Skip to main content

Satire elitism

Satire elitism - 2008-07-17 09:02

Is satire elitism if it's just annoying?

I struggled with political correctness for years until I decided that being polite was probably a good goal for a developed civilization, and all the craziness that came with it was just the cost of doing business. Today, I'm OK with the concept and have worked it in, except sometimes I don't because, fuck-em.

I'm not so sure that making satire a bad thing will be as easy to get used to.

When I write policies and procedures at work I always try to write them so that they can be read two ways -- the straight and the not so straight. I try to add words or phrases that change meanings or, even better, load meanings with either exaggeration or importance that they don't really have. I do this because I think it's funny, it makes the procedures more interesting, and it makes my employees read it more carefully -- but mostly because I think it's funny.

 It's also a variation of satire.

If we lived in a world when cause and effect were more straightforward, reason led to legislation and self-interest were more enlightened, satire might find itself an dying art in a land of puppies and bee's without stingers. We don't -- look around -- most of the news and half of the commentary is pure Swiftian in its bite.

The Jessie Helm's aides bill? Homeland security?

Good satire is priceless. When Swift proposed eating Irish babies it worked on two levels. Because the English were doing the equivalent damage to the Irish that eating babies would have anyway, and to some, it actually seemed a sensible solution to the Irish problem.

It also made people think, argue, question, debate and have real emotions over a real-life event.

It probably changed some stuff too.

But, back to the question, if people are offended by, or uncomfortable with satire, Maye it's because they confuse it with sarcasm.

I have a rule to never make fun of things people can't change -- big nose, eyes too far apart -- that sort of thing. Anything else evolves to a meanness that can be seen as aggressive sarcasm.

I think that satire should work with that philosophy as well -- make no fun of global warming, the war in Iraq, or Presidential immunity -- all things that really aren't going to change -- so attacking them under the table is just a recipe for pissing off good people.

People see satire as another way of smart people, like Hollywood celebrities, to make fun of them -- that it's mean goes against a belief they don't really feel a need to argue, question, debate about.

Like God, or Bush-- if you know your belief is true and absolute and based on faith instead of reason-- why would you want to listen to someone fuck with the thing in your head that's not going to change anyway? I mean -- what's so funny about that?

If you are only buying one thing in the marketplace anyway -- why think about it?


Popular posts from this blog

Satoshi Nakamoto claim

I met a man claiming to be Satoshi Nakamoto outside a building I work at near the SF train station. He asked to talk to me. He was white, 50ish, with a 3 day beard that seemed trim.  He was dressed in high quality, slightly worn Patagonia gear.  He spoke in a quiet voice and didn’t appear obviously crazy after a brief talk with him.  He said that he had worked with people in the building that I’m at, but was confused about the details.  “You ever had amnesia?,” he said, not knowing who he was talking  to. “It’s like that.” Having enjoyed our talk - he then asked if I would do him a favor and,  “get the message out that I’m back in town —that’s all,” he said, “They’ll figure the rest out. “ “,” he added,“ they’ll need to know that. “ He’s wearing bright orange gaiters if interested. He’s probably going to be around for a while.  He’s maybe nutty, but since he didn’t bring up Deuteronomy during our conversation, I’m giving him the benefit of a doubt. Later -

Free Willy

“…Some say it's just a part of it We've got to fulfill the book.” B. Marley Before I completely run away from the point, the subject of this essay is free will, or, more accurately, the illusion of free will. It will be interesting to see if free will even comes up laterally over the next few hundred words now that I’ve set it up as a specific goal.  The imp of the perverse makes it a sure thing that I won’t – but that surety might also double back and force  me to stay on point. There are no dogs to pick  in this fight and it’s not a fight,  and if I’m right, none of this is anything but documentation for a litigious god that will never see it. Like quantum mechanics, life is about either time or place, never both, and how we choose to pretty up our choices is neither the point, or even a choice – it’s after the fact punctuation we use to justify and make sense of our ontological messiness.  (Science has proven that we decide things with our body before the brain

We sit in passionate apathy

"You can’t debate with someone who hates you." C. Hitchens   Reason has become a tool to manipulate you into thinking things are true that you know are not true. Science and math have become a tools for the wealthy to increase the piles of money they then use to Rent the laws.  Religion continues to be a form of racist nationalism – a nation built on manufactured words that demand the permanent death of all humans who follow different words. The more the others believe their truths, the more they need to die. Welcome to the new hybrid theocracy -- based on the Eastern Orthodox, but with just enough Texas to really pop. The intellectual framework for western society no longer works for most people – faith has been lost and now ridiculed; common sense beliefs passed down for generations are being discarded while children are being raised as docile pups to be eventually clubbed into the correct forms of submission. We no longer question and an