B19 wrote:
I'm clearly the devil's advocate here, and that's ok. Allow me to summarise my position, as I have not made it as clear as I might have originally. I get where the site's defenders are coming from, so please also try to get where I am coming from.
The article is not satire, it something quite else, disguised as satire. If you look closely, it is simply cliched stereotypes masquerading as ?humour?. That isn't what satire actually is, and the distinction is important. The distinction is so often ignored, misunderstood or dismissed in today?s easy-access online world.
Satire is not a free pass to be a racist, homophobic, misogynistic or ableist; The defence of "it was just satire didn't you get it" is not an opaque screen to hide assh... tendencies from view. Satire isn?t a magic word that suddenly transforms hate speech aimed at underprivileged groups into witty comedy that "isn't meant to offend".
The ED article is an example of crap comedic writing that is passed off by smart alec hacks who want to obscure (while simultaneously revelling in) gleeful ablist hatred. When pseudosatire is aimed at underprivileged groups who experience oppression, the claim of "it's satire!" is intended to be a total shield for the fkd up and damaged sensibilities of the people who write it.
PS There are some wonderful examples of real satire: if you want the real McCoy, look up Johnathan Swift and his satire on how to cure famine by eating children as a particularly fine example. Generally satire is aimed at power structures to expose misuses of power or hypocrisy of those in power, or the pomposity of poohbahs in power. That's a long way from the crap ED peddles.
However I think that there is no common ground to be found here. I don't find it funny, most of you do; perhaps our responses say more about us as people than anything else.
As I said, I didn't read the article, just had a glimpse. And as I said, I didn't find it particularly funny. I can see how the naked man could be somewhat funny, although personally the few minutes I spent reading and viewing that article I didn't find it funny. Nor was I offended. I don't identify with a diagnosis. I think diagnoses are just conventions of closed-minded people anyway, that they need in order to make their little lives work, and for them to feel some sense of certainty in this quagmire called existence that we fumble blindly in. If you find it offensive you must feel that there is a potential threat to you in it. Perhaps you fear that someone you care about will get sterilized, what do I know? You must feel some kind of fear, feel some kind of threat to you, otherwise you would do like Bashar said, say "ok", and move on with your day. So think about what the threat is that you feel. It might be something subconscious that you can't put your finger on. Or you might think you have no fear or perceive no threat, but I believe you do. I'm not saying it's wrong to do that, just that in case you haven't thought about what the fear or threat is then I think you should meditate upon that. Please say what you come up with, if you want to.
15 Nov 2014, 6:02 pm
