p>But why is ‘satire’ of him a capital offense, while nude paintings of Palin and other crap is not only tolerated but encouraged? Mr. Lynne, you usually have a fair mind – sattire for all, or for none – but a disparate standard?
… the comparison you are making because I need to see what it is you want compared the facebook ad. “Waffle” box? “…not only tolerated but encouraged”? If you could supply some details I’d be happy to comment.
… sums up my feelings. I defend both in so much as there is freedom of speech in this country and that means freedom for speech you hate. Of course, freedom of speech doesn’t mean freedom from criticism. I neither endorsed nor criticized the facebook page above. I merely pointed out that standards of ‘decency’ depend on context and in this case, satire is given a wide latitude.
<
p>Personally, as a lefty I might be biased, while both are in bad taste, one is far more so than the other in that it utilizes a bigoted stereotype. The waffles satire concocts memes about black people that, besides being bigoted, have no relation to the actual person Barack Obama. As such, it is an attempt to tie the erroneous stereotype to the man. The facebook satire, OTH, is full of references that are based on the actual characteristics and history of the person Sarah Palin. These references are re-contextualized in facebook parody, complete with all the presentation that are, in fact, idiomatically genuine for a facebook page. Many of the characteristics and histories above have been editorialized throughout various media and in various contexts. The humor here isn’t that there is anything ‘new’ but that it framed in a new way that you’d never actually see, but that is idiomatically familiar to an increasingly internet-savvy public – particularly young people. You simply don’t see political people covered in such an idiom and the regular media would never do it, so to do so in this satire is a joke on context and framing.
at plenty of satire of Obama. Jibjab had me totally in hysterics.
<
p>Yes, satire can cross a line. Like when you can’t distinguish it from bigotry, like the New Yorker front page. It, in effect, over-satirized and under-satirized at the same time. it also committed the unspeakable crime in the world of satire of being completely NOT funny.
<
p>This facebook page is completely hiliarous. Some of it is over the top but it satirizes ACtual types of things, like Mr Levi there and his swearing myspace page. (And it is totally something a teen would say besides.)
<
p>In fact, this parody makes fun of Bill Clinton as well. I found that funny too.
<
p>”Political views – none, I’m not very political.” LMFAO!
I would find “nekked” pictures of Palin totally unacceptable too. Never seen one. My friends I guess are too high class to be spreading that crap around.
… if nominated I will not run–If elected I will not serve. I will happily advise as the power behind the throne if you like though. đŸ˜‰ Of course, nominating me might have lost you some popularity points among certain circ… oh wait!
kbuschsays
I was thinking that the First Dudess would be the power behind the throne and then you could be the power behind the power behind the throne and then she could be …
<
p>We could have intrigue, gore, and marvelous arias.
What do you find more offensive: mocking the overly casual way teenagers discuss sex, or mocking an African-American who dares to rise above his assigned stereotype?
<
p>If you’re somebody who is comfortable with that celebration of prejudice, then I can see why you’d say that.
… more is fair in comedy than in love and war.
And I thought that tasteless and immature, too.
<
p>But why is ‘satire’ of him a capital offense, while nude paintings of Palin and other crap is not only tolerated but encouraged? Mr. Lynne, you usually have a fair mind – sattire for all, or for none – but a disparate standard?
… the comparison you are making because I need to see what it is you want compared the facebook ad. “Waffle” box? “…not only tolerated but encouraged”? If you could supply some details I’d be happy to comment.
Here’s the story from the Globe –
<
p>http://www.boston.com/news/pol…
<
p>As I said, I thought it was tasteless. but with the dual meaning of ‘waffle’, it would certainly qualify as satire, without being salacious.
<
p>I think the two are comparable – so why not ‘tolerate’ that, like the Facebook page?
… sums up my feelings. I defend both in so much as there is freedom of speech in this country and that means freedom for speech you hate. Of course, freedom of speech doesn’t mean freedom from criticism. I neither endorsed nor criticized the facebook page above. I merely pointed out that standards of ‘decency’ depend on context and in this case, satire is given a wide latitude.
<
p>Personally, as a lefty I might be biased, while both are in bad taste, one is far more so than the other in that it utilizes a bigoted stereotype. The waffles satire concocts memes about black people that, besides being bigoted, have no relation to the actual person Barack Obama. As such, it is an attempt to tie the erroneous stereotype to the man. The facebook satire, OTH, is full of references that are based on the actual characteristics and history of the person Sarah Palin. These references are re-contextualized in facebook parody, complete with all the presentation that are, in fact, idiomatically genuine for a facebook page. Many of the characteristics and histories above have been editorialized throughout various media and in various contexts. The humor here isn’t that there is anything ‘new’ but that it framed in a new way that you’d never actually see, but that is idiomatically familiar to an increasingly internet-savvy public – particularly young people. You simply don’t see political people covered in such an idiom and the regular media would never do it, so to do so in this satire is a joke on context and framing.
at plenty of satire of Obama. Jibjab had me totally in hysterics.
<
p>Yes, satire can cross a line. Like when you can’t distinguish it from bigotry, like the New Yorker front page. It, in effect, over-satirized and under-satirized at the same time. it also committed the unspeakable crime in the world of satire of being completely NOT funny.
<
p>This facebook page is completely hiliarous. Some of it is over the top but it satirizes ACtual types of things, like Mr Levi there and his swearing myspace page. (And it is totally something a teen would say besides.)
<
p>In fact, this parody makes fun of Bill Clinton as well. I found that funny too.
<
p>”Political views – none, I’m not very political.” LMFAO!
I would find “nekked” pictures of Palin totally unacceptable too. Never seen one. My friends I guess are too high class to be spreading that crap around.
http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs…
<
p>Maybe it was the Guardian, or the Chicago Tribune…nice to know what you’re NOT reading.
Mr Lynne for Tsar! Lynne can be First Dudess.
… if nominated I will not run–If elected I will not serve. I will happily advise as the power behind the throne if you like though. đŸ˜‰ Of course, nominating me might have lost you some popularity points among certain circ… oh wait!
I was thinking that the First Dudess would be the power behind the throne and then you could be the power behind the power behind the throne and then she could be …
<
p>We could have intrigue, gore, and marvelous arias.
What do you find more offensive: mocking the overly casual way teenagers discuss sex, or mocking an African-American who dares to rise above his assigned stereotype?
<
p>If you’re somebody who is comfortable with that celebration of prejudice, then I can see why you’d say that.
… you manage to be much more economical in your words than I.
… you manage to be much more economical in your words than I.
And by the way, I intend to vote for that team, as do many Hillarycrats.
But so what? Unless you live in New Hampshire, some other swing state- or Maine, it doesn’t matter.