Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
If you have an email ending in @hotmail.com, @live.com or @outlook.com (or any other Microsoft-related domain), please consider changing it to another email provider; Microsoft decided to instantly block the server's IP, so emails can't be sent to these addresses.
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE
Comments
So do I, or I need the subject brought up in the therapy I have already. I don't care much for satire either.
And let me explain this a little. I love "Candide" (and might like "A Modest Proposal"), but I only love the humor and insights as much as I do because I'm far enough from the issues raised not to get pissed about anything.
And yeah, I've changed my opinions and learned shit, but never from satire. I'm fine with good-natured ribbing (though I generally avoid it myself) only I'm fairly neutral on the topic when it's done in person; then you'll know whether or not it's actually "good-natured". If it's from some random author or director or game designer or whatever, forget about it.
^^^^ Cracked does seem like a typical site to associate with lists and suckiness.
^^Nope. Although if I were, I would deny it, so that doesn't really mean anything.
That, and sockpuppets will occasionally forget to relog before posting something serious, which is good for lulz.
I've read this whole thread twice and I'm still confused. How do you "not understand" satire? What's to understand? It's something silly and outrageous paralleling something negative in real life, like having a bunch of babies fight over something pointless and the events play out just like some actual war, or something.
This is such a basic, fundamental way to tell a story, humorous or otherwise, that I'm not sure how you enjoy entertainment at all. As absolutely ANY style of comedy can be put to satirical purpose, are you sure you understand humor itself?
Isn't the Divine Comedy also a satire of the papacy?
Oh, yeah, I forgot the parts where he was complaining how shitty Florence was or whatever, but Medieval Italy was apparently that fucked-up.
Arent those different things anyway though?
Like, in the case that someone lets others starve to death, why is "being okay with eating babies" a result? What if they even want others to starve?(in such a case, making someone eating anything whatsoever undesirable)
(no, I havent read A Modest Proposal)
It's not. The point is that you shouldn't be okay with either of those things.
They are seperate things, which should be treated seperately.
If "eating babies" is considered something else rather than an exaggeration, then is it still satire?
(I would make my post more detailed but typing on a phone is a pain)
Um...so you're saying that horrible death is okay as long as it's not a specific kind of horrible death? Because that's the only way what you're saying makes any sense.
k so i'm like back on my computer now
What I am saying is that, while eating babies and starving to death are both bad, they are not bad for a highly similar reason.
And if they are not bad for a highly similar, specific enough reason, then it is not an exaggeration, which means it is no longer satire, doesn't it?
In which case, shouldn't it be,
"X(Exaggerated) is bad, therefore X(Normal) is also bad" ("Starving to death is bad, and fasting for no reason happens to be bad too, the exaggeration shows this")
rather than
"Y is bad, and X is bad. I just mentioned that Y as extra info for the hell of it, btw." (Eating babies is bad, and starving to death is bad. You should feel bad because they are bad)(which is what a Modest Proposal seems to be from what information I have collected in this thread?)
But yes, many people consider horrible death to be fine as long as it is not a specific kind, for some reason. The first example that comes to mind is how many prefer electro-execution over death by blood loss, due to their perception of the victim.
The point of the post is, "If an exaggeration of something for the luls that is intended to amuse others and manipulate them into thinking the way you want them to satire, how is A Modest Proposal also satire, when it is being something else(as it does not contain an exaggeration)?"
Um, yes, they are? They both involve people dying horribly for reasons beyond their control.
"Eating babies" isn't an exaggeration of "Starving to death" though, it's just extra information someone mentioned for shits and giggles which happens to also have the aim of making people look at "Starving to death" (assuming that people weren't paying attention to it the first time)
"Eating babies is bad" doesn't mean "Starving to death is bad", even if "Eating babies" and "Starving to death" are both bad things.
"Starving to death" = bad
"Eating babies" = bad
"Eating babies is bad" ≠ "Starving to death is bad"
Satire isn't exaggeration, exactly, if I may adjust Clock's previous assertion to meet your argument. Satire can be merely exaggeration, but all it really has to do is highlight the stupidity of some upheld convention by presenting it in a certain way. In this way, A Modest Proposal succeeds as a satire, because starving to death and eating babies, while not the same thing, are both horrible ways for people to be treated, and Swift is implying that no one should be okay with either of them.
To put it a different way: satire is a literary genre, while exaggeration isn't. Exaggeration is but one of many strategies that satire can employ. Another such strategy, and the one that Swift uses, is comparison, where you're not supposed to be making a connection between two things that are exactly the same, nor do you have to compare two things that are different severity levels on the same scale.
Yeah, exaggeration was probably a poor word choice on my part. I guess I meant exaggerated in the sense that the presentation uses a more over-the-top bad thing to draw attention to a bad thing that's going ignored, if that makes sense.
Like, in this case, people who hadn't been outraged about people starving to death were definitely outraged by the notion of people eating babies, since eating babies is just so ridiculously evil.
It's simple: a satire is a humorous allegory or proxy for something you are criticizing.
And this one. This one should die too.
But theeeeseeee are sooooomeeeee
Theeeeseeeee are sooooomeeeee