Hacker News Reader

Comment by tialaramex | Hacker News Reader

The core idea of satire, which is often missed in supposedly satirical works is that you should not only make fun of the thing you don't believe, but you should also explain what you do believe under the cover of pretending to dismiss it.

For example everybody knows Swift's Modest Proposal does not seriously intend that the problems in Ireland ought to be fixed by literally eating children, but if you read it, the proposal also very clearly explains what should be done, in the form of taxation of the wealthy absentee landlords (many of them English) for example - it just couches all these boring but entirely reasonable steps as ludicrous and easily dismissed while insisting that eating babies is a good idea.

View on HN

> The core idea of satire, which is often missed in supposedly satirical works is that you should not only make fun of the thing you don't believe, but you should also explain what you do believe under the cover of pretending to dismiss it.

I often suggest that satire is a dangerous double edged sword and not a good primary vehicle for positive change. Part of your audience will understand it's satire, but a significant part maybe even a majority, might take is as genuine or worse come to embrace/support the satirized.

I believe we ask and expect too much of satire which relies heavily on hypocrisy and shame, two concepts that no longer carry the same weight.

Examples: South Park, The Colbert Report, SNL, The Onion

I definitely see the problems you are pointing out, but ultimately these calls from you and gp to forms of responsibility or to be a "vehicle for positive change" of satirical or otherwise funny things leaves a bad taste in my mouth. I just sometimes want things to be cathartic, I don't really care if they are pushing the needle of the world's ills. I want to be able to laugh and not necessarily be a better person for it! There has got to be some space for that too, right?

And ok, if there is some committee somewhere to dictate that all satire must be "responsible", must follow its founding Swiftian maxim, then fine, we don't have to call it that. But whatever it is can still be good, can help those find a little fun in an absurd world. We should care as much about the simply depressed people as we do the possibly confused or evil.

I don't think there's a committee, I'm pretty sure I do not have veto over online comedy. Think of this as a pointed criticism of how things could be better, not as a tearing down of what is good. And you don't need to be made a better person per se, but my argument is that the work should try to offer that, not that you must accept it when offered.

I don't need to use a toilet on a train most of the time, but I think long distance trains obviously should all have toilets - even if I didn't need one this trip.

In larger works the other side of the coin needn't be in the next paragraph. When I read Private Eye for example the cover headline "MAN IN HAT SITS ON CHAIR" isn't doing anything beyond poking fun at the King (the crown is just a hat, the throne is just a chair) but the magazine overall funds a lot of serious investigative journalism and sheds light on important issues. Years before a TV drama made it into a government scandal problems with Horizon and getting justice for those wrongly convicted were extensively discussed in the Eye for example.

> I believe we ask and expect too much of satire

Yes, if you expect anything from satire you expect too much. Let it be art, not propaganda.

Allow yourself to find poor execution of agreeable messages distasteful. Allow yourself to enjoy good execution of messages you disagree with.

> Let it be art, not propaganda.

My friend I have some news for you.

Edit: almost ended it there but remembered what website I’m on.

I don’t think there’s a material difference between art and propaganda. The art you like is merely the propaganda which you do not question.

So..... Monet's Water Lilies is propaganda....

What is it's message?

Floating flowers rule, land flowers drool

"The classical tradition of "accurate" painting (Raphael and Michelangelo and Rembrandt) is not exciting.

But we're not ready to go full on free jazz/postmodernist/de-constructionist. You're not ready for it yet, but your kids are going to love it."

For a contemporary example, what is the message of a painting of a watermelon?

It could be merely that watermelons are beautiful. Or it could be that the artist supports the people of Palestine.

For a less extreme example, think about the paintings of Norman Rockwell. Are they just pretty images? Or do they communicate norms?

Think also about what is censored vs what is not censored.

Chairmansteve didn’t ask about theoretical paintings of watermelons that you have imagined though, he asked about Water Lilies by Monet, which is art that famously exists and is liked by many, many real people.

If your point is “all art is propaganda aside from art that exists and must be replaced piece-by-piece with hypothetical counterparts in my head to support this conjecture” you could have just written that. Though “some art is propaganda and some is not” is less profound sounding than “all art is propaganda”

the ephemeral beauty i strive constantly to capture, studying these same details in this same garden across the infinitely variable day, this honest and perfect imperfection that i'm famous for revealing and sharing with the world, is within every moment of every life and every human being.

(significantly he made a gift of these paintings to the french state as a war memorial)

I disagree on the point that art is propaganda, but I can't point out almost all art contains a propaganda of some kind. Monet's Water Lilies influences common viewers to find a beauty and romanticism in simple nature. Long exposure to Monet will in general make people gaze more appreciatively at trees every now and then.

Propaganda doesn't inherently mean bad or political. Healthy lifestyle propaganda is actually a good thing, for example (also the current healthy lifestyle propaganda seems poorly executed. I much prefer the 60s american, european and soviet versions of it).

> The art you like is merely the propaganda which you do not question.

I like this thought because it can be directly refuted by Cotton Eye Joe by Rednex — a highly popular piece of art that does nothing but present the audience with questions to ponder.

You can execute the message "We think you, and people like you, should be killed" as well as you like, I'm still not going to enjoy it.

> Let it be art, not propaganda

You cannot “explain what you do believe under the cover of pretending to dismiss it” without blurring the line between propaganda and art. That is true of both the best art and propaganda. If someone disagrees with the message, or coöpts it, it’s propaganda.

> Allow yourself to find poor execution of agreeable messages distasteful. Allow yourself to enjoy good execution of messages you disagree with.

This makes sense. If you find yourself understanding and judging messages based simply off of their merits then you have failed to insert an arbitrary aesthetic filter into your cognitive process. The wisest sages know to value style over substance

One could say 'the wisest sages know to value style and substance'

Or even: 'the wisest sages know that incorrect results can be based on some sound thinking and some muddled thinking, and correct results can be derived by tortuous thinking'

Or maybe: 'the wisest sages know that some things are neither objectively true nor objectively false, and can appreciate good arguments for positions they disagree with'

I'm not sure I agree with you (your parent could be taken to simply mean, appreciate good-faith arguments, even if you disagree with them), but I appreciate your contextual use of satire.

>I often suggest that satire is a dangerous double edged sword and not a good primary vehicle for positive change.

When I write with the intent of my words being read at face value I get downvoted, flagged or my post get sent into the void by some AI depending on platform.

So satire and memes it is.

Can't decide if the people downvoting you don't realise the irony, or are deliberately downvoting you for the irony.

Those are all still far more positive than negative examples, even if they each spawned small contingents of people who don't get the irony. Plus, if you know that's gonna happen anyway, then steer the dumb ironic interpretations towards something equally useful - or so ridiculous it at least educates other people.

> I believe we ask and expect too much of satire which relies heavily on hypocrisy and shame, two concepts that no longer carry the same weight.

Indeed. It's amazing to me how many people I encounter these days who don't appear to consider hypocrisy a moral failing.

been shamed too many times, man. Moral failing itself became just a button people try to press in my brain. Often very dishonest people. So, welcome to moral learned helplessness, and damn the moralizers.

ALSO: thinking means changing your mind, which often exposes you to being called a hypocrite

Satire is not a tool for change. In fact the opposite as laughter sublimates the emotions that would otherwise lead to action (cf Orwell’s 1984).

However people are not always in a position to change things and satire can be a useful outlet for venting, but culturally can also be good for providing talking points.

Southpark and the Onion strike a chord with me the others less so, I think because they believe that they are agents for change.

I love John Oliver though. He follows up his rants with some sensible ideas sometimes. Not everyone’s cup of tea though for sure.

> The core idea of satire

I've never read this definition from any historical author or famous literary critic. I think you made this up yourself from first principles-- am I right on that?

In any case, this definition would make a special case out of Animal Farm which is probably the most famous satire. I cringe imagining Orwell have one of the animals "dismiss" his preferred theoretical vision of good governance as a wink to the audience. I don't even think Orwell presumed to know what that would look like.

The original idea of satire was to make fun of unjust leaders. It doesn’t have to be as sophisticated as swift at all. It just has to strike a chord (originally, literally) with the audience.

Satire requires a good deal of intelligence and education to both write and consume. Without those two inputs, satire is a propaganda.

When you take a satirical concept and ratchet up the absurdity such that only ignorant (willfully or otherwise) people believe it, the result can be a powerful influence over them. Conspiracy theories often use this approach, as do talking heads on some networks.

Think about how early Stephen Colbert skits often comprised of him acting like Bill O'Reilly; not saying funny things in the style of O'Reilly, but merely imitating him. The difference between satire and propaganda is often packaging and audience.

For another example, you can look at posts of people who read Onion articles without realizing they are satire. These people are often pissed off, so much so that they share a 3 year old article on social media to spread the word.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com