|
On June 24 2011 15:22 Laerties wrote: I think the mods got the satire the first time, but the posts still didn't contribute anything which, I think warrants a ban Posts that don't contribute anything warrant a ban?
LOL. What site have you been looking at man?
And I think my post on death had far more content and meaning than the second poster of the same thread whose sole contribution was:
On June 22 2011 04:34 Carras wrote: Only in America.
|
the problem is that you're horribly unfunny so the satire/irony is lost on everyone. stop posting
|
On June 24 2011 15:38 TylerThaCreator wrote: the problem is that you're horribly unfunny so the satire/irony is lost on everyone. stop posting
lol so much animosity...
It's ok, I still love you guys
Goodnight TL.
|
On June 24 2011 15:30 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2011 15:22 Laerties wrote: I think the mods got the satire the first time, but the posts still didn't contribute anything which, I think warrants a ban Posts that don't contribute anything warrant a ban? LOL. What site have you been looking at man? And I think my post on death had far more content and meaning than the second poster of the same thread whose sole contribution was:
Yea, from reading that auto ban list it seems like most bans are for either insults or shitty no content posts... Also from reading the auto ban list its obvious that moderation is never consistant. I'm not trying to upset you but I'm hard pressed to believe that the mods just banned you because they thought you were trolling.
|
The problem with your "humor" is that they're posting in places that aren't asking for humor. They're asking for lively discussions and viewpoints/new perspectives.
All you're doing is trying to get a laugh, but hardly proving a point.
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.
This isn't satire or irony, this is just pure absurdity. You're being too subtle and not showing that this is just untrue because you talk within the realms of reality or actual rationale (despite how absurd it is).
Additionally, I've seen stupider and stranger on this site, so this falls into that category which leads one to believe you actually think so. The worst part is your follow-up, which just shows how stern you are on the subject. If you aren't serious in your claims then you are simply trolling, saying things you don't believe to cause a reaction or a disturbance, which isn't accepted much here I believe: 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.
So example 1 is completely out the door.
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.
This is just poor taste and silly. This is sarcasm, not irony or satire.
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?
Non-contributory. You're relating a global general discussion into a personal remark piece. No one cares what your credentials are and fabricating them for laughs is not only pointless, but confuses people to see what point you're trying to make.
Neither irony nor satire.
The problem with this blog entry is that you think satire is synonymous with exaggerating. You are exaggerating, not being satirical (or remotely wittingly funny) to prove a point or case
Stick with what you know and what you think :3 Leave the jokes for the right time and place. Satire is not meant to interact with others as far as I know (because it loses its nature). It's more for essays, open statements/arguments and/or stories that want to convey a viewpoint.
Try Jonathan Swift or 1984 or Animal Farm
|
I fail to see the purpose of this thread. Did you create it just to complain about your bans? If that's the case then you should read Torte's post. If you created it to discuss sarcasm and irony the you should probably format this better.
|
On June 24 2011 16:07 Meapak_Ziphh wrote: I fail to see the purpose of this thread. Did you create it just to complain about your bans? If that's the case then you should read Torte's post. If you created it to discuss sarcasm and irony the you should probably format this better. it is a blog complaining about his bans but covering up that fact by trying to lead discussion elsewhere
|
This is a good Blog!
(am i doing this right?)
|
On June 24 2011 16:10 Velr wrote: This is a good Blog!
(am i doing this right?) Your close! I'd add a 5/5 for a strong punch.
|
On June 24 2011 16:14 Kamais_Ookin wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2011 16:10 Velr wrote: This is a good Blog!
(am i doing this right?) Your close! I'd add a 5/5 for a strong punch. You may also want to slightly disagree with one point, but cover it up in a bunch of compliments and compliment the actual blogger saying you love every post he makes....just to make the joke seem more realistic.
|
+ Show Spoiler +I agree with this blog. I, too, try to use literary techniques that I misunderstand to absolve myself from all blame and shove that very blame onto the very readers who misunderstand me. A double-edged sword considering the fact that those readers are the very people who banned me, so in essence, I am going against the authorities and ultimately insulting them for their lack of understanding of this refined art I call satire (also known as exaggerating to the point of faulty comedy nature!).
The above, in spoilers, is the kind of literary comedy I go for. As you can tell, it's kind of mean-spirited and ultimately rude.
I did it again awhile back, guess what happened: http://www.teamliquid.net/blogs/viewblog.php?topic_id=197994#8
Show nested quote +Yes this is another girl blog, but it’s special, because it’s my first blog! But I think this one will be different from the other girl blogs, Yeah, I think my blog is different too, let me tell you about it too! So there's this girl. Her name? Her name is something the mortals refer to her to sum up her entity to a level of comprehension. The problem with this girl is unlike any other I've occurred. She is not the problem, but her beauty continues to fester and plague my thoughts. Each and every thought-process that churns within my mind somehow webs into the features of her face. Everytime I see her, I go blind with delight. Everytime I speak of her, my tongue becomes swollen with cinnamon of timidity and my babbling slowly erodes to speechlessness. Each time I think of her, I begin to dream, my eyes flutter to a slow draw and I dream, I dream for so long. She is but an escapade of my responsibility, my worries and insecurity. When I'm with her, time dissolves to a pause; it calms itself so I can admire an art that is forever in motion, forever in touch with my emotions and eternally tugging my heart, sore at smiling and love. When the opportunity presents itself for me to actually gawk at her astonishing beauty; either of her button nose, her adorable cheeks or emerald eyes that dazzle wider than any jewel-polisher could achieve I grow more thirsty. I yearn to disrobe her, to remove these fickle pieces of clothing-ware that but only keep us apart, no matter how minimal. I am hungry to define our love on a physical par that my young adolescent self imagined with a cloth and a sturdy hand. I wish to dig my nose into her long hair, conditioned and tamed to sparkle a rich hazel of many tasty almonds. I wish to mirror her gaze into my own and peck my lips against plump ones, rich with beauty and potential taste of love. This is a girl I cannot behold to the highest degree of understanding. She is of another universe, another hierarchy or being that hails from another existence and glorious beauty. To give her a name would not give justice and to describe her is but an iceberg that never melts. When a man feels love, they but only pursue an end that is hopefully and may potentially be with her. This girl is the outline of my exhausted heart. Well that was fun, off-topic and somehow not proving the point that nearly all girl topics revolve around the same problems and socialistic behaviorUser was temp banned for this post.
The guy enjoyed it. JWD didn't ): Pick the times of where to be funny is all I have to say~
|
On June 24 2011 15:57 Torte de Lini wrote: The problem with your "humor" is that they're posting in places that aren't asking for humor. They're asking for lively discussions and viewpoints/new perspectives.
All you're doing is trying to get a laugh, but hardly proving a point.
This isn't satire or irony, this is just pure absurdity. You're being too subtle and not showing that this is just untrue because you talk within the realms of reality or actual rationale (despite how absurd it is).
I disagree! I think that satire is a great way to introduce a new viewpoint/perspective. The point of satire is to make an argument, and arguments can support/refute old ideas or introduce something new.
And the fact that it's in the realms of reality is exactly what makes it great satire! Jonathan Swift's A Modest Proposal is great because it makes you believe he's actually got a novel idea, and then pushes for his proposal in such a way that causes the reader to worry about his seriousness. Satire thrives off that tension, and if jdseemoreglass is making people think about that, he's doing it well.
I think the problem lies in the fact that satire is mockery. Mockery, by nature, is disrespectful and this site doesn't support that.
|
Some decent points here... But honestly I'm just excited that I was quoted.
But yeah, just to reaffirm the satire vs. trolling thing, my last two blogs (one of which is where you took that quote from) were in no way attempting to troll anyone. I made them so entirely ludacris that I couldn't imagine anyone would think I was being serious, or trying to convince anyone it was serious (trolling). Unfortunately there were a moderately sized chunk of people who actually thought I was attempting to troll (or even worse, that I was actually serious.)
|
On June 24 2011 16:39 Mikilatov wrote: Some decent points here... But honestly I'm just excited that I was quoted.
But yeah, just to reaffirm the satire vs. trolling thing, my last two blogs (one of which is where you took that quote from) were in no way attempting to troll anyone. I made them so entirely ludacris that I couldn't imagine anyone would think I was being serious, or trying to convince anyone it was serious (trolling). Unfortunately there were a moderately sized chunk of people who actually thought I was attempting to troll (or even worse, that I was actually serious.)
^^This is a guide to irony.
This guy writes supposedly satirical posts which nobody gets and then proceeds to write a blog explaining what irony is. The true irony is not that he doesn't understand irony, but rather that in his attempts to explain he clearly demonstrates his lack of understanding...
|
On June 24 2011 16:39 ghrur wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2011 15:57 Torte de Lini wrote: The problem with your "humor" is that they're posting in places that aren't asking for humor. They're asking for lively discussions and viewpoints/new perspectives.
All you're doing is trying to get a laugh, but hardly proving a point.
This isn't satire or irony, this is just pure absurdity. You're being too subtle and not showing that this is just untrue because you talk within the realms of reality or actual rationale (despite how absurd it is).
I disagree! I think that satire is a great way to introduce a new viewpoint/perspective. The point of satire is to make an argument, and arguments can support/refute old ideas or introduce something new. And the fact that it's in the realms of reality is exactly what makes it great satire! Jonathan Swift's A Modest Proposal is great because it makes you believe he's actually got a novel idea, and then pushes for his proposal in such a way that causes the reader to worry about his seriousness. Satire thrives off that tension, and if jdseemoreglass is making people think about that, he's doing it well. I think the problem lies in the fact that satire is mockery. Mockery, by nature, is disrespectful and this site doesn't support that.
If everyone is having a round-table discussion and you're trying to be an amateur jester, it doesn't smooth over well. People come in expecting a serious discussion and with all the rampant misinformation, satire will hardly fit or even understood.
Swift's example of satire is gradual. You don't see that from jdseemoreglass and thus why it doesn't work and just becomes one-dimensionally bland or poor. On top of that, Swift's satire ranges from calling people cows to assessing a problem, neither seen from jdseemoreglass.
|
On June 24 2011 16:43 Probulous wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2011 16:39 Mikilatov wrote: Some decent points here... But honestly I'm just excited that I was quoted.
But yeah, just to reaffirm the satire vs. trolling thing, my last two blogs (one of which is where you took that quote from) were in no way attempting to troll anyone. I made them so entirely ludacris that I couldn't imagine anyone would think I was being serious, or trying to convince anyone it was serious (trolling). Unfortunately there were a moderately sized chunk of people who actually thought I was attempting to troll (or even worse, that I was actually serious.) ^^This is a guide to irony. This guy writes supposedly satirical posts which nobody gets and then proceeds to write a blog explaining what irony is. The true irony is not that he doesn't understand irony, but rather that in his attempts to explain he clearly demonstrates his lack of understanding...
Wait. When you say 'this guy' you're referring to the OP, right? haha
|
On June 24 2011 16:48 Mikilatov wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2011 16:43 Probulous wrote:On June 24 2011 16:39 Mikilatov wrote: Some decent points here... But honestly I'm just excited that I was quoted.
But yeah, just to reaffirm the satire vs. trolling thing, my last two blogs (one of which is where you took that quote from) were in no way attempting to troll anyone. I made them so entirely ludacris that I couldn't imagine anyone would think I was being serious, or trying to convince anyone it was serious (trolling). Unfortunately there were a moderately sized chunk of people who actually thought I was attempting to troll (or even worse, that I was actually serious.) ^^This is a guide to irony. This guy writes supposedly satirical posts which nobody gets and then proceeds to write a blog explaining what irony is. The true irony is not that he doesn't understand irony, but rather that in his attempts to explain he clearly demonstrates his lack of understanding... Wait. When you say 'this guy' you're referring to the OP, right? haha
Ok that is too much!
Yes, I meant the OP
|
On June 24 2011 16:44 Torte de Lini wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2011 16:39 ghrur wrote:On June 24 2011 15:57 Torte de Lini wrote: The problem with your "humor" is that they're posting in places that aren't asking for humor. They're asking for lively discussions and viewpoints/new perspectives.
All you're doing is trying to get a laugh, but hardly proving a point.
This isn't satire or irony, this is just pure absurdity. You're being too subtle and not showing that this is just untrue because you talk within the realms of reality or actual rationale (despite how absurd it is).
I disagree! I think that satire is a great way to introduce a new viewpoint/perspective. The point of satire is to make an argument, and arguments can support/refute old ideas or introduce something new. And the fact that it's in the realms of reality is exactly what makes it great satire! Jonathan Swift's A Modest Proposal is great because it makes you believe he's actually got a novel idea, and then pushes for his proposal in such a way that causes the reader to worry about his seriousness. Satire thrives off that tension, and if jdseemoreglass is making people think about that, he's doing it well. I think the problem lies in the fact that satire is mockery. Mockery, by nature, is disrespectful and this site doesn't support that. If everyone is having a round-table discussion and you're trying to be an amateur jester, it doesn't smooth over well. People come in expecting a serious discussion and with all the rampant misinformation, satire will hardly fit or even understood. Swift's example of satire is gradual. You don't see that from jdseemoreglass and thus why it doesn't work and just becomes one-dimensionally bland or poor. On top of that, Swift's satire ranges from calling people cows to assessing a problem, neither seen from jdseemoreglass.
People misunderstand because they haven't read this blog post. :p Nah. But satire is serious. It's humorous, but the underlying message is still serious. If people take it seriously, then they're ... nvm!
Well, Swift's is obviously much better written. He also had the luxury of pages instead of a few short paragraphs. You can't exactly be gradual when you have like 500 words. Just gotta go.
|
the Dagon Knight4000 Posts
In fairness, Swift was also talking about murdering babies to solve a food shortage. His satire was so extreme that it would be difficult to mistake.
Those quoted are extreme, but they're not viewpoints incomprehensible to the average person (like killing babies).
|
|
|
|
|