The problem is that successful satire requires that there be an upper limit on the absurdity of the thing being satirized. In a world that contains WingNutDaily, Bill Donohue, and...well the whole Loony-Right Noise Machine, that condition doesn't hold.
While sophisticated liberals may get the joke, there are way too many morons out there who think it describes reality. (And they vote -- a terrifying thought!)
I THINK IMUS WOULD BE PROUD OF THE NEW YORKER.
I couldn't agree more and think the New Yorker should be commended for getting this nonsense out in the open and the topic of discussion in the "mainstream media" (and by that I mean things like The Today Show and the nightly news).
Well said!
Could you put an asterisk somewhere in the title of that post, Dr? "FFS" is a little raw...
Smarta**.
Many of us have observed, in the course of blogging a carefully considered response to the words and actions of religious fundamentalist rightwingnutter batshit neocons, that they have pushed the frontiers of anything that we previously assumed to be rational, logical or sane.
Ann Coulter is to Christian Right Republicans was George Carlin was to iconoclastic thinkers everywhere except for one little thing - as far as we know, she is not a stand-up comic.
Many of us have observed, in the course of blogging a carefully considered response to the words and actions of religious fundamentalist rightwingnutter batshit neocons, that they have pushed the frontiers of anything that we previously assumed to be rational, logical or sane.
Is there any precedent in history and if so what was the response/challenge? Because, apart from swearing a blue streak or ignoring it (which the media cannot and will not do), I'm at a complete loss as to how it should be handled.
The comments at Gawker about the FoxNews segment in which E.D. Hill (and her legs) interviewed an expert on the significance of body language is one way, but even that feels played out these days.
I'm beginning to think that Jonathan Swift would be on the ropes about now, trying to explain that he didn't really mean that we should actually eat Irish babies.
That, unfortunately, is exactly what would happen.
Well, we can't pitch all of our commentary so that fools won't read them wrongly. That's pandering.
What if the fools are in charge of the media, and have tremendous influence over how people think of you?
Then what do we do? Simply give in and keep silent? Dumb down our commentary?
Doesn't augur well for an improvement in political discourse. If people are actually inbred enough to take that sort of thing seriously, take them on. Otherwise all hope is lost.
Otherwise all hope is lost.
I think it is for a generation at least.
WhineOn.org: It’s true, liberals really have no sense of humor...
http://www.harpers.org/archive/2...07/hbc-
90003244
Dear Dr Dawg: "The lights are going out all over..."
Else: the darkening of the discourse that may lead to actions otherwise unintended. Or, if intended, from motivation to be deplored.
Tee (with little) hee.
Mark
Ottawa
I note, with some shame, that it took me more than a few seconds to figure out what 'FFS' stood for.
Commenting by HaloScan
