5 ms·

I kind of think that in the mess we’re in ‘it was just a prank bro’ doesn’t cut it any more as an excuse for something that causes harm. But maybe that’s extrem

I kind of think that in the mess we’re in ‘it was just a prank bro’ doesn’t cut it any more as an excuse for something that causes harm. But maybe that’s extremist of me.

bastawhiz 5y ago
So satire cannot exist? Because anyone who might accidentally mistake it for truth can be "harmed" Journalists have a big megaphone. Their job is to amplify truth. If I'm making jokes and being clear about my intentions, but a lazy journalist sees my content as easy clickbait, that's my fault? What I was tweeting was never "news" let alone "fake news". It was never wrapped deceptively as truth. It wasn't a prank. Someone else took my words, which were obviously and provably not truth, and held them up under their reputation as an authority of truth. Why should I be responsible for the alleged harm that they caused?
- chrisseaton 5y ago
  Why add entropy to the situation? We know people mid-understand satire and sarcasm. I do kind of feel much satire is deliberately harmful - people use it to say things and then hide behind ‘but I was just joking’ having already pushed the message out.
  - bitcharmer 5y ago
    Something tells me you also regard stand-up comedy as harmful.
    - chrisseaton 5y ago
      Nobody confuses a stand-up club as news - people do confuse Twitter as news.
      - kortilla 5y ago
        “My use case for satire is obvious but yours is not”
      - earleybird 5y ago
        And I knew folks who thought Spinal Tap was a real band. Satire is therapeutic when the crap around us gets too deep.
  - bastawhiz 5y ago
    It's not my job to cater to people who choose to get their "news" from a website where anyone can post anything under any identity at all. There has never been any credibility to Twitter as an authoritative news source, especially from accounts that are clearly labeled as a joke. Silencing or shaming folks for being creative in public is far worse than empowering the layman (or lazy journalist) to get their news from the gutter. People will post lies online regardless of whether the good intentioned folks self censor or not. The problem is not the satire, it's the blind trust. Speaking of which, I've got a rich client who recent passed away and left a significant sum to one Chris Seaton. If that's you, just shoot me your bank details and I'll get the money wired to you directly.
- hanselot 5y ago
derekp7 5y ago
Yes, it is extremely extremist to call for canceling all works of fiction.
- dzikimarian 5y ago
  Most works of fiction is labeled as such. I don't see anything against them in this comment.
  - earleybird 5y ago
    Can't wait for the return of Tipper Gore and labelling anything that offends. /s
    - dzikimarian 5y ago
      I don't call for labeling. I'm just saying that most of fiction can be easily identified and nobody in the comments has issues with that. Previous comment implied that someone wants to cancel all works of fiction. So much ad absurdum in this thread...
    - smcl 5y ago
      I kinda love how that effort backfired, and the "Parental Advisory: Explicit Content" became a fairly cool symbol
fleshdaddy 5y ago
I mean are you suggesting no more jokes, parodies, or satire lest a journalist take it seriously? That would practically require a complete self censor on all fiction. I could just easily tweet a blurb from a Sci-fi novel and risk someone, somewhere, misinterpreting it. Also a prank has the intent to mislead which the poster didn’t. Don’t mean to sound inflammatory but the humorless world that would be sounds a lot more miserable than living in the mess it seeks to remedy.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
smcl 5y ago
"It's just a prank bro" would be inexcusable for someone mocking up a screenshot to make it look like someone was sending racist DMs to get them fired, or something on that level. But this is not anything like that, it was a funny comment in a forum where funny comments are made that was taken at face value by a credulous reporter who should've done their job better. It wasn't hateful, offensive or dangerous. In addition, you've completely altered what the author of the blog post was saying. They're not using the dismissive "It's just a prank bro", they've actually written quite a thoughtful post explaining the context behind the incident. They didn't apologise but they didn't need to.

I kind of think that in the mess we’re in ‘it was just a prank bro’ doesn’t cut it any more as an excuse for something that causes harm. But maybe that’s extremist of me.

bastawhiz 5y ago

So satire cannot exist? Because anyone who might accidentally mistake it for truth can be "harmed" Journalists have a big megaphone. Their job is to amplify truth. If I'm making jokes and being clear about my intentions, but a lazy journalist sees my content as easy clickbait, that's my fault? What I was tweeting was never "news" let alone "fake news". It was never wrapped deceptively as truth. It wasn't a prank. Someone else took my words, which were obviously and provably not truth, and held them up under their reputation as an authority of truth. Why should I be responsible for the alleged harm that they caused?

chrisseaton 5y ago
Why add entropy to the situation? We know people mid-understand satire and sarcasm. I do kind of feel much satire is deliberately harmful - people use it to say things and then hide behind ‘but I was just joking’ having already pushed the message out.
- bitcharmer 5y ago
  Something tells me you also regard stand-up comedy as harmful.
  - chrisseaton 5y ago
    Nobody confuses a stand-up club as news - people do confuse Twitter as news.
    - kortilla 5y ago
      “My use case for satire is obvious but yours is not”
    - earleybird 5y ago
      And I knew folks who thought Spinal Tap was a real band. Satire is therapeutic when the crap around us gets too deep.
- bastawhiz 5y ago
  It's not my job to cater to people who choose to get their "news" from a website where anyone can post anything under any identity at all. There has never been any credibility to Twitter as an authoritative news source, especially from accounts that are clearly labeled as a joke. Silencing or shaming folks for being creative in public is far worse than empowering the layman (or lazy journalist) to get their news from the gutter. People will post lies online regardless of whether the good intentioned folks self censor or not. The problem is not the satire, it's the blind trust. Speaking of which, I've got a rich client who recent passed away and left a significant sum to one Chris Seaton. If that's you, just shoot me your bank details and I'll get the money wired to you directly.
hanselot 5y ago

derekp7 5y ago

Yes, it is extremely extremist to call for canceling all works of fiction.

dzikimarian 5y ago
Most works of fiction is labeled as such. I don't see anything against them in this comment.
- earleybird 5y ago
  Can't wait for the return of Tipper Gore and labelling anything that offends. /s
  - dzikimarian 5y ago
    I don't call for labeling. I'm just saying that most of fiction can be easily identified and nobody in the comments has issues with that. Previous comment implied that someone wants to cancel all works of fiction. So much ad absurdum in this thread...
  - smcl 5y ago
    I kinda love how that effort backfired, and the "Parental Advisory: Explicit Content" became a fairly cool symbol

fleshdaddy 5y ago

I mean are you suggesting no more jokes, parodies, or satire lest a journalist take it seriously? That would practically require a complete self censor on all fiction. I could just easily tweet a blurb from a Sci-fi novel and risk someone, somewhere, misinterpreting it. Also a prank has the intent to mislead which the poster didn’t. Don’t mean to sound inflammatory but the humorless world that would be sounds a lot more miserable than living in the mess it seeks to remedy.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

smcl 5y ago

"It's just a prank bro" would be inexcusable for someone mocking up a screenshot to make it look like someone was sending racist DMs to get them fired, or something on that level. But this is not anything like that, it was a funny comment in a forum where funny comments are made that was taken at face value by a credulous reporter who should've done their job better. It wasn't hateful, offensive or dangerous. In addition, you've completely altered what the author of the blog post was saying. They're not using the dismissive "It's just a prank bro", they've actually written quite a thoughtful post explaining the context behind the incident. They didn't apologise but they didn't need to.