• Log InLog In
  • Register
Liquid`
Team Liquid Liquipedia
EDT 23:42
CEST 05:42
KST 12:42
  • Home
  • Forum
  • Calendar
  • Streams
  • Liquipedia
  • Features
  • Store
  • EPT
  • TL+
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Smash
  • Heroes
  • Counter-Strike
  • Overwatch
  • Liquibet
  • Fantasy StarCraft
  • TLPD
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Blogs
Forum Sidebar
Events/Features
News
Featured News
BGE Stara Zagora 2025: Info & Preview27Code S RO12 Preview: GuMiho, Bunny, SHIN, ByuN3The Memories We Share - Facing the Final(?) GSL47Code S RO12 Preview: Cure, Zoun, Solar, Creator4[ASL19] Finals Preview: Daunting Task30
Community News
Weekly Cups (June 2-8): herO doubles down1[BSL20] ProLeague: Bracket Stage & Dates9GSL Ro4 and Finals moved to Sunday June 15th13Weekly Cups (May 27-June 1): ByuN goes back-to-back0EWC 2025 Regional Qualifier Results26
StarCraft 2
General
The SCII GOAT: A statistical Evaluation Jim claims he and Firefly were involved in match-fixing CN community: Firefly accused of suspicious activities How does the number of casters affect your enjoyment of esports? Serious Question: Mech
Tourneys
Bellum Gens Elite: Stara Zagora 2025 $3,500 WardiTV European League 2025 Sparkling Tuna Cup - Weekly Open Tournament SOOPer7s Showmatches 2025 Master Swan Open (Global Bronze-Master 2)
Strategy
[G] Darkgrid Layout Simple Questions Simple Answers [G] PvT Cheese: 13 Gate Proxy Robo
Custom Maps
[UMS] Zillion Zerglings
External Content
Mutation # 477 Slow and Steady Mutation # 476 Charnel House Mutation # 475 Hard Target Mutation # 474 Futile Resistance
Brood War
General
BW General Discussion StarCraft & BroodWar Campaign Speedrun Quest BGH auto balance -> http://bghmmr.eu/ Will foreigners ever be able to challenge Koreans? Mihu vs Korea Players Statistics
Tourneys
[ASL19] Grand Finals NA Team League 6/8/2025 [Megathread] Daily Proleagues [BSL20] ProLeague Bracket Stage - Day 2
Strategy
I am doing this better than progamers do. [G] How to get started on ladder as a new Z player
Other Games
General Games
Stormgate/Frost Giant Megathread What do you want from future RTS games? Armies of Exigo - YesYes? Nintendo Switch Thread Path of Exile
Dota 2
Official 'what is Dota anymore' discussion
League of Legends
LiquidLegends to reintegrate into TL.net
Heroes of the Storm
Simple Questions, Simple Answers Heroes of the Storm 2.0
Hearthstone
Heroes of StarCraft mini-set
TL Mafia
TL Mafia Community Thread Vanilla Mini Mafia
Community
General
US Politics Mega-thread Things Aren’t Peaceful in Palestine Russo-Ukrainian War Thread Vape Nation Thread European Politico-economics QA Mega-thread
Fan Clubs
Maru Fan Club Serral Fan Club
Media & Entertainment
Korean Music Discussion [Manga] One Piece
Sports
2024 - 2025 Football Thread Formula 1 Discussion NHL Playoffs 2024
World Cup 2022
Tech Support
Computer Build, Upgrade & Buying Resource Thread
TL Community
The Automated Ban List
Blogs
Cognitive styles x game perf…
TrAiDoS
StarCraft improvement
iopq
Heero Yuy & the Tax…
KrillinFromwales
I was completely wrong ab…
jameswatts
Need Your Help/Advice
Glider
Trip to the Zoo
micronesia
Poker
Nebuchad
Customize Sidebar...

Website Feedback

Closed Threads



Active: 21810 users

Guide to Irony and Satire

Blogs > jdseemoreglass
Post a Reply
1 2 3 Next All
jdseemoreglass
Profile Blog Joined July 2010
United States3773 Posts
Last Edited: 2011-06-24 17:00:11
June 24 2011 04:46 GMT
#1
 
i·ro·ny/ˈīrənē/
Noun: The expression of one's meaning by using language that normally signifies the opposite, typically for humorous or emphatic effect.

sat·ire
noun /ˈsaˌtīr/
The use of humor, irony, exaggeration, or ridicule to expose and criticize people's stupidity or vices, particularly in the context of contemporary politics and other topical issues.

The essential feature of irony is the indirect presentation of a contradiction between an action or expression and the context in which it occurs. In the figure of speech, emphasis is placed on the opposition between the literal and intended meaning of a statement; one thing is said and its opposite implied, as in the comment, “Beautiful weather, isn't it?” made when it is raining or nasty.

On June 13 2011 07:12 Mikilatov wrote:
I'm not sure what concerns me more, the (actual) topic of my blog, or the fact that I think maybe a few people will read this blog and actually take it seriously.



Guide to Irony and Satire


Irony and satire are techniques for making an argument in an indirect way. It is primarily used to more effectively emphasize the absurdity of an opposing argument by exaggerating it's absurdity, compared with simply stating an argument directly. This is a guide to both creating and recognizing irony and satire.

Recognizing satire primarily relies on the reader noticing an absurd statement or idea, and having enough respect for the author to understand that the absurdity is being manufactured purposely, with the intent of criticizing an opponent. This of course is complicated if the author is writing in an environment which is saturated by absurd individuals. In order to combat this, the author must make statements which are over-the-top absurd, to distinguish himself as a satirist.

It is important for the author to not stoop to the level of stating his irony explicitly, for example in the form of a spoiler saying "just kidding!" This significantly detracts from the power of the argument and makes the satire almost pointless. When an individual creates satire, they are implicitly granting respect to their audience, by assuming that the audience will comprehend the satire. Stating the fact explicitly is an insult to the average readers intelligence, and usually means the absurdity wasn't made apparent enough.

When faced with confusion from his audience, it is common for the satirist to respond in a way that is even more blatantly absurd, to make his purpose more clear. If this second attempt fails, however, there is little hope of reaching the confused individuals, with either subtle or direct arguments, and the effect the satire was meant to induce is already lost and irretrievable once it is discussed explicitly.

The satirist often leaves subtle clues to the fact that his is speaking ironically. Often they will include a line or expression that exhibits such absurdity that makes their purpose clear if it was previously murky. It is often possible to distinguish the satirical individuals by the refined manner in which they speak or write, including vocabulary, grammar, and spelling. Typically, nutjobs and morons do not speak in a particularly articulate fashion, but there are exceptions.

Many people will read irony, or satire, and reach the conclusion that the author is simply a sarcastic smart-ass. Of course, the difference between a satirist and a smart-ass depends entirely on the perspective and attitude of the external observer. If the observer regards argument and debate as a form of sport or competition, they will likely appreciate the irony. If the individual has a vested emotional interest in their arguments and has a tendency to take personal offense from counter-arguments, then they will feel the person is just a jackass.


Explaining satire through example:


In order to recognize and decode irony and satire, you must follow these steps:

1) Recognize absurd statements and the subtle clues that the author is not honestly advocating them.
2) Take the authors arguments and realize he is criticizing those arguments.
3) Look at the context of the argument to understand the point he is trying to make.


On June 22 2011 10:39 jdseemoreglass wrote:
Show nested quote +
On June 22 2011 10:16 BlackJack wrote:
On June 22 2011 10:10 jdseemoreglass wrote:
One day mankind will solve death. If we just have enough of other people's money and we have scientific progress we can achieve immortality for everyone. Of course it won't happen in America, because we are backwards and get everything wrong and should learn from the other countries how to behave.

There is no reason for a person to die of cancer or any other deadly disease. Every time I hear about someone dying in the news, or taking great pains to try and survive as long as possible, I question where the system failed them. We've got a lot of ignorant capitalists here who believe in things like natural selection and think it's normal for people to die. Well it's not. We just haven't advanced politically far enough to end death, like many countries have ended poverty.

I just hope America isn't beat to solving mortality by a nation like Cuba or North Korea. That would be very embarrassing considering how many economic advantages we have.



Are you trolling or do you really believe what you write down? I hope it's the former


What makes you think I'm trolling? Maybe I didn't explain what I meant very clearly. Let me try and rephrase the argument...

There are many, many people who have died, right? I mean I hear about it all the time in the news and in history and stuff. And yet, at the same time, there are tons of people alive and living. Clearly that means that death isn't really necessary, or else we would all be dead.

So how come some people die and so many other people haven't died? Well clearly it's because there is an unequal distribution of wealth. If all of the people who died had the same exact health care as the people who are alive, then no one would be dead. So to cure mortality, all we have to do is take the health care from the richest people and apply it to the poorest people.

This is pretty much common sense. But our voters and politicians are so dumb they don't see this logic. People are really very immoral because they refuse to give up their money, essentially they want other people to die for their own greed. If it wasn't for greed we could have cured death a long time ago.

User was temp banned for this post.


1) Recognizing the absurdity: Author suggests death is not inevitable when it is one of the surest certainties of life. Author suggests death is the result of inequity and poor health care instead of a universal reality. Author suggests people who are alive now will never die. Author suggests people lack common sense for not thinking extremely uncommon thoughts and employing flawed logical reasoning.

2) Reversing the argument: The author suggests that death is not inevitable, so he must be criticizing the suggestion that death is not inevitable.

3) Context and explanation: It is a criticism of the claim that a naturally occuring illness or death is an indictment of an economic system or set of policies. The point being made is that you cannot ever end death, and a nation which tries to justify saving every life by paying for ever higher and higher medical costs and redistribution of wealth is clearly living in denial of the mortality of human beings, and the undeniable fact that medical care must be rationed in one form or another, regardless of the economic policies in place.


On June 08 2011 04:31 jdseemoreglass wrote:
Banning movies from a country now?

lol, and they call themselves the land of the free and the home....

Oh wait, never mind, this is Europe. Time to put on my rose colored glasses.

User was temp banned for this post.

1) Recognizing the absurdity: Author associates a motto of the US with the UK. Author takes one stance toward one country then a completely opposite response toward another, consecutively. Author recognizes he makes a mistake, but doesn't erase it, making his hypocrisy clear to everyone.

2) Reversing the argument: The author is being hypocritical, so he must be criticizing hypocrisy.

3) Context and explanation: Many individuals hold irrational disdain towards certain entities which cause them to recognize and voice faults towards them. These same individuals will often ignore or gloss over the same faults in other entities. This is called hypocrisy or a double-standard, and is frequently considered an error when exhibited.


Example of how to create satire


Reverse the process:

1) Recognize your target. In this case, a thread that is typically labeled a "spam thread" because it evokes many personal responses and little possible discussion. Also, the fact that the motivation for many posters in said thread is to brag about how smart they are.

2) Take the thing you want to criticize, and copy it. In this case, by bragging in the same manner as others.

3) Insert absurd statements to make it clear to external observers that your post is not meant to be taken seriously. In this case, we will illustrate absurdity by suggesting that a high school student is attending ivy league universities has a list of achievements which are essentially impossible.

On May 07 2011 12:47 jdseemoreglass wrote:
I'm taking AP Calculus 7, AP Theoretical and Applied Physics, AP Molecular Chemistry and Biology. I've have two doctorates, one from Harvard and one from Yale. I passed the bar recently, but I also want to earn a Nobel Prize at some point in the future as well.

What Nobel Prizes have you guys won so far?

User was temp banned for this post.



Difference between satire and trolling


While satire usually tries to criticize an argument or an idea, trolling goes after individuals with the express purpose of provoking an emotional response or deliberately misleading or confusing the reader. Satirists generally do not appreciate confusion or emotional responses, because the satirist attempts to make his absurdity and his argument clear to the majority of people. The satirist implicitly assumes his audience is capable of comprehending subtlety, and this assumption should be seen as a form of respect towards his audiences abilities. He does not assume that many people will not recognize the intention of the absurdity.

It is true that satire is often confused with trolling, and causes an emotional response, but it must be made clear that this is not the intention of satire, and such responses are usually the result of confusion or misunderstanding on the part of the specific audience.


Los Angeles Times article: Has it gotten so difficult to recognize satire?
 

**
"If you want this forum to be full of half-baked philosophy discussions between pompous faggots like yourself forever, stay the course captain vanilla" - FakeSteve[TPR], 2006
Jumbled
Profile Joined September 2010
1543 Posts
Last Edited: 2011-06-24 04:56:38
June 24 2011 04:56 GMT
#2
The latter two examples you give look more like digs at either a particular country or poster, rather than pure humour. Since TL preaches respect for other posters, I'd suggest it was your tone that caused moderation rather than someone missing the point.

As for the first, the attempt at satire is less obvious simply because the writing is very clumsy. One of the identifying marks of irony and satire is a certain sharpness of wit in the way the absurdities are expressed, and that is rather lacking in your example.
Dalguno
Profile Blog Joined January 2011
United States2446 Posts
June 24 2011 05:09 GMT
#3
Is it irony that all the satire mentioned was authored by you, and ironic as well that you were banned in each of the posts presented?
"I'm gonna keep making drones cause I'm a baller, and ballers make drones." -Snute
TheFrankOne
Profile Joined December 2010
United States667 Posts
June 24 2011 05:10 GMT
#4
I don't think those were subtle enough to need explaining. I mean, what is the point of this?
quiong
Profile Joined January 2008
United States268 Posts
June 24 2011 05:12 GMT
#5
Perhaps you should work on making satirical posts of a higher quality, rather than a guide to understanding satire. Your entire post seems to be one massive assumption that, because you were temp-banned for those example posts above, your audience must be retarded.

It is true that satire is often confused with trolling, and causes an emotional response, but it must be made clear that this is not the intention of satire, and such responses are usually the result of confusion or misunderstanding on the part of the specific audience.


Your last paragraph again puts the blame squarely on the audience -- if the audience is confused, it must be their fault. Does it not occur to you that it may equally be the fault of the satirist if his or her work is so easily confused for trolling?
jdseemoreglass
Profile Blog Joined July 2010
United States3773 Posts
June 24 2011 05:14 GMT
#6
On June 24 2011 14:10 TheFrankOne wrote:
I don't think those were subtle enough to need explaining. I mean, what is the point of this?


On June 22 2011 12:51 Probulous wrote:
Show nested quote +
jdseemoreglass was just temp banned for 2 days by micronesia.

That account was created on 2010-07-23 07:33:10 and had 1235 posts.

Reason:

On June 22 2011 10:39 jdseemoreglass wrote:
+ Show Spoiler +
On June 22 2011 10:16 BlackJack wrote:
+ Show Spoiler +
On June 22 2011 10:10 jdseemoreglass wrote:
One day mankind will solve death. If we just have enough of other people's money and we have scientific progress we can achieve immortality for everyone. Of course it won't happen in America, because we are backwards and get everything wrong and should learn from the other countries how to behave.

There is no reason for a person to die of cancer or any other deadly disease. Every time I hear about someone dying in the news, or taking great pains to try and survive as long as possible, I question where the system failed them. We've got a lot of ignorant capitalists here who believe in things like natural selection and think it's normal for people to die. Well it's not. We just haven't advanced politically far enough to end death, like many countries have ended poverty.

I just hope America isn't beat to solving mortality by a nation like Cuba or North Korea. That would be very embarrassing considering how many economic advantages we have.

Are you trolling or do you really believe what you write down? I hope it's the former

What makes you think I'm trolling? Maybe I didn't explain what I meant very clearly. Let me try and rephrase the argument...

There are many, many people who have died, right? I mean I hear about it all the time in the news and in history and stuff. And yet, at the same time, there are tons of people alive and living. Clearly that means that death isn't really necessary, or else we would all be dead.

So how come some people die and so many other people haven't died? Well clearly it's because there is an unequal distribution of wealth. If all of the people who died had the same exact health care as the people who are alive, then no one would be dead. So to cure mortality, all we have to do is take the health care from the richest people and apply it to the poorest people.

This is pretty much common sense. But our voters and politicians are so dumb they don't see this logic. People are really very immoral because they refuse to give up their money, essentially they want other people to die for their own greed. If it wasn't for greed we could have cured death a long time ago.

Keep your ridiculous bulls*** out of discussion threads.


You have to admire that his brain is capable of such weird logic. It is so illogical that it almost makes sense. Some kind of idiot-savant thing going on here.

Death can't be necessary because people are alive? That's going to stick with me. Probably not in the way he intended but hey at least his point got across...

Or did it...

On June 22 2011 13:18 Probe1 wrote:
What the fuck..
Seldom do I use that phrase with full force.
Show nested quote +
If it wasn't for greed we could have cured death a long time ago.


What. The. Fuck.
+ Show Spoiler +
Seriously. What the fuck. My brain just stroked off trying to save me from thinking too hard about that post.

On June 22 2011 14:36 Probulous wrote:
Show nested quote +
On June 22 2011 14:29 Kinetik_Inferno wrote:
On June 22 2011 12:51 Probulous wrote:
jdseemoreglass was just temp banned for 2 days by micronesia.

That account was created on 2010-07-23 07:33:10 and had 1235 posts.

Reason:

On June 22 2011 10:39 jdseemoreglass wrote:
+ Show Spoiler +
On June 22 2011 10:16 BlackJack wrote:
+ Show Spoiler +
On June 22 2011 10:10 jdseemoreglass wrote:
One day mankind will solve death. If we just have enough of other people's money and we have scientific progress we can achieve immortality for everyone. Of course it won't happen in America, because we are backwards and get everything wrong and should learn from the other countries how to behave.

There is no reason for a person to die of cancer or any other deadly disease. Every time I hear about someone dying in the news, or taking great pains to try and survive as long as possible, I question where the system failed them. We've got a lot of ignorant capitalists here who believe in things like natural selection and think it's normal for people to die. Well it's not. We just haven't advanced politically far enough to end death, like many countries have ended poverty.

I just hope America isn't beat to solving mortality by a nation like Cuba or North Korea. That would be very embarrassing considering how many economic advantages we have.

Are you trolling or do you really believe what you write down? I hope it's the former

What makes you think I'm trolling? Maybe I didn't explain what I meant very clearly. Let me try and rephrase the argument...

There are many, many people who have died, right? I mean I hear about it all the time in the news and in history and stuff. And yet, at the same time, there are tons of people alive and living. Clearly that means that death isn't really necessary, or else we would all be dead.

So how come some people die and so many other people haven't died? Well clearly it's because there is an unequal distribution of wealth. If all of the people who died had the same exact health care as the people who are alive, then no one would be dead. So to cure mortality, all we have to do is take the health care from the richest people and apply it to the poorest people.

This is pretty much common sense. But our voters and politicians are so dumb they don't see this logic. People are really very immoral because they refuse to give up their money, essentially they want other people to die for their own greed. If it wasn't for greed we could have cured death a long time ago.

Keep your ridiculous bulls*** out of discussion threads.


You have to admire that his brain is capable of such weird logic. It is so illogical that it almost makes sense. Some kind of idiot-savant thing going on here.

Death can't be necessary because people are alive? That's going to stick with me. Probably not in the way he intended but hey at least his point got across...

Or did it...


In some way it makes sense to me. While death may be natural, it may be the next great thing for mankind to conquer. He didn't exactly state it in a completely understandable manner, and I get the feeling that he walked away from his computer and when he came back to writing the post he lost his train of thought, but when you break it down:

Death is natural, yet it is one of the great things for man to conquer.

He lost his train of sanity thought when he started talking about how conquering death would require research, and politicians are greedy and rich people are greedy.

In some ways, I agree with the last statement. I believe that a family, be it rich or not, can comfortably live in a decent sized house, so one rich guy having his own 5 acre personal mansion is stupid, wasteful, and immoral.


You are of course, correct. Death is only natural because we haven't found a cure yet. I guess the premise isn't a problem it is the very strange logic he tried to use to support it. People living != People living forever.

On June 22 2011 13:20 Torte de Lini wrote:
Jdseemoreglass is no stranger to temp. bans. A large shame because I think he is a generally nice guy, just very misguided to say the least.

On June 22 2011 14:15 koreasilver wrote:
Show nested quote +
On June 22 2011 13:20 Torte de Lini wrote:
Jdseemoreglass is no stranger to temp. bans. A large shame because I think he is a generally nice guy, just very misguided to say the least.

After reading that quote, this is really understated.
"If you want this forum to be full of half-baked philosophy discussions between pompous faggots like yourself forever, stay the course captain vanilla" - FakeSteve[TPR], 2006
jdseemoreglass
Profile Blog Joined July 2010
United States3773 Posts
Last Edited: 2011-06-24 05:19:42
June 24 2011 05:16 GMT
#7
On June 24 2011 14:12 quiong wrote:
Perhaps you should work on making satirical posts of a higher quality, rather than a guide to understanding satire. Your entire post seems to be one massive assumption that, because you were temp-banned for those example posts above, your audience must be retarded.

Show nested quote +
It is true that satire is often confused with trolling, and causes an emotional response, but it must be made clear that this is not the intention of satire, and such responses are usually the result of confusion or misunderstanding on the part of the specific audience.


Your last paragraph again puts the blame squarely on the audience -- if the audience is confused, it must be their fault. Does it not occur to you that it may equally be the fault of the satirist if his or her work is so easily confused for trolling?


I said that usually the confused individuals are to blame for their confusion, which I think is true in most things in life. Of course, this assumes that I delivered the satire adequately, which I'm sure people can fairly debate. The poster above you seems to think they were all very obvious for example.

However, this blog isn't directed to the moderation, rather to the people who responded to me with confusion and anger. If I could delete the mod edits from my posts I would, but I think that's against the rules.
"If you want this forum to be full of half-baked philosophy discussions between pompous faggots like yourself forever, stay the course captain vanilla" - FakeSteve[TPR], 2006
quiong
Profile Joined January 2008
United States268 Posts
June 24 2011 05:18 GMT
#8
On June 24 2011 14:16 jdseemoreglass wrote:
Show nested quote +
On June 24 2011 14:12 quiong wrote:
Perhaps you should work on making satirical posts of a higher quality, rather than a guide to understanding satire. Your entire post seems to be one massive assumption that, because you were temp-banned for those example posts above, your audience must be retarded.

It is true that satire is often confused with trolling, and causes an emotional response, but it must be made clear that this is not the intention of satire, and such responses are usually the result of confusion or misunderstanding on the part of the specific audience.


Your last paragraph again puts the blame squarely on the audience -- if the audience is confused, it must be their fault. Does it not occur to you that it may equally be the fault of the satirist if his or her work is so easily confused for trolling?


I said that usually the confused individuals are to blame for their confusion, which I think is true in most things in life. Of course, this assumes that I delivered the satire adequately, which I'm sure people can fairly debate. The poster above you seems to think they were all very obvious for example.


And the mods who temp-banned you obviously disagreed. So for a specific (yet important) subset of the audience on this site, your delivery still needs work.
huameng
Profile Blog Joined April 2007
United States1133 Posts
Last Edited: 2011-06-24 05:22:14
June 24 2011 05:20 GMT
#9
On June 24 2011 14:18 quiong wrote:
Show nested quote +
On June 24 2011 14:16 jdseemoreglass wrote:
On June 24 2011 14:12 quiong wrote:
Perhaps you should work on making satirical posts of a higher quality, rather than a guide to understanding satire. Your entire post seems to be one massive assumption that, because you were temp-banned for those example posts above, your audience must be retarded.

It is true that satire is often confused with trolling, and causes an emotional response, but it must be made clear that this is not the intention of satire, and such responses are usually the result of confusion or misunderstanding on the part of the specific audience.


Your last paragraph again puts the blame squarely on the audience -- if the audience is confused, it must be their fault. Does it not occur to you that it may equally be the fault of the satirist if his or her work is so easily confused for trolling?


I said that usually the confused individuals are to blame for their confusion, which I think is true in most things in life. Of course, this assumes that I delivered the satire adequately, which I'm sure people can fairly debate. The poster above you seems to think they were all very obvious for example.


And the mods who temp-banned you obviously disagreed. So for a specific (yet important) subset of the audience on this site, your delivery still needs work.


It is possible to both understand a post is satire and understand a post is shit

edit: you could take the red ink out of the quotes no problem
skating
jdseemoreglass
Profile Blog Joined July 2010
United States3773 Posts
June 24 2011 05:21 GMT
#10
On June 24 2011 14:18 quiong wrote:
Show nested quote +
On June 24 2011 14:16 jdseemoreglass wrote:
On June 24 2011 14:12 quiong wrote:
Perhaps you should work on making satirical posts of a higher quality, rather than a guide to understanding satire. Your entire post seems to be one massive assumption that, because you were temp-banned for those example posts above, your audience must be retarded.

It is true that satire is often confused with trolling, and causes an emotional response, but it must be made clear that this is not the intention of satire, and such responses are usually the result of confusion or misunderstanding on the part of the specific audience.


Your last paragraph again puts the blame squarely on the audience -- if the audience is confused, it must be their fault. Does it not occur to you that it may equally be the fault of the satirist if his or her work is so easily confused for trolling?


I said that usually the confused individuals are to blame for their confusion, which I think is true in most things in life. Of course, this assumes that I delivered the satire adequately, which I'm sure people can fairly debate. The poster above you seems to think they were all very obvious for example.


And the mods who temp-banned you obviously disagreed. So for a specific (yet important) subset of the audience on this site, your delivery still needs work.


You are assuming the mods banned me out of confusion. Perhaps they simply don't want sarcastic arguments. Like I said, this was directed towards confused posters, not the mods, and I would edit the red ink but I think it's against the rules.
"If you want this forum to be full of half-baked philosophy discussions between pompous faggots like yourself forever, stay the course captain vanilla" - FakeSteve[TPR], 2006
quiong
Profile Joined January 2008
United States268 Posts
June 24 2011 05:24 GMT
#11
I concede, perhaps the mods fully understood that your posts were satirical, but banned you anyway for some other reason.

The fact that you picked 3 posts where you were temp-banned in your guide made it not-so-subtly seem directed towards the mods.
Enervate
Profile Joined August 2010
United States1769 Posts
Last Edited: 2011-06-24 05:42:54
June 24 2011 05:39 GMT
#12
Lol you are in almost the exact same situation as Rogert Ebert once was in.

He made a terrible satirical post (about creationism) that no one was able to correctly recognize as satire and then had to make another blog post explaining it and defending himself whilst trying to place the fault on the reader.

Yea, I don't think that worked too well for him.

(Not to mention he only made 1 bad post and a better response.)
Probulous
Profile Blog Joined March 2011
Australia3894 Posts
June 24 2011 05:47 GMT
#13
Author writes long-winded explanation for his failed attempt at satire.

Fails to see the irony...
"Dude has some really interesting midgame switches that I wouldn't have expected. "I violated your house" into "HIHO THE DAIRY OH!" really threw me. You don't usually expect children's poetry harass as a follow up " - AmericanUmlaut
jdseemoreglass
Profile Blog Joined July 2010
United States3773 Posts
Last Edited: 2011-06-24 05:54:16
June 24 2011 05:52 GMT
#14
On June 24 2011 14:47 Probulous wrote:
Author writes long-winded explanation for his failed attempt at satire.

Fails to see the irony...


This is a guide for people who may be irony challenged. I think I explained irony and satire and how to recognize them fairly well, regardless of the actual examples used.

And what makes you think I failed to see the irony
"If you want this forum to be full of half-baked philosophy discussions between pompous faggots like yourself forever, stay the course captain vanilla" - FakeSteve[TPR], 2006
Ghin
Profile Blog Joined January 2005
United States2391 Posts
June 24 2011 06:01 GMT
#15
Your posts are just bad, which is why you got temp banned.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I was taught that satire is a form of humor.

Legalize drugs and murder.
jdseemoreglass
Profile Blog Joined July 2010
United States3773 Posts
June 24 2011 06:02 GMT
#16
On June 24 2011 15:01 Ghin wrote:
Your posts are just bad, which is why you got temp banned.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I was taught that satire is a form of humor.


Satire can be a form of humor, but it isn't a requirement. In case you didn't notice I provided a definition for the word.
"If you want this forum to be full of half-baked philosophy discussions between pompous faggots like yourself forever, stay the course captain vanilla" - FakeSteve[TPR], 2006
Kamais_Ookin
Profile Blog Joined May 2010
Canada4218 Posts
June 24 2011 06:06 GMT
#17
This blog is 1/5, give it up already before you get banned some more.
I <3 Plexa.
Gummy
Profile Blog Joined October 2010
United States2180 Posts
June 24 2011 06:11 GMT
#18
I'm thinking this blog is quite Ferric.

It's not only ironic, it's 3+ ironic.

It's not only ironic, it's fucking cationic.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯ There are three kinds of people in the world: those who can count and those who can't.
Blisse
Profile Blog Joined July 2010
Canada3710 Posts
Last Edited: 2011-06-24 06:24:38
June 24 2011 06:17 GMT
#19
On June 24 2011 15:11 Gummy wrote:
I'm thinking this blog is quite Ferric.

It's not only ironic, it's 3+ ironic.

It's not only ironic, it's fucking cationic.


LOL


You were neither posting irony nor satire, and you should re-evaluate what those ideas mean because you don't quite understand them yet, nor do you know how to use them properly. Your understanding of them is not how almost anyone else understands them (or you're just failing to communicate your ideas).

Also, if you post ironic and satirical contents, you really are not contributing more than saying, "you are wrong, and also dumb," which is not a nice way to post. The only reason a lot of them are forgivable is because they are often very funny, which speaks of effort. Your posts simply garnered a grunt

Anyways, this is more of a veiled attack on the administrators that temporarily banned you than a guide, saying that their understanding of satire and irony is wrong, and yours is right.of confusion.
There is no one like you in the universe.
Laerties
Profile Blog Joined March 2010
United States361 Posts
June 24 2011 06:22 GMT
#20
I think the mods got the satire the first time, but the posts still didn't contribute anything which, I think warrants a ban
Happiness is when what you think, what you say, and what you do are in harmony.
1 2 3 Next All
Please log in or register to reply.
Live Events Refresh
Replay Cast
00:00
2025 KFC #10: SC Evolution
CranKy Ducklings139
Liquipedia
[ Submit Event ]
Live Streams
Refresh
StarCraft 2
PiGStarcraft378
Nina 149
RuFF_SC2 113
Ketroc 43
StarCraft: Brood War
Sea 2703
Horang2 1606
Sharp 83
Noble 29
Leta 27
Icarus 9
Dota 2
monkeys_forever714
LuMiX1
League of Legends
JimRising 726
Super Smash Bros
hungrybox617
Mew2King61
Other Games
shahzam1219
Maynarde123
Livibee62
NeuroSwarm58
kaitlyn32
Organizations
Other Games
gamesdonequick1027
BasetradeTV65
StarCraft 2
Blizzard YouTube
StarCraft: Brood War
BSLTrovo
sctven
[ Show 17 non-featured ]
StarCraft 2
• Berry_CruncH258
• Mapu6
• Kozan
• sooper7s
• AfreecaTV YouTube
• intothetv
• Migwel
• IndyKCrew
• LaughNgamezSOOP
StarCraft: Brood War
• RayReign 31
• STPLYoutube
• ZZZeroYoutube
• BSLYoutube
League of Legends
• Doublelift6533
• Shiphtur526
• Stunt256
Other Games
• Scarra1708
Upcoming Events
Replay Cast
6h 18m
WardiTV Invitational
7h 18m
WardiTV Invitational
7h 18m
PiGosaur Monday
20h 18m
GSL Code S
1d 5h
Rogue vs GuMiho
Maru vs Solar
Online Event
1d 20h
Replay Cast
1d 22h
GSL Code S
2 days
herO vs Zoun
Classic vs Bunny
The PondCast
2 days
Replay Cast
2 days
[ Show More ]
WardiTV Invitational
3 days
OSC
3 days
Korean StarCraft League
3 days
CranKy Ducklings
4 days
WardiTV Invitational
4 days
Cheesadelphia
4 days
GSL Code S
5 days
Sparkling Tuna Cup
5 days
Replay Cast
5 days
Replay Cast
6 days
Liquipedia Results

Completed

CSL Season 17: Qualifier 2
BGE Stara Zagora 2025
Heroes 10 EU

Ongoing

JPL Season 2
BSL 2v2 Season 3
BSL Season 20
KCM Race Survival 2025 Season 2
NPSL S3
Rose Open S1
CSL 17: 2025 SUMMER
2025 GSL S2
BLAST.tv Austin Major 2025
ESL Impact League Season 7
IEM Dallas 2025
PGL Astana 2025
Asian Champions League '25
BLAST Rivals Spring 2025
MESA Nomadic Masters
CCT Season 2 Global Finals
IEM Melbourne 2025
YaLLa Compass Qatar 2025
PGL Bucharest 2025
BLAST Open Spring 2025

Upcoming

Copa Latinoamericana 4
CSLPRO Last Chance 2025
CSLPRO Chat StarLAN 3
K-Championship
SEL Season 2 Championship
Esports World Cup 2025
HSC XXVII
Championship of Russia 2025
Murky Cup #2
Esports World Cup 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall Qual
IEM Cologne 2025
FISSURE Playground #1
TLPD

1. ByuN
2. TY
3. Dark
4. Solar
5. Stats
6. Nerchio
7. sOs
8. soO
9. INnoVation
10. Elazer
1. Rain
2. Flash
3. EffOrt
4. Last
5. Bisu
6. Soulkey
7. Mini
8. Sharp
Sidebar Settings...

Advertising | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use | Contact Us

Original banner artwork: Jim Warren
The contents of this webpage are copyright © 2025 TLnet. All Rights Reserved.