I think it is satire, or at least sarcasm, but I see why it also upsets people. There are people who are too dumb to realize it is satire, and they take it at face value. Thus, their stupidity drags them down even lower. Smart people who get the joke, get the joke. However, if you are smart enough to get the joke, you are smart enough to realize how many stupid people are not getting the joke, and are being misinformed. Thus, the smart people do not want satire or sarcasm to be so visible in places where many stupid people will see it, because it will make them even dumber. They want smart things to stay where they won't they won't accidentally instigate acts of stupidity.
This is exactly what my mom and I were talking about yesterday. She was like "What's the big deal? It's obviously making fun of how stupid these claims are." and I was like "But a lot of people believe these claims! And that's why people get upset!"
Personally, I am not sure what I find most upsetting - the fact that people actually view the Obamas that way, thus making the absurdity less obvious or the fact that editor felt that the cover would be appropriate in the current political climate.
First Amendment FTW
Don't get me wrong, I do not have a problem with them publishing whatever they like. The problem here is that the New Yorker claims to have published it with humorous intent, despite the political climate and outright ignorance of the general population that would obviously take it the wrong way. I just think it highlights the nation's idiocy and the editor's inability to recognize that idiocy. Should the magazine pander to the ignorant? Should Obama be offended? etc. That was all I was questioning.
sat·ire –noun 1. the use of irony, sarcasm, ridicule, or the like, in exposing, denouncing, or deriding vice, folly, etc.
Sarcasm is when you literally say one thing, but obviously mean the opposite. You say "yeah, right" but your tone of voice lets everyone know that you really mean "no way". The artist here drew a picture of "The Obama's are terrorists", but he obviously means "The Obamas aren't terrorists, you nutjob!" He is using this sarcastic remark to deride the folly of the people who are out there actually suggesting that these crazy ideas are actually true. He's showing you just how crazy these nut jobs are by simply illustrating how crazy they are. It's what artists do.
There is only one alternative to it being satire. That alternative is that the illustrator actually is trying to say "Yes, they are terrorists. I have drawn a picture of these terrorists. Take it at face value. I'm not being sarcastic. This is what will happen if you vote for Obama." I highly doubt an illustrator for The New Yorker is going to be thinking that. Seriously.
The problem is that sarcasm by itself is not satire. What folly or vice is the artist deriding, denouncing, or exposing? If you want to say that it is sarcasm, fine. It's pretty sarcastic. You haven't explained why it is satire.
There is an alternative to it being satire and that is:
burlesque:
A literary or dramatic work that ridicules a subject either by presenting a solemn subject in an undignified style or an inconsequential subject in a dignified style. See Synonyms at caricature.
A ludicrous or mocking imitation; a travesty: The antics of the defense attorneys turned the trial into a burlesque of justice.
This is exactly what my mom and I were talking about yesterday. She was like "What's the big deal? It's obviously making fun of how stupid these claims are." and I was like "But a lot of people believe these claims! And that's why people get upset!"
Yes, so what should we do? Should we keep smart talk away from stupid people the way we keep knives away from small children? Should we keep knives away from everybody because small children might get them? Should we just let smart talk get everywhere and let idiots be idiots?
The problem is that sarcasm by itself is not satire. What folly or vice is the artist deriding, denouncing, or exposing? If you want to say that it is sarcasm, fine. It's pretty sarcastic. You haven't explained why it is satire.
Yes, I did. Read again.
He is using this sarcastic remark to deride the folly of the people who are out there actually suggesting that these crazy ideas are actually true.
Yes, so what should we do? Should we keep smart talk away from stupid people the way we keep knives away from small children? Should we keep knives away from everybody because small children might get them? Should we just let smart talk get everywhere and let idiots be idiots?
We need to raise the intelligence of everyday conversation. We need to stop pandering to the lowest denominator. Besides, there are more important issues to address these days...
Wow... does that billboard just ignore the fact that the attack on the towers took place under a Republican's watch? (I am not necessarily blaming Bush, but you certainly can't blame the democrats as they were neither the head of the executive branch nor the majority in Congress).
The problem is that sarcasm by itself is not satire. What folly or vice is the artist deriding, denouncing, or exposing? If you want to say that it is sarcasm, fine. It's pretty sarcastic. You haven't explained why it is satire.
Yes, I did. Read again.
He is using this sarcastic remark to deride the folly of the people who are out there actually suggesting that these crazy ideas are actually true.
How does he identify that this was his intent? Someone else might think that he was saying to people who read The New Yorker, "This is what will happen if Obama is elected, but you're too stupid to realize it. I'm using sarcasm to deride the folly of white, upperclass liberals who don't understand the threat that Obama poses."
G. Gordon Liddy on the New Yorker cover:
LIDDY: Yeah, I don't suppose you've, by any chance, have seen the cover of the latest issue of The New Yorker magazine, which is, you know, a huge thing. It's got Obama in his Muslim dress with a turban, and he's there with his wife. His wife has a "mad at the world" afro, circa 1968, she -- she's got bandoliers and an assault weapon, and there in their fireplace is burning the American flag. The New Yorker finally got it right.
How does he identify that this was his intent? Someone else might think that he was saying to people who readThe New Yorker, "This is what will happen if Obama is elected, but you're too stupid to realize it. I'm using sarcasm to deride the folly of white, upperclass liberals who don't understand the threat that Obama poses."
G. Gordon Liddy on theNew Yorkercover:
LIDDY: Yeah, I don't suppose you've, by any chance, have seen the cover of the latest issue of The New Yorker magazine, which is, you know, a huge thing. It's got Obama in his Muslim dress with a turban, and he's there with his wife. His wife has a "mad at the world" afro, circa 1968, she -- she's got bandoliers and an assault weapon, and there in their fireplace is burning the American flag. The New Yorker finally got it right.
Usually, satire has to have a subtle wink at the camera in order to work. The only wink on the New Yorker's cover is the fist-bump -- and here you have to both have knowledge of the Fox News gaff over the same and assume the New Yorker's politics regarding the same in order to get the cover. There is no explanation of the art inside the magazine.
This magazine cover is really no different from the "Pool's Closed" incident in the other thread. You have one group of people making a joke. It's really an inside joke. However, the joke made its way outside. Someone making a 4chan joke at a pool was interpreted as making a racist threat. Does that mean they were making a racist threat because they were interpreted as doing so?
This New Yorker cover is obviously satire, but it has been put in a position where the vast majority of the people who have seen it misinterpret it as a literal statement. Those who recognize the satire are upset because they realize all these other people are misinterpreting it. You don't need a wink, radar, or a sarcasm detector to know that the cover is pointing out the insanity of the claims being made by some of the right-wing media. It's obvious. If you think otherwise, maybe there is something wrong with your fusiform gyruss. If you think otherwise, you're no different from the lady who thinks the "Pool's Closed" joke was a racist threat. You're just on the outside of an inside joke.
The interesting question that you people don't want to discuss, no matter how many times I ask, is what to do about this problem. Barack Obama is obviously upset about it. People who support Obama don't like it. Righties who misinterpret it like it. Even if they get the joke, they realize that their supporters are stupid, and they can easily convince them that it's not a joke. Free speech obviously suggests we should allow it. The New Yorker loves it, because even if it overall harms the left, they are probably selling a lot more magazines, which is priority #1 for them.
What should we, as a free and open society, do to manage damage that is caused by increased occurrences of misinterpretation of jokes by unintended audiences as a result of the Internet and other modern communications and media technologies?
What should we, as a free and open society, do to manage damage that is caused by increased occurrences of misinterpretation of jokes by unintended audiences as a result of the Internet and other modern communications and media technologies?
Mandataory humor classes?
This magazine cover is really no different from the "Pool's Closed" incident in the other thread. You have one group of people making a joke. It's really an inside joke. However, the joke made its way outside. Someone making a 4chan joke at a pool was interpreted as making a racist threat. Does that mean they were making a racist threat because they were interpreted as doing so?
This New Yorker cover is obviously satire, but it has been put in a position where the vast majority of the people who have seen it misinterpret it as a literal statement.
I think you're being way too liberal with your interpretation. If we use your interpretation, then what's to say this is not satire? Maybe he intended it as sarcasm to deride the folly of those who are prejudiced against Indians. Maybe if you don't get it, you're on the outside of an inside joke.
I think you're being way too liberal with your interpretation. If we use your interpretation, then what's to saythisis not satire? Maybe he intended it as sarcasm to deride the folly of those who are prejudiced against Indians. Maybe if you don't get it, you're on the outside of an inside joke.
Let me tell you about my mom's friend's husband. Let's call him Josh. If you meet Josh, there is a good chance he will frighten you. He says lots of weird things. I can tell you that I know he's one of the quietest and gentlest people I have ever met, but he says scary stuff sometimes. The reason he is so scary is because he absolutely does not have a sarcastic tone of voice. If I used the very same words he uses, they would not bother you in the least, because I would use the proper tone of voice. I wouldn't say that he's not being sarcastic, he's just bad at it. His communication skills need work.
The two factors at play are the intent of the author, and the interpretation by the audience. If the author intends satire, then it is satire. If the majority of the audience perceives satire when none was intended, or vice versa, that is bad communication. When communicating you are trying to put an idea into the mind of the audience. You can never deliver the idea 100%, but if you fail to get a high percentage, you have simply failed at communication. If you used satire, but you fail to communicate, it doesn't mean you weren't using satire. It just means you were bad at it.
Now the New Yorker has an intended and expected audience of intellectual lefties. Even when an expert communicator constructs a message, they have a specific audience in mind. If that message is delivered to an unintended audience, the odds that it will be misinterpreted are very high. If you want to say that something is not satire because most of the people receiving the message don't get it, then I guess Penny Arcade is the most drop-dead serious comic ever. The vast majority of humans who have ever existed will not "get" even a single Penny Arcade strip.
You're trying to argue that just because a bunch of idiots don't get a joke, or the joke was bad, that it's not a joke. And don't fool yourself about Liddy. He's knows its a joke. He just also knows that by saying it isn't a joke that he can take advantage of, and bolster, the existing idiocy that doesn't get it.
The author determines if it is satire or not. The audience determines if they did a good job or not. If the audience is an unintended one, there's not much you can do.
The title of the cover, which is to be found of the table of contents, is called "The Politics of Fear." Self Explanatory. By the way, has my New Yorker for this week come yet?
edit: I remember one of the other times people got upset over a New Yorker cover was an Art Spiegelman one, which came out one year when tax time and easter came around the same time. It showed the Easter bunny crucified with empty pockets. And people were all like NOOO you can't put those things all together! Sacrilegious!
The title of the cover, which is to be found of the table of contents, is called "The Politics of Fear." Self Explanatory. By the way, has my New Yorker for this week come yet?
edit: I remember one of the other times people got upset over a New Yorker cover was an Art Spiegelman one, which came out one year when tax time and easter came around the same time. It showed the Easter bunny crucified with empty pockets. And people were all like NOOO you can't put those things all together! Sacrilegious!
HA! I wish I had seen that. I am going to find it by using "the google" like Senator McCain taught me.
Knowing it's from the '40s I'm pretty sure that the intent is not satirical. Of course, that's just my interpretation as a member of the audience. The intent of the people who created the advertisement determines whether or not it is satirical. Whether my interpretation matches their intended message is what determines whether they did a good job of communicating or not. Then again, I'm an unintended audience. The intended audience is a female homemaking wife in 1940's USA. So if the message comes across to me different, it's might not be a result of bad communication on their part, but just a consequence of the nature of our society.
Then again. There is something else to think about. The context of in which a message is delivered can actually change the authorship. I could argue that while that original advertisement, in whatever context it was originally published, may not be satire. However, by taking that advertisement and posting it in this forum, you become the new author, in a way. If you were to post it in a thread discussing sexism, you might be using it as evidence for your argument, or you might be using it as a joke. How well our interpretation of that matches your intent is how we measure how good your communication skills are.
I haven't really modified my position in any way. I'm just pointing out that sometimes what appears to be a simple republishing of an existing message can have a different meaning based on a non-obvious change in authorship and context. See my point about if the Obama illustration were on the NY Post.
Scott says that the only thing that matters is the author's intent.
If the only factor is the author's intent, then I could write some horrific falsehoods about anyone and call them satire or parody and get out of libel suits. Fortunately, there are more factors in determining satire and parody.
If the only factor is the author's intent, then I could write some horrific falsehoods about anyone and call them satire or parody and get out of libel suits. Fortunately, there are more factors in determining satire and parody.
So what if I do write something that is satire, but I'm really bad at it, and nobody gets the joke. Suddenly I'm guilty of libel just because I have no writing skills?
If the only factor is the author's intent, then I could write some horrific falsehoods about anyone and call them satire or parody and get out of libel suits. Fortunately, there are more factors in determining satire and parody.
So what if I do write something that is satire, but I'm really bad at it, and nobody gets the joke. Suddenly I'm guilty of libel just because I have no writing skills?
No, but you should have to defend yourself against the charge if it is leveled at you.
No, but you should have to defend yourself against the charge if it is leveled at you.
Actually, you should be guilty of libel, even if you didn't mean it. It might not mean that you actually had a bad intent, but you should still be held liable for damages that you caused. It's no different than if you crash because you suck at driving, even if you didn't mean to crash.
No, but you should have to defend yourself against the charge if it is leveled at you.
Actually, you should be guilty of libel, even if you didn't mean it. It might not mean that you actually had a bad intent, but you should still be held liable for damages that you caused. It's no different than if you crash because you suck at driving, even if you didn't mean to crash.
So if someone is accused of libel, they should not be allowed to defend themselves? I am unclear as to the point you are making.
So what if I do write something that is satire, but I'm really bad at it, and nobody gets the joke. Suddenly I'm guilty of libel just because I have no writing skills?
Yes. Says the guy with millions of dollars in libel insurance.
Scott says that the only thing that matters is the author's intent.
If the only factor is the author's intent, then I could write some horrific falsehoods about anyone and call them satire or parody and get out of libel suits. Fortunately, there are more factors in determining satire and parody.
That's exactly what I don't like about a broad definition of satire. That's what the conservative types have been saying for years every time anyone tries to call them out for saying something outrageous. They'll say, "It was satire!" Remember when Limbaugh made those "phony soldier" comments? One of the ways he tried to get out of that was by claiming the comments were satire. If we use Scott's definition, then yes, you can say any outrageous thing you want and then claim it was satire.
That's exactly what I don't like about a broad definition of satire. That's what the conservative types have been saying for years every time anyone tries to call them out for saying something outrageous. They'll say, "It was satire!" Remember when Limbaugh made those "phony soldier" comments? One of the ways he tried to get out of that was by claiming the comments were satire. If we use Scott's definition, then yes, you can say any outrageous thing you want and then claim it was satire.
Did I not just explain? It's OK if you call it satire. Let's say I write a horrible libelous article that caused a lot of damage. I honestly believed I was being satirical, but I sucked at it so much that it didn't come across to anybody. That's fine, it's satire. I'm still guilty of libel, and should still be sued for damages. It's no different than someone who accidentally crashes their car into your house. Sure, it was an accident, you just suck at driving. You still have to pay for this shit.
Comments
There is an alternative to it being satire and that is: Source
G. Gordon Liddy on the New Yorker cover: Source.
G. Gordon Liddy is a freaking criminal. The fact he even has a voice on radio and people listen is crazy.
Just in case you don't know Liddy masterminded Watergate.
This New Yorker cover is obviously satire, but it has been put in a position where the vast majority of the people who have seen it misinterpret it as a literal statement. Those who recognize the satire are upset because they realize all these other people are misinterpreting it. You don't need a wink, radar, or a sarcasm detector to know that the cover is pointing out the insanity of the claims being made by some of the right-wing media. It's obvious. If you think otherwise, maybe there is something wrong with your fusiform gyruss. If you think otherwise, you're no different from the lady who thinks the "Pool's Closed" joke was a racist threat. You're just on the outside of an inside joke.
The interesting question that you people don't want to discuss, no matter how many times I ask, is what to do about this problem. Barack Obama is obviously upset about it. People who support Obama don't like it. Righties who misinterpret it like it. Even if they get the joke, they realize that their supporters are stupid, and they can easily convince them that it's not a joke. Free speech obviously suggests we should allow it. The New Yorker loves it, because even if it overall harms the left, they are probably selling a lot more magazines, which is priority #1 for them.
What should we, as a free and open society, do to manage damage that is caused by increased occurrences of misinterpretation of jokes by unintended audiences as a result of the Internet and other modern communications and media technologies?
Make your jokes smarter. If there is ambiguity about the content of the joke, then it is a bad joke.
The two factors at play are the intent of the author, and the interpretation by the audience. If the author intends satire, then it is satire. If the majority of the audience perceives satire when none was intended, or vice versa, that is bad communication. When communicating you are trying to put an idea into the mind of the audience. You can never deliver the idea 100%, but if you fail to get a high percentage, you have simply failed at communication. If you used satire, but you fail to communicate, it doesn't mean you weren't using satire. It just means you were bad at it.
Now the New Yorker has an intended and expected audience of intellectual lefties. Even when an expert communicator constructs a message, they have a specific audience in mind. If that message is delivered to an unintended audience, the odds that it will be misinterpreted are very high. If you want to say that something is not satire because most of the people receiving the message don't get it, then I guess Penny Arcade is the most drop-dead serious comic ever. The vast majority of humans who have ever existed will not "get" even a single Penny Arcade strip.
You're trying to argue that just because a bunch of idiots don't get a joke, or the joke was bad, that it's not a joke. And don't fool yourself about Liddy. He's knows its a joke. He just also knows that by saying it isn't a joke that he can take advantage of, and bolster, the existing idiocy that doesn't get it.
The author determines if it is satire or not. The audience determines if they did a good job or not. If the audience is an unintended one, there's not much you can do.
By the way, has my New Yorker for this week come yet?
edit: I remember one of the other times people got upset over a New Yorker cover was an Art Spiegelman one, which came out one year when tax time and easter came around the same time. It showed the Easter bunny crucified with empty pockets. And people were all like NOOO you can't put those things all together! Sacrilegious!
Then again. There is something else to think about. The context of in which a message is delivered can actually change the authorship. I could argue that while that original advertisement, in whatever context it was originally published, may not be satire. However, by taking that advertisement and posting it in this forum, you become the new author, in a way. If you were to post it in a thread discussing sexism, you might be using it as evidence for your argument, or you might be using it as a joke. How well our interpretation of that matches your intent is how we measure how good your communication skills are.
I haven't really modified my position in any way. I'm just pointing out that sometimes what appears to be a simple republishing of an existing message can have a different meaning based on a non-obvious change in authorship and context. See my point about if the Obama illustration were on the NY Post.