|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
