|
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?
 
|
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.
|
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 don't think those were subtle enough to need explaining. I mean, what is the point of this?
|
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?
|
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. 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. 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. 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.
|
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.
|
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.
|
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
|
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.
|
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.
|
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.)
|
Author writes long-winded explanation for his failed attempt at satire.
Fails to see the irony...
|
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 
|
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.
|
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.
|
This blog is 1/5, give it up already before you get banned some more.
|
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.
|
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.
|
I think the mods got the satire the first time, but the posts still didn't contribute anything which, I think warrants a ban
|
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 Knight4002 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).
|
|
|
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 Knight4002 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
