Slashdot Mirror
False News, Absurd Reality Present Challenges For Satirists (apnews.com)
Between reality and the bubble of fantasy news stories, these are tough times for satirists. From a report on AP, submitted by several readers: The New Yorker magazine recently took steps to distinguish Andy Borowitz's humor columns from politically motivated false stories circulating online. His editor said the New Yorker was getting email asking if there was a difference between the two. So they changed the tagline for "The Borowitz Report" from "the news, reshuffled" to "not the news" on the magazine's website. When the stories are shared online, they are more clearly identified as satire, said Nicholas Thompson, editor of NewYorker.com. Borowitz's columns take the form of news stories, like one headlined this week, "Trump fires attorney general after copy of Constitution is found on her computer." One story last week: "Trump enraged as Mexican president meets with Meryl Streep instead." Thompson admits: "It's a weird problem to have."
Real news lately look like a version of The Onion.
As a German satirist recently remarked, the US should look to Germany, they already did all of it.
They voted for a Chancellor that promised better infrastructure and he actually built many Autobahns and military airports. He made Germany great again, even bigger than their previous borders, at least for a couple of years. He had yuuuuuge approval numbers (on pain of death) and everybody liked him, if they were asked.
They also tried religious discrimination like nobody else, ever.
They also have done the Wall-building thingie a bit later, throughout the whole country and they even got the Russians to pay for it. (If you're lucky, you can even bid for a piece of that wall on eBay.)
I believe the term is now "alternative fact therapist", not satirist.
The best satire today is simply to publish official communications verbatim. Some good examples are:
McSweeneys "My very good black history month tribute to some of the most tremendous black people"
or Tina Fey as Sarah Palin
The politicians are writing the material. The satirists just need to point out how rediculous it is by republishing it.
It's distasteful that so many people are bashing Trump and talking about Fake News at a time when events like the Bowling Green Massacre take place every day.
Can we all come together please, forget our partisanship and different religions, and agree to offer a prayer to all those that died in Bowling Green like good Baptists. May they rest in peace and go to Baptist heaven.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
Looking at some headlines from https://www.reddit.com/r/notth...
we find
"Stop making memes of our dead gorilla, Cincinnati Zoo pleads"
"Spotify offers Barack Obama a job as 'President of Playlists'"
"People have paid a company more than $80,000 to dig a hole for absolutely no reason"
"Venezuela's currency value depends largely on one guy at an Alabama Home Depot"
"Anti-Defamation League Declares Pepe the Frog a Hate Symbol"
"Pilot 'congratulates' passengers for drinking all alcohol on plane"
"Nebraska flag flew upside down at Capitol for 10 days and 'nobody noticed,' says senator who wants design change"
etc.
As the satirist who runs whitehouse.net, I disagree. Satire has to be something that seems in character with what's happening but definitely wouldn't actually happen. If it's not in character, it's not funny. If there's a realistic chance it could happen, it's scary not funny.
Trump makes it really hard to find that sweet spot where it's something amusing you could actually see Trump doing yet definitely not something Trump will end up doing next week.
Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion.
When I heard, at first cursorily, about the Berkeley riots *against* free speech, I was certain someone was describing a new South Park plot or Onion jibe. Imagine my surprise...
Now that's just sad. Comparing Trump to Hitler? Seriously?
He may not be the model of decorum in his personal behavior and may have a brash personality that rubs folks who oppose him the wrong way, but that doesn't mean his policies are anywhere close to Hitler's or that the country is now in danger of falling into anything that resembles pre-WWII Germany. To even say such garbage cheapens history. This is like comparing the concentration camps where millions of Jews died to a summer camp for kids. It's offensive and shows both a lack of understand of history and current events and betrays the partisanship that drives all this pointless rhetoric used to divide the right from the left in this country.
The real problem though, is the truth is hard to hide and is becoming apparent. Trump nominates an "originalist" to the Supreme court, a guy who says that he must interpret the laws as they where INTENDED by the original authors and decide the issues based on that, not his personal feelings. Had Trump wanted to take over, he would need a judge who was free to decide cases based on political positions, not the law, because the law in this country pretty much precludes dictators from taking power.
Then there is the Executive Order issue.... Name ONE of Trump's orders that has attempted to expand the power of the presidency or make a new law? (Hint: there isn't one as of this writing). You won't find one. I encourage you to go read these orders and quote them here to prove me wrong. You can find them all on the White House's web site if you cannot find them elsewhere... (You won't find them on any news site I've found, including CNN, FOX or MSNBC, but you will find a LOT of commentary about them..) I think you will be surprised to learn that a lot of stuff you THINK is there, isn't. Go find the Muslim ban, I dare you to try because I know you will fail.
So, you have a choice... Back up your claims here with some kind of actual evidence from original sources, or take your partisanship and ugly talk and go away. Trump isn't "like" Hitler and claiming so makes it obvious you don't know history nor current events well enough to be listened too. Stop falling for all this garbage you are hearing, go to the original sources and think critically. Remember the press doesn't tell you things that don't generate advertising dollars, so the mundane and uninteresting stuff doesn't get air time, but violent protests and hyperbolae sure will. You got to dig a bit for the truth, but it's out there.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Im sorry, i thought this was a nation of laws. What happened to 'I may hate what you say, but i will defend to the DEATH your right to say it'. The consequences you mention are supposed to be CIVILIZED REACTIONS, not barbarism and lawlessness. If you throw a fist at me, I might toss hot lead back at you. Maybe we should just be civilized and agree to disagree instead of someone getting hurt.
Good-bye
If you are advocating assassination, this is wrong in so many ways.
This man is our duly elected President.
We have a functioning court system which has already put some of his possibly-illegal orders on hold pending legal review.
We have a duly-elected, functioning Congress with the power to impeach him for "high crimes and misdemeanors."
We will have elections in two years which can elect a new House of Representatives and replace 1/3 of the Senate. This new Congress will have the power to impeach him for any impeachable offense he has made since taking office.
In short, unless or until the soapbox, the ballot box, and the jury box (impeachment process) are all impossible (e.g. a President prevents elections or effectively suspends free speech/press/assembly/etc. - neither of which I see happening in the lifetime of anyone alive today unless an armed insurrection or state-government-led secession effort happens first) we should all avoid the ammo box and stay withing the bounds of legal methods to protest government decisions that we do not like.
A reminder to anyone who contemplates violating the law in the name of civil disobedience - whether it is something "minor" like blocking a street or something major like high treason/assassination: Civil disobedience may be morally justified in certain circumstances only to the extent that 1) it is a last resort (use the other 3 boxes first - the "soapbox" is not a license to block traffic) and 2) you are willing to accept the legal consequences of your actions, specifically, being arrested, going to trial, and, if convicted, accepting the final (after appeals are exhausted) sentence handed down by a properly-functioning court system.
A far better way to handle things is
* write your lawmakers and encourage others to do the same,
* publish well-written, convincing arguments that speak against Trump's proposals and encourage others to do the same,
* peaceably assemble and peaceably protest, and encourage others to do the same,
* find and recruit good, solid candidates to run for local, state, and national office, and
* do the other things that have been a hallmark of the American Experiment for well over two centuries.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
Precisely. If everyone had just stayed away, then Milo would have largely ended up talking to himself.
Unless, of course, the protesters' real fear is that the house would have been packed, and the violence wasn't as much about preventing Milo from speaking as it was to prevent anyone who wanted to listen from hearing (maybe even some of them). I find the latter in some ways far more disturbing than the former.
As for myself, I'm secure enough in my own views that I can go to right-wing online forums and read the posts, though I don't really often contribute. As much as I find many of the ideas expressed range from the naive and absurd to the outright vile and bigoted, I think it's still important that I not be utterly ignorant of what other people believe. And it does happen that you will find someone who is intelligent on these forums and he'll present an actual challenge to my preconceptions, that forces me to re-evaluate my own views. The fact is that no ideology has an absolute lock on the Truth.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Now that's just sad. Comparing Trump to Hitler? Seriously?
Unfortunately, for many people this seems entirely appropriate, especially those who fall into one of the many groups of people who feel threatened by Trump and his power base. And yes, I mean threatened like concentration camps and gas chambers. The first has happened in the USA before, and the jubilant hatred coming from many Trump supporters renders the second sadly believable.
He may not be the model of decorum in his personal behavior and may have a brash personality that rubs folks who oppose him the wrong way, but that doesn't mean his policies are anywhere close to Hitler's or that the country is now in danger of falling into anything that resembles pre-WWII Germany. To even say such garbage cheapens history.
History is the measuring stick, and while Trump doesn't yet measure up (down?) to Hitler, and hopefully never will, it is entirely appropriate to do the measuring and then speak and act to prevent bad things if possible.
This is like comparing the concentration camps where millions of Jews died to a summer camp for kids.
No, it's like comparing the vile spew of Nazis to the vile spew of Trump and the even viler spew of many of his supporters, and finding them disturbingly similar, even though I agree the actions are orders of magnitude different so far.
It's offensive and shows both a lack of understand of history and current events and betrays the partisanship that drives all this pointless rhetoric used to divide the right from the left in this country.
The "right" has been dividing itself from the "left" and vice versa in the USA since long before the current political parties existed. Indeed, the political parties themselves have swapped sides, no doubt seeking greener pastures in their quest for power independent of any so-called values. I abhor such oversimplified labels as right and left, but those are your terms. Both major parties are coalitions of wildly disparate interest groups, banding together in the hope of gaining enough power to force their narrow goals on everyone, and if they have to go along with the [insert orthogonal interest] wackos, so be it.
The real problem though, is the truth is hard to hide and is becoming apparent. Trump nominates an "originalist" to the Supreme court, a guy who says that he must interpret the laws as they where INTENDED by the original authors and decide the issues based on that, not his personal feelings. Had Trump wanted to take over, he would need a judge who was free to decide cases based on political positions, not the law, because the law in this country pretty much precludes dictators from taking power.
Remind me who gets to decide what the original authors intended, without injecting any personal perspective.
Then explain to me why the original authors included an amendment process if they never intended anything to change and adapt with the times.
I am right royally sick of the idea that the US Constitution is scripture handed down verbatim by the almighty, never to be questioned or altered, especially by someone who has a different opinion. It is and was a compromise, a word apparently out of favor in these times.
For that matter, I am right royally sick of a Supreme Court that is utterly and absolutely partisan, such that the opinions of most justices can often be predicted before the cases are presented based entirely on the political positions of the presidents that appointed them. I don't trust any of them.
Then there is the Executive Order issue.... Name ONE of Trump's orders that has attempted to expand the power of the presidency or make a new law? (Hint: there isn't one as of this writing). You won't find one. I encourage you to go read these orders and quote them here to prove me wrong. You can find them all on the White House's we
WALSTIB!