4 ms·
The tag line is "daily humour every day since 1998" It is, as you point out, satire. It is a quite common device in satire to set up a less than accurate scen
by benj111 4y ago
The tag line is "daily humour every day since 1998"
It is, as you point out, satire.
It is a quite common device in satire to set up a less than accurate scenario, in order to highlight a single failing. It isn't aiming to be a well balanced essay on the pros and cons of anything.
- redbar0n 4y agoYeah, but there is good satire (which hits the mark, even remotely), and there’s bad satire.
- gota 4y agoMy dear comrade; you are publicly and repeatedly complaining about something not being funny. That is never a good sign of dettachment. No one will ever believe you are not offended by the article because everyone knows that, if it were the case, you'd simply not have posted (much less replied several times) Let us chill and drink some delicious juice made out of these misterious fruits of our labor
- redbar0n 4y agoI’m not complaining that it wasn’t funny. I’m belaboring that it was vacuous and disappointing. I want good satire that hits something and has a punch!
- skinnymuch 4y agoI don’t think the specifics of why you’re complaining is the point of the commenter you responded to. It’s that you’re complaining so much. Note the parent comment brought up you not being offended or deattached.
- redbar0n 4y agoI made a single legitimate criticism of the article. I’m no objectivist, as mentioned in another reply thread. The parent comment did actually assume I took offense from the article or is particularly attached to it, both of which is false. My only attachment here is to clearing up false speculation about my motive.