Hacker News Reader

Comment by tayo42 | Hacker News Reader

[flagged]

"Satire is a genre of the visual, literary, and performing arts, usually in the form of fiction and less frequently non-fiction, in which vices, follies, abuses, and shortcomings are held up to ridicule, often with the intent of exposing or shaming the perceived flaws of individuals, corporations, government, or society itself into improvement." [0]

[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satire

Considering the thousands of deaths and people murdered by the US government in places like Libya while Hillary Clinton fumbled foreign policy as Secretary of State, the article is clearly, by definition, satire. QED.

I would be pretty surprised if it was being that clever.

Im pretty sure it's referencing conspiracy theories about the Clinton's hiring hitmen and related ideas.

>I would be pretty surprised if it was being that clever.

"I would be pretty surprised if a website known for clever wit and satire was being clever."

Even if it's referencing conspiracy theories, it's still satire. Congrats, you played yourself.

John Oliver and Stephen Colbert (and formerly Jon Stewart) would beg to differ. Their "satire" consists entirely of making fun of anyone to the right of AOC.

Saying something that's officially forbidden is quite often satire. Saying something that you know your audience agrees with is not.

Can you explain the satire to me then? To me that article looks like another example of Clinton's have people killed. Who is being made fun of? What's the joke?

> Unless it's making fun of the people that seriously think Clinton's are killing people?

You nailed it the first time. It's second-degree meta.

The person writing satire decides if it is satire regardless of how a reader's brain maps the words into thoughts.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Death_of_the_Author

I think people with near zero empathy regard their interpretation as primary, but most humans can understand that people have different senses of humor.

> but most humans can understand that people have different senses of humor

I agree completely. And I would think that someone with greater than zero empathy would have a hard time arguing that there is one and only one correct way to interpret a piece of writing. An author with a non-zero amount of empathy should be well aware that their work will be interpreted in a variety of ways by a varied audience, and won't seek to hide behind the flimsy shield of "satire" when they publish something intentionally provocative and incendiary.

If i found out who you were in real life, and lets say I had a big platform, and started writing "satire" about you to spreading rumors, you just have to deal with it? I can hide behind the idea I'm calling it satire with no repurcusion?

Like sticking with the Halloween theme, "Mensetmanusman's neighbors are unsure if the screams are Halloween decorations, or another child locked in his basement this year"

I can write stuff like that, because lets say I want people to start thinking you are the kind of person that tortures kids for what ever reason, call it satire, and be protected?

Yep, that's the trade off of the first amendment.

You know this isn't a first ammendment issue? The government isn't involved.

No one’s fundamentally obligated to impose repercussions on you for such speech, and the first amendment protects those that choose to publish your speech from any government repercussion.

if someone asks if you should "do something" about someone else's speech, that implies the full force of the law.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com