4 ms·

> A lot of what’s perceived to be misinformation is really parody and satire. The out-group just hasn’t figured it out.“ —Walter J. Scheirer, Notre Dame The Po

> A lot of what’s perceived to be misinformation is really parody and satire. The out-group just hasn’t figured it out.“ —Walter J. Scheirer, Notre Dame The Poe's law kicks in

blueflow 3y ago
Is it reasonable to put the burden of not being misunderstood on the writer?
- teaearlgraycold 3y ago
  Depends on the audience and the scale
- ithkuil 3y ago
  Not all human speech serves the purpose of communicating clearly. In many cases it serves the purpose of creating and cementing social bonds. It's infuriating as it sounds, but it's also very human. Also: > Where misunderstanding serves others as an advantage, one is helpless to make oneself understood. -- Lionel Trilling
- jacobolus 3y ago
  Whether or not you meant it as a satirical meta-comment, the answer to your rhetorical question is either obviously "yes" or obviously "no" depending on context.
  - blueflow 3y ago
    Rephrased and re-contexted: Is it my fault that you misinterpreted it as rhetorical? Yours?
    - philosopher1234 3y ago
      Who cares? If you’re a writer and you know something you’re going to write will be misinterpreted, will you say to yourself “but it’s not fair to put the burden of being understood on me, so I’ll say it and confused everyone anyways.” You might, but you ought to think twice about your motives if you do.
    - jacobolus 3y ago
      Is it my fault that I still can't tell whether you're pulling my leg? Or your fault that you still can't tell whether I'm pulling your leg? How many layers deep does this meta-joke go?
Spivak 3y ago
I'm going to take the opposite position, people aren't stupid. Jokes, parody, and satire don't exist in an amoral/apolitical sphere and by necessity must have non-joke, non-parody, and/or non-satirical elements to be funny (i.e. the grain of truth). People aren't stupid -- they get the joke, recognize the real message being conveyed and are mad because that real message is shitty. "It's just a joke" isn't a defense against that. The wanna-bee conservative onion has a wealth of examples if you want them. This is their current hero image on their front page https://www.amazon.com/Babylon-Bee-Guide-Gender-Guides/dp/1684514533 https://www.amazon.com/Babylon-Bee-Guide-Gender-Guides/dp/16.... Perfect example -- it's well within the realm to make jokes about this topic, the queer side of the internet is overflowing with them. But while this is absolutely satire the real message underpinning is honestly pretty mean and people recognize that. One of the sections is "How can I mold the world to fit my Perverted Delusions?" which is a joke on the surface but the real content is just rehashing the trans people are mentally ill, trans women are sexual deviants lines which at the same level of "comedy" as watermelon and fried chicken jokes.
- ShamelessC 3y ago
  To me that just seems like the difference between usage of "fakes"/sarcasm for positive purposes and usage for toxic, bigoted purposes. In the example you listed - no, "people" (the audience to the supposed sarcasm, I guess) are not stupid per se. Indeed, despite the name's implications many people are acutely aware of these dog whistles for bigoted ideology. I don't see how that relates to far less cruel sarcasm which largely requires a sort of mutual cynicism and shared context around a subject or current event. And in particular, this doesn't help me understand why so many internet commenters seem to mis-perceive sarcasm as literal truth when it's quite clear. Obviously there's Poe's law to explain this. That, and the internet can capture a strange bucket of people, not all of who are privy to the latest goings on.
- duolo 3y ago
  [flagged]
- Karellen 3y ago
  https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6dinger%27s_douchebag https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6dinger%27s_doucheba... > "Schrödinger’s douchebag" [i]s someone who makes an unacceptable remark and then waits to see the reaction before declaring retrospectively whether they meant it for real or were "just joking".
vharuck 3y ago
Beware. As somebody once said, "Any community that gets its laughs by pretending to be idiots will eventually be flooded by actual idiots who mistakenly believe that they're in good company."
- hardlianotion 3y ago
  Slightly different take by Kurt Vonnegut: We are who we pretend to be. So we should be careful who we pretend to be.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

> A lot of what’s perceived to be misinformation is really parody and satire. The out-group just hasn’t figured it out.“ —Walter J. Scheirer, Notre Dame The Poe's law kicks in

blueflow 3y ago

Is it reasonable to put the burden of not being misunderstood on the writer?

teaearlgraycold 3y ago
Depends on the audience and the scale
ithkuil 3y ago
Not all human speech serves the purpose of communicating clearly. In many cases it serves the purpose of creating and cementing social bonds. It's infuriating as it sounds, but it's also very human. Also: > Where misunderstanding serves others as an advantage, one is helpless to make oneself understood. -- Lionel Trilling
jacobolus 3y ago
Whether or not you meant it as a satirical meta-comment, the answer to your rhetorical question is either obviously "yes" or obviously "no" depending on context.
- blueflow 3y ago
  Rephrased and re-contexted: Is it my fault that you misinterpreted it as rhetorical? Yours?
  - philosopher1234 3y ago
    Who cares? If you’re a writer and you know something you’re going to write will be misinterpreted, will you say to yourself “but it’s not fair to put the burden of being understood on me, so I’ll say it and confused everyone anyways.” You might, but you ought to think twice about your motives if you do.
  - jacobolus 3y ago
    Is it my fault that I still can't tell whether you're pulling my leg? Or your fault that you still can't tell whether I'm pulling your leg? How many layers deep does this meta-joke go?

Spivak 3y ago

I'm going to take the opposite position, people aren't stupid. Jokes, parody, and satire don't exist in an amoral/apolitical sphere and by necessity must have non-joke, non-parody, and/or non-satirical elements to be funny (i.e. the grain of truth). People aren't stupid -- they get the joke, recognize the real message being conveyed and are mad because that real message is shitty. "It's just a joke" isn't a defense against that. The wanna-bee conservative onion has a wealth of examples if you want them. This is their current hero image on their front page https://www.amazon.com/Babylon-Bee-Guide-Gender-Guides/dp/1684514533 https://www.amazon.com/Babylon-Bee-Guide-Gender-Guides/dp/16.... Perfect example -- it's well within the realm to make jokes about this topic, the queer side of the internet is overflowing with them. But while this is absolutely satire the real message underpinning is honestly pretty mean and people recognize that. One of the sections is "How can I mold the world to fit my Perverted Delusions?" which is a joke on the surface but the real content is just rehashing the trans people are mentally ill, trans women are sexual deviants lines which at the same level of "comedy" as watermelon and fried chicken jokes.

ShamelessC 3y ago
To me that just seems like the difference between usage of "fakes"/sarcasm for positive purposes and usage for toxic, bigoted purposes. In the example you listed - no, "people" (the audience to the supposed sarcasm, I guess) are not stupid per se. Indeed, despite the name's implications many people are acutely aware of these dog whistles for bigoted ideology. I don't see how that relates to far less cruel sarcasm which largely requires a sort of mutual cynicism and shared context around a subject or current event. And in particular, this doesn't help me understand why so many internet commenters seem to mis-perceive sarcasm as literal truth when it's quite clear. Obviously there's Poe's law to explain this. That, and the internet can capture a strange bucket of people, not all of who are privy to the latest goings on.
duolo 3y ago
[flagged]
Karellen 3y ago
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6dinger%27s_douchebag https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6dinger%27s_doucheba... > "Schrödinger’s douchebag" [i]s someone who makes an unacceptable remark and then waits to see the reaction before declaring retrospectively whether they meant it for real or were "just joking".

vharuck 3y ago

Beware. As somebody once said, "Any community that gets its laughs by pretending to be idiots will eventually be flooded by actual idiots who mistakenly believe that they're in good company."

hardlianotion 3y ago
Slightly different take by Kurt Vonnegut: We are who we pretend to be. So we should be careful who we pretend to be.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]