work at the momen. Now the SPD sees Euro-Bonds only as a possible solution after a lot of groundwork (= changes in the legal framework) has been done. At the moment they are in favour of a majour haircut, but that is hardly a unique feature.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 16, 2011 17:15
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:People blame the "little people" in Greece cheating on their taxes, when Greece already has a High VAT and limited wages, how much money do you expect average Greek people to be able to pay? There was a report about the Greek pension office making registration mandatory. Out of 1 million claimants only 890.000 had themselves registered. The office estimates that they might be paying 1,5billion € to dead people - a year. They also realized that they have a much higher number of very old aged people: 9000 Greeks receiving pensions are older than 100 and 500 are even older than 110. One guy was even 130. Seems that eating olives and not paying taxes is a healthy combination. Bankruptcy might happen to everyone. To failed states like Greece and even to working states trying to bail out failed states.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 19, 2011 09:59
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:The Greek elite have failed at running their country, it should be them and the financiers that back them that should pay not the people of the country. They are fundamentally incompetent criminals. I don't think it was the Greek elite who invented a massive pension fraud. And even the Greek elites had to be elected by someone. Though, it is true, if all parties involved are corrupt nepotists it is difficult to induce a change as a voter. Perhaps they should have demonstrated earlier. Finally, as long as Greece is considered to be a sovereign and democratic state, it is solely responsible for the amount of debts it has made. Elite Bashing is alright, especially in a failed state. But it shouldn't divert from the fact that the "regular guy on the street" profiteered as well from fraud and stupid debt making. Greek incomes all over the board have skyrocketed - apparently without the economic growth or increase in productivy to back them up. The "regular people" are angry, because the saying "public debts will have to be paid back by our children" proved to be wrong. They have to pay them back during their lifetime instead of leaving others to deal with it. That's the outrage.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 19, 2011 13:30
|
|
|
Ymel posted:Things have to be scaled correctly. 100.000 out of 1 Million (the number of people receving a pension) is 10%. I don't say that every Greek is corrupt, but that the whole system is corrupt and doesn't work. I don't know how many Greek shopkeepers have even a cash register to pay their due amount of taxes or how many taxi drivers really keep book - apart from the fact that being a taxi driver was more exclusive than being a working professional, this should show why the Greek system was corrupt from the core. A fish may start stinking from the head but it still may be corrupted to the core. quote:Secondly, the problem is not an overblown public sector or inflated welfare cheats which are absolutely large but relatively small, but the euro architecture at its core. Greece has an overblown public sector. About every fourth Greek is working for the state. (770K officials another 300K are normal employees). So ~ 1 million employees in Greece (about 1 in 4 Greeks works directly for the state) vs. 4.5millions in Germany - with 7 times the population. If twice as many isn't overblown I don't know what is. The public sector pays very well, too. A train driver could earn as much as 3500€, a train driver in Germany earns about 2200€. So, yes, the Average Joe was part of the system. quote:Greece benefited a lot of the EU in the 80's and 90's, but the euro eventually meant Greeks receiving loans due to low pan-European interest rates to consume German produced merchandise (cars, electronics etc) while German wages stagnated. And Greek wages skyrocketed by 40% (!) between 2000 and 2008. So the Average Ioannis from Greece enjoyed rising wages financed by debts to afford German products produced by Average Johannes with stagnating wages. And now Average Ioannis doesn't want to pay back the debts but wants Average Johannes to jump in. Sorry, that's not elites sucking dry the working poor, that's the cricket trying to live off the ant. quote:The first sucker were the German workers who instead of receiving a larger piece of the pie sent via banks their money to Greece. The second suckers are the large part of the Greek population who are now called in to pay the increased consumption of the few. I don't think it was a consumption "of the few" as the wages were raised across the board. And as the interest rate was very low - as you said - in the first years I neither think the banks made a killing. Those who made debts or voted for those who made debts should pay these debts. And if it means they have to start paying taxes or reduce their wgaes to a level befitting their productivity, they should do so. It the Greeks want to suck dry their "Elites" to pay their debts: That's nobody's business but the Greeks'. But if they want to suck dry everybody else or blackmail the whole of Europe with threats of default (even though Greece is not bankrupt, they are simply not willing to economize and pay), it becomes a European problem.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 19, 2011 18:36
|
|
|
dreamin' posted:Ioannis was living really good of all of our money! If you want to know whether somebody is living beyond his means it doesn't help to compare him to another person. Life is better in Germany from a purely materialistic point of view. But life in Greece has become better and better due to the bubble economy induced by dedebt making. It is important to note that Ioannis lived much better in 2010 than in 2000 and that his increase in the standard of living wasn't due to an increase in productivity. It is a convenient myth that the "little man on the street" didn't profit. Greece pursued a vulgar verison of "deficit spending" (i.e.: deficit spending without the paying back thingy) and it showed on every level. Now it is time to sober up.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 19, 2011 20:40
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:"Sobering up" ie putting the country in a depression so there is absolutely no way for it to pay back its debts, brilliant. There's no easy way out of a bubble economy, it is the catching up of reality with an illusion. The only way to deal with a bubble is to let it burst, and sadly, to say goodbye to the wealth the "illusionary growth" of the last decade has brought and start again from scratch. At the moment the European institutions are walking a very fine edge between carrot and stick to nudge the corrupt Greek state on the path to reforms. I am not entirely convinced it will work out or that it will be worth the risk to have other states pulled into this quagmire. But I don't have a easy solution either.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 19, 2011 21:07
|
|
|
niethan posted:I don't get how letting a bubble burst is "dealing with it", since the bursting is the problem you're trying to avoid in the first place. Wouldn't you deal with a bubble by safely deflating it? That's what the EU is trying to do at the moment: They create a small bubble within the collapsing bubble by pouring cheap money into Greece. That way they try to control the speed of collapse. They could let Greece crash (something nobody dares to want) or they can keep the money coming - under the condition that the Greek state stops being a corrupt and money gobbling shithole. Of course the unions and the commie-doomsayers in the streets don't want reforms, so they are on a rampage. But I agree that my wording was crap.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 19, 2011 21:37
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:Yeah, it isn't just your wording. Since the Greek economy was thriving on a cheap influx of borrowed money this isn't surprising. But the reason the economy is crashing, isn't the "austerity" but rather the preceding bubble boom. quote:Also, looking at the approval ratings and the riots, it is more than some troublemakers. Everyone in Greece loving hates this for good reason, it is about the poor paying for the sins of the rich. Here we read that the riots are instigated by an extremist minority. And, again, I think the Greek sins are the sins of a whole economy, not of a few rich, even if it is more convenient to blame "the others". quote:In addition, you ignore the fact that the only reason Greece needed these loans in the first place is that they are apart of the Euro-Zone, and if they were still on the Drachma this wouldn't be a issue. Basically, your playing the blame game, because there is pension fraud and other fraud in Greece it is okay to mangle their entire society and ignore how the direct actions of European and Greek leaders had in designing it. It isn't always about a poor helpless victim, sometime the cat got stuck in the tree out of sheer stupidity. I doubt anybody in Europe would have wanted the crisis to develop. Ymel posted:Ι searched for the data on this and there are 1,473 cases of dead people whose relatives or the postman are receiving their pensions. There are 8,500 cases of people above 90 receiving a pension and they are still searching how many of those are alive. So I fail to see how 100,000 are 'cheating' the system. Not being registered is not the same as cheating. Let's say, it is a very good hint. I read about it in the Süddeutsche Zeitung, but unfortunately not online. You will have to endure the Daily Mail for an English online version: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2048385/Greek-finance-sham-120k-families-claiming-ghost-pensions.html and http://www.ekathimerini.com/4dcgi/_w_articles_wsite1_2_07/10/2011_409786 quote:You are correct that tax evasion is rife. But think about it like that. Even if say 500,000 people are cheating the system, that's still 5% of the people. Hell, let's make it 20%. Why should the 80% of the rest pay As I said above: How the Greeks get their state running is their business (as long as within the rules of the European Human Rights). To add to your questions: Why should the other European taxpayer come up for the Greek tax frauds? quote:Greek government spending is 46% of GDP (with the newest revisions), which is approximately in line (a little bigger) with the rest of the EU. There's either too many people working for peanuts, there is no welfare state or there's few people getting rich salaries. Your scenario of tons of people getting crazy money is arithmetically impossible. It's definitely inefficient, but not as terribly large as people make it out to be. The Greek state is however not collecting enough money and its revenues as % of GDP are substantially lower than the rest of the EU. Again, there are people who cheated the tax system and that's correct, but the biggest tax evaders are lawyers, doctors etc. i.e. the rich. So a teacher in the public sector isn't happy to see his salary halved but he has to get hosed because somebody else cheated on taxes? Not collecting enough money is systemic: On top of the tax fraud taxes are very low and there used to be a high income tax allowance (12000 Euros I think). This is way above German levels and everybody - the poor teacher included - used to profit from low taxes and high allowances. There's no need for cheating to explain a low level of income. And I frankly don't believe Greek numbers anymore. They didn't even know the number of their civil servants before the crisis, so how should they know how much they are spending on the public sector? quote:Siemens gets a cheap loan, installs traffic system in Greece, pockets a hefty premium for bribing 10 officials and then gets the advantage of paying peanut wages too. Noone doubts their integrity because they are Germans and 'these things don't happen there'. The financial system put money where capital was scarce and got hefty returns for it. Siemens made billions and billions by bribing every official they stumbled upon. The people who financed Siemens also got their slice, even if they got burnt later on with bonds. Why don't you ask Siemens to pay instead of Johannes? Why should Johannes or Siemens pay for a traffic system installed in Greece for the benefit of Ioannis? Greece isn't a mentally handicapped minor who wasn't allowed to do business, but a sovereign and democratic state. If they signed contracts, it's foremost their problem. If they are a corrupt and failed state: That's another of Greece's problems to solve. I think the rioters should concentrate their anger on their society and how things work as a whole and not on a few that happen to be convenient scapegoats. quote:The fact remains that the mean, median and any other metric of salary is lower in Greece than most states in the EU. It doesn't help to compare Greece to other states if you want to see whether they are leaving beyond their means. As of Summer 2011 the Greek purchasing power was around 90% of EU average. How high was it in 1990? And what did the Greeks do in terms of productivity to earn 90% of purchasing power? http://www.tradingeconomics.com/greece/gdp-based-on-purchasing-power-parity-ppp-per-capita-gdp-imf-data.html quote:Yes, that's the core of the problem. Instead of Germany inflating its economy to balance fiscal and current account balances, the government decided to gently caress its workers over. The result was bigger profits for German companies and due to the Euro, easier access to capital starving economies where they made higher returns. All of this would have never happened if German wages kept rising with productivity. Instead German governments' metaphysical faith in austerity is leading Europe to ruin. Wages are negotiated between unions and employers, the state doesn't play a big role in Germany. German wages were quite high until the early 2000s and they have done the sensible thing: Not increase them until they were competitive again. The result is a loss in purchasing power but an increase in employment. Of course, it is unpopular to be a ant in a cricket's world. The anger directed at German self-restraint is sublimed anger towards the own shortsighted spendthrift that led into disaster. quote:Greek wages are back to 1983 levels. Everything they gained from the EU has been lost. Sure, austerity had to happen to some degree. But what is happening is the extermination of a people. The least bad thing for everyone is a bailout. But if everyone else is finding this reprehensible, the only correct moral stance of any Greek government is immediate obligatory default, not lead its people to the slaughter. I do not believe the 1983 levels. Do you have a link to support it? And, yeah "extermination of a people". Ridiculous hyperbole is not going to help. A bail out is only going to happen if Greece changes the rotten way its society works because else they will have to be bailed out on a regular basis. And no, this won't be done with a few commie rioters yelling "ze rich are taking ar jerbs".
|
|
#
¿
Oct 20, 2011 09:42
|
|
|
dreamin' posted:Einbauschrank, how can you argue in one post that Ioannis is earning 3500€ for the same job that a worker in Germany earns 2200€, and when it's shown to you that it's total bullshit, counter with "but the taxes are lower and they all cheat!" without blushing? I am a little bit fed up with the lack of manners in this debate. 1. It wasn't disproved that Ioannis could earn 3500€ for a job that would earn Johannes 2200€. http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/0,1518,770889,00.html 2. The taxes *are* lower and I didn't say they all cheat. I even posted earlier - quite explicitly - hat I don't think they all cheat. Please: Stop lying. I took care to post "I don't say that every Greek is corrupt". I am fed up with this. I don't put words into your mouth that you never said, I use the "quote" function and try to argue with what the other person said instead of inventing fairy tales which I then refute. So please, show some courtesy, even if we happen to disagree.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 20, 2011 09:54
|
|
|
Ymel posted:Ι searched for the data on this and there are 1,473 cases of dead people whose relatives or the postman are receiving their pensions. There are 8,500 cases of people above 90 receiving a pension and they are still searching how many of those are alive. So I fail to see how 100,000 are 'cheating' the system. Not being registered is not the same as cheating. The Chief of IKA, the Greek pension insurance, speaks of up to 8 billions that have been siphoned away by frauds. http://www.ekathimerini.com/4dcgi/_w_articles_wsite1_7_31/10/2011_412494 Argue with him about it being only 1473 cases.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 31, 2011 18:09
|
|
|
Distant Mist posted:Our zeal against him is just a reaction to the blind devotion that big parts of the public had and still have for him. He was by far the most popular politician, and not because of anything he achieved politically. He wasn't judged by his actions like a normal politician but rather looked up to like a king. His followers were so impressed by the facade he built of an honest and upright statesman who tells it like it is that they dismissed any criticism from the beginning and ate up his most obvious and ridiculous lies without questioning them. This is true. But then you should hate dumb people. And remember, that half of a population are of subaverage intelligence and that this is perfectly normal. Hell, if I didn't know this was about Guttenberg it would be no problem to coin the above quoted text to Joschka Fischer who wasn't anything but an eloquent bag of wind and didn't achieve anything noteworthy as a Foreign Minister besides giving away submarines for free and obviously not having any control over his ministry. Still, he was loved by many people - even those who weren't really dumb. I think Fischer's a walking pile of congealed grease held together by self-righteousness and I would pile Guttenberg into the same category: all show and no substance and a knack for lying. quote:And Guttenberg continues to prove that he also believes that he is the above all other politicians and the saviour of German politics, and that he's absolutely incapable of any form of self-criticism. What he's really good at is keeping up the myth that he made a silly mistake, admitted it, apologized for it and immediately took the right consequences. And nobody who didn't believe him the first time is falling for it now. He has turned into a hate figure for those with a chip on their shoulder against nobility, rich people, conservative parties, Bavaria, Academia etc. I think he's a dead horse that hasn't realized that it is dead. quote:I'm not saying that Silvana Koch-Mehrin or Jorgo Chatzimarkakis are any better than him, but they're nowhere near as popular and important as Guttenberg. He still has so many supporters that it's a relief that even the likes of Seehofer, Dobrindt and Aigner are now telling him to have some decency and shut the gently caress up. Seehofer would rather lick a cone of frozen embryos than to yield any space to Guttenberg.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2011 13:00
|
|
|
dreamin' posted:Oh yes, the plebs is at fault again! I would like to know what serious newspaper had at least on or two pro-Guttenberg columns in the last couple of weeks? It shouldn't be a problem for you to show some of them. I can't remember a single pro Guttenberg column from the Süddeutsche, the ZEIT or the FAZ. quote:I can see from your posting carerr that in typical goony fashion you feel like all the bad things in the world are the fault of the dumb masses, I don't need to look at your postings to remember from our past meetings that you are unable to lead a proper discussion, but prefer to get to a personal level at once. Sorry, I am not interested. So either you stick to some modicum of social graces or please leave me be. quote:You do realize that, regardless of what you think about Fischer's "achievements" during his time in office, the Greens (and he as one of their most important players) did move a lot in German politics? The achievements of the Greens don't change the fact that Fischer is a windbag who didn't achieve much as a minister. He was very much a zero performer as Secretary of State for Energy in Hessen as he was a stinker as a Foreign Minister under Schröder. A lot was moved by the Greens. But it's shortsighted to claim it wouldn't have been moved without them. And especially without the windbag Fischer. I would agree though, that charismatic hot-air merchants like Fischer or Guttenberg or Westerwelle can help their parties to get in a position of strength. quote:Seriously? Is this the genius new strategy for Guttenbergs next comeback attempt? Are you seriously implying that people "that have a chip on their shoulders against academia" are hating on Guttenberg now? Again: I think he's a dead horse. Unless he publicly repents he won't make a comeback and even then he would need the strength to survive some hardcore ridicule. No one will let it drop. I think that Guttenberg is a projection figure for many people who suffer from a feeling of personal insufficiency - be it that they devotedly look up towards "their betters" or that their fragile egos feels threatened by other peoples' riches, their lineage or academic success. Those who feel threatened hate Guttenberg, those who look up to rich, noble and well educated people tended to support him. He is a projection figure for both groups. Much like many who yearned to be cool even though they were narrow-minded petty burgeois looked up to jeans and sneaker wearing Fischer even if he was a failure as a statesman.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2011 19:48
|
|
|
Hip Flask posted:Could you explain this non-german goon what's so bad with dem Spiegel? "Der Spiegel" as a weekly print magazine is bearable. "Spiegel Online" is a bad excuse for people who feel themselves superior to people reading the "BILD" but still want their dosis of scandal. Spiegel Online is badly written, even more badly researched and has a strong spin to it - not necessarily to the left or to the right, but according to what will get them the most comments. I would classify them as a Troll-Blog disguising as a newspaper.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2011 20:40
|
|
|
ArchangeI posted:The ZEIT does much the same, but at least calls them Editorials and puts them side by side. The comment section on both sites are about equally bad, though. The ZEIT left a rather unfortunate impression on me with their covering of the state debt crisis. They blatantly promote Euro Bonds, which is fine by me, if they do it on their spare time in their blogs. I want to be informed about matters that are not my expertise rather than to be manipulated into supporting the journalist's opinion. Edit: Answer to Hip Flask Hip Flask posted:so which german publications should i read? The FAZ offers to my opinion the best blend of all big papers, but I am biased as I live in the Rhein-Main area. Main exception: They have a noticeable Christian slant on embryonic use for research etc. The Süddeutsche is more green-liberal. I don't read it because I don't live in the South and don't bother about news from Munich. The ZEIT is petty much the same as the SZ in their green-liberal stance and is more or less the house paper of the SPD intellectual wing, Helmut Schmidt is a co-publisher and it shows. The FAS (the sunday journal of the FAZ) is less filled with Weltschmerz than the ZEIT and makes for a more enjoyable read to my opinion. You can pick according to your political taste from any of these newspaper without doing anything wrong. For the more courageous: If you want a decidedly left paper, I would recommend the "taz" if you feel a bit more hipster or the Frankfurter Rundschau if you prefer old-fashioned leftism. On the right fringe of the acceptable you might find the Junge Freiheit, which is full with nationalists but also the paper of choice for many eccentrics who are shunned by the mainstream media and not necessarily right-wing themselves. Einbauschrank fucked around with this message at 18:37 on Dec 6, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Dec 6, 2011 17:35
|
|
|
mcbexx posted:Varoufakis flipping Germany the bird during a speech... REVEALED! It's rather obviously a meta troll. And Varoufakis is stupid enough to cite a German satirist to uphold his lie of never having flipped the finger. Though the video of Jauch was suggestive in the first place. Both, Jauch and Böhmermann, are a good example why only stupid people use TV as a mean for political information rather than political entertainment. Get a newspaper, morans!
|
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2015 11:46
|
|
|
wayfinder posted:How so? I thought the version with the index finger was pretty convincing. Because there are different versions of this clip (the short one and a long one) on the net. Because the uploader claims not to have manipulated the video. Because eyewitnesses attending the lecture remember the finger (being shown twice). Because it would be quite a lot of work to create a video and upload it in the middle of February in the hope that a talk show in the middle of march would use this exact clip and not another one as an introduction. Because Böhmermann is a satirist and context means a lot. Because to cast a guy that looks like Varoufakis to make him a double for the finger is simply hilarious. I do not watch TV and only live off the droplets that make it to the internet. But seeing this parody and the ensuing debate I can understand why so many people believe in Russia Today etc. even though it makes no sense at all.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2015 12:01
|
|
|
Simply Simon posted:Yeah, because satire shows never faked a video/photo/story before that was then taken as truth by a "respectable news source". You sure saw through all layers of intentional misinformation here immediately, good job. Who, but Varoufakis, claimed that it was a "respectable news source"? He might be excused for not knowing Böhmermann - I didn't know him before this - but he may not be excused for continuing to lie. Very bad PR management and very much fitting into the stereotype of dishonest Greeks who plunged their country and the Euro into a crisis by being a shithead liars. His best bet is that the following navel gazing by "the media" and "media experts" will distract from the fact that he lied to millions (not sure how many people watch Jauch) of people on TV.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2015 12:36
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:you¨re not reading the post you're quoting right, try again I do not see the danger of any "respectable news source" taking up the Böhmermann claim as true. Perhaps I don't read enough poo poo media, so YMMV. Unless you count the mindless swarm intelligentsia of the internet as "a respectable news source". The only one of importance who gobbled it up like a kitten was the Finance Minister of Greece who used it to prop up his lie. And he shouldn't need a statement by the ZDF to know that he is lying.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2015 12:47
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:(hint: when trying to smugly dismiss people as dumb, it helps not to obviously misunderstand what you're dismissing) I am sorry you're too dumb to recognize satire when it bites you in the rear end and felt insulted by my smugness.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2015 12:54
|
|
|
I think this is a pretty important topic, because it shows the Medieninkompetenz reigning social networks. And I think this incompetence in source criticism is an explanatory factory for the success of shitnews outlets like Russia Today or KenFM.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2015 13:07
|
|
|
I have no idea what you're talking about since you've been very sparse with content and very heavy with judgement and insinuations. So, share your thoughts. You may even write in German if you think you can express yourself better to me this way.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2015 13:15
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 5, 2024 19:41 |
|
|
Pand posted:You seem to miss Böhmermann's point by quite a bit while at the same time talking about Medienkompetenz or the lack there of. So uuuh... Thanks, this is finally a post with content. But since I didn't make Böhmermann's point a topic of my postings until now I am not sure how this is a fair criticism. I wasn't primarily interested in his point (besides the one he's making on the problem of discerning truth from fake and how TV shows work), I am fascinated by how this obvious piece of satire could go viral. My pet peeve are Russia Today and KenFm and other idiotic "news" channels. I am deeply troubled by how people are believing this bullshit and at the same time being sceptical about the "mainstream media". It doesn't matter whether it is ChemTrails or that a Ukrainian ground support plane shot down MH17. So Böhmermann's point wasn't relevant to me, but the fact that he struck a nerve and that he was able to create a controversy out of bullshit. And that's why I took pains with exempting Varoufakis from this: He and his team are not from Germany so I do not think he's to blame to the same extent for not realizing this is a piece of satire. I do still blame him for sticking to his lie and I think it is - objectively - a bad move by him and the best thing that can happen to him is that it gets lost in the now ensuing discussion about Böhmermann. Anyway, as you brought it up, there are several implicit and explicit points to Böhmermann's message. Some of which I personally find valid, others I disagree with. E.g., there's criticism of how Jauch's team tried to confront Varoufakis with his show of the finger out of context. But I covered this one in my first post, so I don't think I missed it and the first one I noticed who criticized it was Niggemeier, a few days before Böhmermann, so it wouldn't be fair to call it "Böhmermann's point" when it already was common knowledge. He's mocking how a finger can be a topic when you've got other problems at hand (pun intended) - I only partly agree with this because "the finger" turned into such a scandal only after Varoufakis denounced it to be "doctored". A statesman lying brazenly on TV is a big thing. I don't think Jauch intended the talk to revolve around the finger, it was rather a peg on which to hook the sad state of German-Greek relations at the moment. Also, the fact it was taken out of context is a heavy burden on their credibility and I can understand if Varoufakis denies it in the spur of the moment, because the suggestive video might not fit with his memory. But as even now he is still sticking to his version which I think is stupid and makes a bad impression as it fits into the stereotype of the lying Greek who is considered to be one of the causes for the Euro crisis. Also, one of his points was to make an absurd situation even more absurd. This one he handled excellently, though with help from the mindless swarm intelligentsia. And of course there's the explicit point he's making with his lecture on how Jauch wanted "Mutti and Vati" to have something to rail against. I think he's OTT with that one (as above: I do not think this was intended to be the focus of the show). They wanted something placative, but this is how TV works and not a big master plan to humiliate poor Greece. I do not think they did it out of malice but rather as an opportunity for a member of the left radical and right populist Greek government coalition to publicly calm the waves by taking back this "finger" and to show that now that they are in charge of government they realize that populistic gestures are no longer a sensible way to handle things. They might as well have shown some of the more stupid caricatures of Schäuble etc. They chose "the finger", I think, because it is catchy and TV isn't about getting the message to smart people but to many people and because Varoufakis can't deny responsability for this one like for a caricature. Turns out: He can, by lying.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2015 15:14
|
|