That’s because there is good satire, and pretty often rubbish niche satire. Satire usually relies on everyone being in on the joke, accepting the ludicrousness of it. Political satire is good at this, gender stereotype satire is pretty deep psychologically layered stuff. Most people are not psychologically trained, or even people watchers. So the satire gets missed.
To me, trying to be dispassionate here, that’s also an issue with capping tweets.
In a social media feed such as (pre-Elon) Twitter, if one were the depicted author one would expect ones followers to know you are a successful illustrator, political essayist, social commentator and published author on the topics of sexual violence in culture and an NEA fellow off the back of your successful graphic novel, putting the context of the original tweet in perspective and making the satire very obvious.
To be a little less dispassionate and a little more arch: isn’t the burden of that on the reader, not the author?
To be a little less dispassionate and a little more arch: isn’t the burden of that on the reader, not the author?
Yes and no.
We have limited cognitive abilities as humans. With every bit of information on social and regular media screaming for our attention its easy to miss the nuance. Add to that even the difference in culture in countries side by side there can be barriers to this absorption generated by our various cultures. You have to actively break from cultural norms to explore these other ideas and philosophies.
Might well be a little too deep for “I dont know any men” type memes… 😅
A fair point but also, if one wants to say “hey they didn’t give context to their joke, when the poster deliberately removed it from its contextual home!”, there’s nothing that can stop them, but also, they shouldn’t be surprised to find people asking them to understand the context before complaining about the lack of it.
Consider something like “I didn’t know Stevie Wonder was blind, and it’s therefore not my fault that I didn’t get the joke about Stevie Wonder being blind.”
Like, sure, maybe it’s not, but also, it would hamper any joke if you had to explain all context.
A rabbi, a priest, and an Iman walk into a bar (a rabbi is a spiritual leader and officiant in the Jewish faith, Judaism is a monotheistic religion, a religion is a set of beliefs that characterize a worldview including but not limited to spirituality, ethics, morals, social conduct and worship of divine beings…)
That’s because there is good satire, and pretty often rubbish niche satire. Satire usually relies on everyone being in on the joke, accepting the ludicrousness of it. Political satire is good at this, gender stereotype satire is pretty deep psychologically layered stuff. Most people are not psychologically trained, or even people watchers. So the satire gets missed.
To me, trying to be dispassionate here, that’s also an issue with capping tweets.
In a social media feed such as (pre-Elon) Twitter, if one were the depicted author one would expect ones followers to know you are a successful illustrator, political essayist, social commentator and published author on the topics of sexual violence in culture and an NEA fellow off the back of your successful graphic novel, putting the context of the original tweet in perspective and making the satire very obvious.
To be a little less dispassionate and a little more arch: isn’t the burden of that on the reader, not the author?
Yes and no.
We have limited cognitive abilities as humans. With every bit of information on social and regular media screaming for our attention its easy to miss the nuance. Add to that even the difference in culture in countries side by side there can be barriers to this absorption generated by our various cultures. You have to actively break from cultural norms to explore these other ideas and philosophies.
Might well be a little too deep for “I dont know any men” type memes… 😅
A fair point but also, if one wants to say “hey they didn’t give context to their joke, when the poster deliberately removed it from its contextual home!”, there’s nothing that can stop them, but also, they shouldn’t be surprised to find people asking them to understand the context before complaining about the lack of it.
Consider something like “I didn’t know Stevie Wonder was blind, and it’s therefore not my fault that I didn’t get the joke about Stevie Wonder being blind.”
Like, sure, maybe it’s not, but also, it would hamper any joke if you had to explain all context.
A rabbi, a priest, and an Iman walk into a bar (a rabbi is a spiritual leader and officiant in the Jewish faith, Judaism is a monotheistic religion, a religion is a set of beliefs that characterize a worldview including but not limited to spirituality, ethics, morals, social conduct and worship of divine beings…)
Here’s a reward: 🎖️
You have the first correct use of “nuance” I’ve seen/heard in the last 50 uses of the word.
No, I’m not being sarcastic. I mean it.
My comment is a tangent and is not directly related to the ongoing discussion.
Man no get satire so satire bad! Man over analyze reason instead of just accepting it not for man and moving on! Grunting noises or something!
As a man, I feel personally attacked and it’s glorious. Most of the arguments between my wife and I are me over analyzing things.
I hope the author (if they’re actually writing something) goes hard on that concept.
Or… All satire isn’t meant for you and that’s ok. It doesn’t automatically make it bad, good, or niche.
If it isnt as much of an everyman then its just punching down or an in-joke.
Or… Satire. Nothing wrong with an in-joke anyway.
Nah, this is pretty good satire.