|
I know this thread is all about you being sanctioned, but I really have to object to your definition of irony. If you are saying one thing but meaning another you are being sarcastic. Sarcasm is never irony. eg) G.bush is clearly the most clever and articulate man to have ever existed.
In the infamous A.Morrisette song, she claims that it is ironic that you have 10,000 spoons when all you need is a knife. A common distiction of Irony is that this is only ironic if your father works in a knife factory and you collect knives from history. You are someone who is never usually without a knife, so having an abundance of similar but useless utensil is ironic.
Anyway, the intricacies of irony are almost beyond definition, however what is clear is that sarcasm never constitutes irony because sarcasm is saying one thing and meaning another, whilst irony must encompass some other outside circumstance which relates to the current situation/statement.
You could argue that there has been a recent change in the meaning of irony to include sarcasm, but you can always argue this when discussing the actual meanings of words, and its almost always a reductive dead end of an argument (hear that destiny <3 )
|
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.
its not that the mods disagreed, im sure they were laughing as they banned him as well, they were all very very obvious. its just that post like that arent welcome on TL, they want serious discussions, not funny guys making jokes.
|
On June 24 2011 19:53 Keldrath wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2011 14:18 quiong wrote: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. its not that the mods disagreed, im sure they were laughing as they banned him as well, they were all very very obvious. its just that post like that arent welcome on TL, they want serious discussions, not funny guys making jokes.
No, its because he was being an asshole. It has nothing to do with being funny, because none of the posts he was banned for were funny.
|
the Dagon Knight4010 Posts
On June 24 2011 19:53 Keldrath wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2011 14:18 quiong wrote: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. its not that the mods disagreed, im sure they were laughing as they banned him as well, they were all very very obvious. its just that post like that arent welcome on TL, they want serious discussions, not funny guys making jokes.
It occurs to me that they may have temp banned him ironically...
Would that make this blog post a satire of other people who write blogs whining about being banned, but trying to dress it up as something else?
I haven't seen satire like this since The Bore!
+ Show Spoiler +Do you see what I've done here, with that reference to The Bore? You see, this spoiler is me explaining the joke. I imagine people here are aware that this takes the sting out of a punchline, but I am doing my best to fit in.
This is the thread where we explain the joke, assuming that people didn't find it funny because they failed to understand it.
|
Perhaps I'm missing the logic here, but if a post about satire is itself satirical, doesn't that make it serious?
|
Yeah this guy is so dumb.
Using "literary devices".
Who does that?
No one ever uses satire they are all just trolls.
Luckily I didn't have to try hard not to laugh at his first two examples since i am at work.
If people wanted humor in their general discussions they wouldn't visit serious news sites.
|
On June 24 2011 21:46 ComaDose wrote:
Yeah this guy is so dumb.
Using "literary devices".
Who does that?
No one ever uses satire they are all just trolls.
Luckily I didn't have to try hard not to laugh at his first two examples since i am at work.
If people wanted humor in their general discussions they wouldn't visit serious news sites.
1) Recognizing the absurdity: Author suggests no one ever uses satire. Author suggests the TL general forum is a serious news site. Author suggests the OP is dumb. 
Well done, sir.
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.
On June 24 2011 16:58 ghrur wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2011 16:44 Torte de Lini wrote: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.
These are very good points. People are clearly confused on what satire and it's purpose actually are, and at least one person is confirming my analysis of it.
Yes, Swift's is much better written than mine are, and of course I'm not going to gradually introduce absurdity and write a whole essay to get my point across.
I would also like to highlight this poster for being the only one who didn't attack me. How do I add that blue background? 
And for all the people claiming I am unfunny, take a look at THESE blogs and then get back to me.
http://www.teamliquid.net/blogs/viewblog.php?id=226263
http://www.teamliquid.net/blogs/viewblog.php?id=215434
That's what I thought. Case closed.
|
You're not unfunny, what you are saying isn't funny (in your OP).
See bans and the readers saying it isn't funny.
P.S: Case still opened because you have some misconstrued ideas .__.
|
I think the irony is that none of your examples (by you) are funny...
+ Show Spoiler +....unless that is the whole point of the blog. In that case, GGWP
|
Hmmm.... I've read my own OP 3 times now, and I can't find where I said my purpose was to be funny... I stated that I was debating and making arguments and critiquing ideas, but I don't see where I wrote "and this is why it's funny" or "here's the punch-line."
And when people already said "these weren't funny at all" I responded by saying that it wasn't my intention to be funny, and that isn't what the definition of either irony or satire is.
So now that more people are telling me my examples aren't funny, I'm kind of clueless what else I am supposed to say. I guess I can just agree.
You are right. They aren't funny.
|
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...
I wouldn't say that "nobody" gets them. I certainly didn't have a problem recognizing the true intentions of his posts, and found them rather amusing. It has been said that recognizing irony is the highest form of intellect, though, so perhaps it shouldn't be surprising that so many people fail to recognize it.
|
On June 24 2011 19:40 deathly rat wrote:
I know this thread is all about you being sanctioned, but I really have to object to your definition of irony. If you are saying one thing but meaning another you are being sarcastic. Sarcasm is never irony. eg) G.bush is clearly the most clever and articulate man to have ever existed.
In the infamous A.Morrisette song, she claims that it is ironic that you have 10,000 spoons when all you need is a knife. A common distiction of Irony is that this is only ironic if your father works in a knife factory and you collect knives from history. You are someone who is never usually without a knife, so having an abundance of similar but useless utensil is ironic.
Anyway, the intricacies of irony are almost beyond definition, however what is clear is that sarcasm never constitutes irony because sarcasm is saying one thing and meaning another, whilst irony must encompass some other outside circumstance which relates to the current situation/statement.
You could argue that there has been a recent change in the meaning of irony to include sarcasm, but you can always argue this when discussing the actual meanings of words, and its almost always a reductive dead end of an argument (hear that destiny <3 )
Sarcasm is a form of irony. While sarcasm is not always ironic, it is incorrect to say that sarcasm is never irony.
From the OED in reference to verbal irony:
"A figure of speech in which the intended meaning is the opposite of that expressed by the words used; usually taking the form of sarcasm or ridicule in which laudatory expressions are used to imply condemnation or contempt."
The requirements you have given for irony - that one must have some sort of outside circumstance which relates to the current situation - only applies to situational or dramatic irony. Not verbal.
|
On June 25 2011 06:06 shinosai 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... I wouldn't say that "nobody" gets them. I certainly didn't have a problem recognizing the true intentions of his posts, and found them rather amusing. It has been said that recognizing irony is the highest form of intellect, though, so perhaps it shouldn't be surprising that so many people fail to recognize it.
So then the question I have for you is... Who should you write for in a widely mixed audience?
Obviously there is a huge range of readers from people who enjoy complicated arguments and discussions to people who need "see spot run" kind of statements. Usually I like to debate with people who have the strongest arguments and ignore posters that seem kind of clueless, and the pleasure I find in writing would be kind of lost if I appealed to the lowest common denominator.
People would say the middle-ground and try to reach the majority, but I honestly thought that I was speaking to the majority. I guess the problem is the people who are confused are more likely to respond, so it's difficult to gauge how many people understand and how many don't.
|
On June 25 2011 06:04 jdseemoreglass wrote:
Hmmm.... I've read my own OP 3 times now, and I can't find where I said my purpose was to be funny... I stated that I was debating and making arguments and critiquing ideas, but I don't see where I wrote "and this is why it's funny" or "here's the punch-line."
And when people already said "these weren't funny at all" I responded by saying that it wasn't my intention to be funny, and that isn't what the definition of either irony or satire is.
So now that more people are telling me my examples aren't funny, I'm kind of clueless what else I am supposed to say. I guess I can just agree.
You are right. They aren't funny.
|
you sure showed him
btw op ....in case you missed it the first 54 times, you're satire is not funny.basically what I'm saying is i really dislike you and feel offended by you. I've never seen anyone as unfunny as you actually .,.....................,,,teaching me about irony and satire when you were banned for unfunny irony and satire?????...because of this i just had to spend the last 35 minutes cleaning up my own vomit on the floor/my lap that was uncontrollably spewed from my mouth while reading this blog.
|
On June 25 2011 02:18 jdseemoreglass wrote:I would also like to highlight this poster for being the only one who didn't attack me. How do I add that blue background?
This is the reason I will never take any of your ideas seriously, and thus never respect anything you write on paper.
You have some misguided belief that anything people say against you is a personal attack.
And no one can argue against you (at least in your eyes) because you make absurd circular and vague statements that revolve around the idea that if the reader doesn't get it then it's the reader's fault.
And then you try to back up your examples by saying this is what I actually meant when it's clear it was not.
And then you also support your idea with the claims of the few individuals who do say they sort of understand your argument, while you call all those who don't understand your argument dumb.
It is my opinion that if you want to debate your bans, then do so in a private message with the moderator that banned you, not in a thinly veiled blog post that's attacking the moderator and the people of this site, because this is a clear attempt at hiding that reality.
|
On June 25 2011 07:06 Blisse wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2011 02:18 jdseemoreglass wrote:I would also like to highlight this poster for being the only one who didn't attack me. How do I add that blue background? This is the reason I will never take any of your ideas seriously, and thus never respect anything you write on paper. You have some misguided belief that anything people say against you is a personal attack.
how did you manage to write these 2 sentences after one another in a blog about irony
|
On June 25 2011 07:11 drewcifer wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2011 07:06 Blisse wrote:On June 25 2011 02:18 jdseemoreglass wrote:I would also like to highlight this poster for being the only one who didn't attack me. How do I add that blue background? This is the reason I will never take any of your ideas seriously, and thus never respect anything you write on paper. You have some misguided belief that anything people say against you is a personal attack. how did you manage to write these 2 sentences after one another in a blog about irony
Because the first sentence is more of an extension of a previous thread a long while ago in which all he did was disregard my arguments on the basis that everyone who disagreed with him was a troll.
Also, to clarify, I meant ideas as in what he continues to claim as satire.
And he speaks in these half truths, where some of his statements are the truth and some of his statements are attempted trolls.
Still, pointing out a misunderstanding in my post does not invalidate the rest.
|
On June 25 2011 07:17 Blisse wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2011 07:11 drewcifer wrote:On June 25 2011 07:06 Blisse wrote:On June 25 2011 02:18 jdseemoreglass wrote:I would also like to highlight this poster for being the only one who didn't attack me. How do I add that blue background? This is the reason I will never take any of your ideas seriously, and thus never respect anything you write on paper. You have some misguided belief that anything people say against you is a personal attack. how did you manage to write these 2 sentences after one another in a blog about irony Still, pointing out a misunderstanding in my post does not invalidate the rest.
Well to me it kind of does, and I'm assuming maybe at least one other person thinks so too. I also assumed that you had some kind of grudge with the op based off how ridiculous you sounded, but I disregarded it because I wasn't aware that this was the place to bash people you don't like. But it kind of can be it seems, so please forgive my mistake.
I just want to say I am a total hypocrite before anyone else does. I don't like it.
|
Just because it is satire, doesn't mean it isn't also a troll.
Now, I am assuming you have a moderate level of understanding of internet discussions which occur in a public forum such as TeamLiquid. It doesn't take a genius to realize that posting a long, drawn out satirical comment as poorly made as your first one will get some confused responses, probably derailing the thread somewhat. By posting it, you are almost guaranteeing that the conversation gets sidetracked either by confused people, or by people who don't like the condescending nature of a satirical post in a debate thread. You are either completely aloof, or you were trolling to derail the thread.
Your second comment doesn't contribute anything at all to the discussion, but I remember reading that in the thread and not really getting why there was a ban.
Your third comment is just bad in a lot of ways. I can think of several reasons why it would lead to moderator intervention.
I personally had no problem recognizing the irony when you posted those - but you'd have to be in your own little world to not realize that you're going to get banned when you make posts like the 1st and the 3rd - even now that you've made your little educational spiel. (Speaking of which, the way you've presented this it is really hard to not interpret it as a jab against the moderators given the examples you have chosen to use. If you didn't have a hidden agenda, why wouldn't you have taken your examples from, oh I don't know, anywhere else?)
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
