3 ms·

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

by 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".
- kazinator 3y ago
  Since Schrödinger was a douchebag, this term could be shortened to just Schrödinger.

by Spivak 3y ago

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".

kazinator 3y ago
Since Schrödinger was a douchebag, this term could be shortened to just Schrödinger.