RE: Rcc thinks Charlie Hebdo is the devil
January 7, 2016 at 5:49 pm
(This post was last modified: January 7, 2016 at 5:51 pm by Simon Moon.)
(January 7, 2016 at 5:35 pm)Crossless1 Wrote:(January 7, 2016 at 5:32 pm)Drich Wrote: brother, satire is the douche bag form of bullying, only it's not called bullying because douche bags have bann that word. so they came up with 'satire' to describe what by all rights is indeed nothing more than one group bullying another group who is different by mocking a predominate trait of those not in the 'satirical' group/the cool kid group, IN An Excepted Way, By Other Douche Bags. Satirists are not the mirror, they are the kids mocking the one pictured in the mirror, and are allowed to get away with it because they are liked/cool.
What is truly sad of all satirists, that they are, no better than those in whom they hate/mock, and don't even know it. Most of them don't/won't ever see themselves as the monsters they make others out to be. That what makes satire different than bullying. Bullies know that they are doing wrong, a satirist has been made 'morally right' by bullying the social dregs of a douche bag society.
In contrast, true compassion and understanding (What douche bags pretend to be) doesn't need a 'fun house mirror' to point out the flaws in other groups of people no matter how different or even backwards they may be. It makes allowances and can work around or even offer to help fix a problem, rather than just point out exaggerated perceived weakness in others. satirist seek out weakness to one end alone, and that is the exploitation of it.
Yeah, I'm sure that's exactly what Jonathon Swift was up to, Shit-For-Brains.
Or Twain, Lewis Carroll, Seuss, Tom Lehrer, Jules Feifer, Vonnegut, Bradbury, O'Henry, George Bernard Shaw and on, and on...
Just more evidence that Dritch has no idea what satire actually is, despite his frantic hand waving above.
Quote:Very well said. +1
Mystic, you don't want to hitch your horse to Dritch's lack of understanding of what satire is.
You are not helping his, or your, case.
You'd believe if you just opened your heart" is a terrible argument for religion. It's basically saying, "If you bias yourself enough, you can convince yourself that this is true." If religion were true, people wouldn't need faith to believe it -- it would be supported by good evidence.
