Hacker News Reader

I've no idea why anyone tries to communicate using satire or sarcasm today. It's absolutely begging to be misunderstood, and then it's impossible correct because yes that is literally what you wrote and it's there in black and white. It must be the least clear and most risky way to communicate possible.

It's really broader than that. A lot of comedy has always been about skirting close to the edge of appropriateness and good taste. (And maybe going over it a bit.)

As I was discussing with someone in the wake of some of the recent outrage outpourings, the cliff that comedy skirts has become very steep and very public. The joke that bombed in a small nightclub and gets quietly excised from the routine is now all over YouTube and Twitter, perhaps completely out of context.

Or a stupid dongle joke of the sort that I might have rolled my eyes at a coworker making and maybe told them to "give it a rest" years ago now gets people fired because of online outrage.

Satire and sarcasm are best used in the company of people who will understand it. It is not for use with the masses.

When someone is sarcastic or uses satire on you, you should take it as a complement, as it means they believe you have the intellectual capacity to grasp the joke, enough to take the risk in telling it to you.

When you respond with sarcasm or satire of your own, it confirms to them that you have found common ground, and that your satire/sarcasm can slowly lift into even higher levels of wit, almost trying to outdo each other.

When someone doesn’t get my satirical jokes, I write them off as a simpleton and use only small, safe jokes with them, if at all.

If you are going to make a sarcastic joke publicly, it is best to also make sure there is some sort of external approval in the form of laughing or upvotes to go along with it, otherwise it can easily be misinterpreted as your own serious opinion.

> When someone doesn’t get my satirical jokes, I write them off as a simpleton and use only small, safe jokes with them, if at all.

Maybe they go away thinking you're the simpleton for saying something which isn't true or doesn't make any sense? It seems like this is a whole system of snideness designed to judge people and justify being condescending to them. I think it's just unpleasant.

It seems to me that people with dry sarcasm can not live that out in the media. Putting things out of context or blowing single events out of proportion has become too common. Very unsettling.

> In a moment of somewhat poor judgement, he said, essentially, "I've always hated gay people." But he was joking.

I wouldn't say it was a joke, it was a form of humor.

> The joke was that gay haters are often so over the top that they will sound completely ridiculous

No this wasn't the humor as far as I can see.

He's rubbing his nose in the fact many people no longer get humor in its many forms and is using a type of humor that's not commonly done these days. Even things like the Daily Show have to "Explain the joke" these days.

FYI Australians (He's Australian) consider this an a lower class American trait, right or wrong it's a common meme in Australia, Americans audiences are so bad the joke has to be explained. (And notice I have to include the "Right or Wrong" when it wasn't needed, cause it's another form of infection were you can't report on things without saying your moral stance no matter how outrageous)

> Now, to be clear, if you watch the original video, there's probably no way for you to tell it was a joke.

This is simply not true, it's incredibly obvious.

And no he wasn't trolling, a best he was thumbing his nose at the outrage machine that kicks into action without regard to why, for them it's all about forming their mob whenever possible, they use mobs for adrenaline rather than humor.

Did he win a round for humor over the lynch mob, two mortal enemies. Hard to say.

Pogo wasn't joking though

If you have anything to back this up, that would be worth sharing. But I don't think it's fair to say that factually without some pretty strong evidence.

I don't know this Pogo, but the mere fact that his words did not contain anything funny hints towards the absence of a joke... false (or outrageous) statements by themselves do not make sarcasm, you also need humour!!! For example if he was also notoriously gay, that would have made a great joke. This is not the case.

Do you have anything to back up that he was joking besides the backtracking statements he made years after the original video and only after getting massive amounts of negative backlash about it?

If making a several-minute-long homophobic rant 'as a joke' (a joke so funny that he apparently didn't want the public to see it because the video was unlisted), in a way that is entirely indistinguishable from actually hating gay people, is somehow not 'strong evidence' of being homophobic then I have no idea what is.

the Directors by Mel Brooks would probably be an anti Semitic pro nazi film using that rationale

The Producers. I have wondered if that film might be a bit too edgy for mainstream audiences today. On the other hand, it had a good Broadway run long after the film, so people would probably be fine for the most part.

Have you actually watched the video in question? These are completely different things. The Producers was clearly satire, it was marketed as satire, everyone knew it was satire.

There is generally room for interpretation with satire, but I am finding it extremely difficult to give this particular person the benefit of the doubt.

If Mel Brooks filmed himself talking about how Nazis are great in an entirely serious tone, other than the bit where he laughed about how funny it was so many Jews died and calling it fantastic (Pogo did exactly this with the Pulse shooting), never releasing the footage, and then years later somebody found the footage and everyone was mad at him for liking Nazis, and then he said it was a joke and people shouldn't be mad at him, then it would be like this situation. But it isn't, it's completely different.

Do you also think the Nixon tapes weren't evidence of Nixon being anti-Semitic? If he had just said he really didn't mean it and he was sorry, it all would have been okay?

https://waxy.org/2017/04/pogos-politics/

you'll note that this is from last year, before the current controversey

> “I don’t think feminists ever do what they preach. I think it’s always an ulterior motive. I think it’s a divisive cult that doesn’t achieve much more than a flock of self-entitled narcissists at the end of the day. I’ve never liked them. I’ve always thought that driving a wedge between the genders seems like a funny way to achieve equality.”

> “I think the left is bringing about the destruction of Western civilization, personally.”

> “I don’t want to make massive generalization or anything, but I think female accountability is a myth. I think under the banner of feminism, females will never be held accountable for anything. You should not critique a woman unless you are prepared for the consequences.”

What does that have to do with hating homosexuals? I know of many people who don't like feminists but don't have a problem with homosexuals.

That's entirely unrelated though. Just because someone dislikes the left doesn't automatically make them more or less likely to dislike gay people. That's an unfortunate association with the republican right, which tends to be more religious than not.

If you think this sort of thing is entirely unrelated you haven't been paying much attention. Those kinds of "unfortunate associations" are why you don't pillory your own career by espousing reprehensible views "as a joke" (the idea that it was a joke was only brought up after the controversy)

Is making jokes and enjoying the benefit of the doubt a privilege reserved for people with the correct political opinions?

Here’s the thing: you don’t get the benefit of the doubt when you hold opinions that have been demonstratably wrong for 40+ years.

It counts as evidence of your poor judgement and terrible moral compass. Especially when you espouse other opinions that are toxic trash and are highly correlated to the previous ones.

The benefit of doubt has been long used up on these topics. If you hold these opinions today as an adult you made a concious choice to be a bigot.

You're just confirming what the parent says: only people with enlightened, progressive ideas can say whatever they want.

Not at all. You appear to be trying to fit my words to your conclusion.

I’m saying demonstratably bad positions will be called out as such.

Doesn’t matter if they are or are from progressive people. So please stuff that strawman somewhere else.

In their company, sure. Try being a liberal at a Trump rally.

Things may have gotten worse, but there was never a time when you could freely say without consequences whatever you thought in whichever social group.

It may have felt like that if you were part of a privileged group and did not stray too far.

My question was normative, I suppose another way to rephrase it is "Do you want to live in a world where only people with the correct opinions can make jokes and enjoy the benefit of the doubt? If not, why are you enforcing social norms you don't endorse?"

The choice isn't automatic: abritinthebay apparently does endorse a hostile interpretation of any speech by people who "hold opinions that have been demonstratably wrong for 40+ years" and "made a concious choice to be a bigot", which I believe makes both comedy and nuance impossible, but at least they're honest about it.

Yes? In certain circles you could get off with saying just about anything about the current US administration however in poor taste it might be. In those same circles, I wouldn't recommend off-color criticism of many people on the other end of the political spectrum.

ADDED: For those who apparently disagree with me, does anyone seriously dispute that jokes of a certain slant are going to be acceptable in some circles and considered in very poor taste in others?

It was a normative question. The social norm exists, but I wish it didn't, so I won't enforce it and I'll encourage other people not to enforce it.