How about if someone posts a satirical article, let us know before you

[raccoon]

get to the end of the post?

I think that would just be common courtesy.

[hobbit709]

1. Too many people fail to gauge the size of the sarchasm in the sarcasm.

[Coyotl]

36. A Modest Proposal regarding the cooking and eating of babies

If the cooking and eating of babies is involved, yes, by all means let us know it is satire first, in case we don't get it.

Warning Satire: "Conservative; Noun. A statesman who is enamored of existing evils, as distinguished from the Liberal, who wishes to replace them with others.”
Ambrose Bierce

That just doesn't work for me.

Warning Satire: “All animals are equal but some are more equal than others.” Orwell.

Again, better without the warning.

Viewer Warning: This show consists of absurdist satire targeted at everyone. Prepare to be mocked.

Satire should force you to question beliefs and accept no outside authority. The warning disrupts the purpose.

[geckosfeet]

2. smiley alerts are acceptable

[cali]

8. lol. so you think that most people writing satire can even come close

to Swift's brilliance? Furthermore, the internet is not a medium that lends itself all that well to sarcasm. Not to mention that there are so many factual stories that read like satire.

[cali]

11. uh, no. Not if the satire is exceedingly poor. And much of it is.

Same goes for sarcasm. You are just wrong.

[Bluenorthwest]

17. I fully agree with the other poster and since you are being brusk and insulting the intelligence of

others I am going to point out that while telling us how unintelligent DU is you ask if DUers "take things to literal now?"
That should read 'too literally now'. Too, not to. Literally, not literal.
Now I make plenty of spelling errors but I also don't tell others they are too stupid to read well.

[SemperEadem]

30. you're right--you didn't call anyone stupid

your posts insinuated that they are.

don't act brand new.

[TeamPooka]

50. they were new and they are gone now.

[SemperEadem]

56. good job

[juajen]

28. LOL. You beat me to it.

[NCTraveler]

27. Most du members are not at the Swift level of writing.

I know I am not. So using that as your reasoning completely fails to make the point. Although there are some very good writers here.

"the level of intelligence here so low" If that is what you feel then you must agree that they shouldn't be making an attempt at sarcasm. Good sarcasm takes some skill. Some here are really good at it, some are not.

[TreasonousBastard]

4. That would tend to void the point of satire, would it not? Better that readers...

get it, shut up, or at least admit when they've been had.

Blaming the writer for one's own rush to judgment is really bad form-- satire is a game and your father should have told you complaining when you lose is not the grown up way to deal with it.

[Iggo]

52. Yep.

I was halfway through that Mexican restaurant story yesterday before I realized it was bogus.

So what? Still funny.

I like smart jokes and I like dumb jokes. And if sometimes the joke's on me, well that's just the price of admission ain't it.

[onlyadream]

5. I give up

Is the OP being sarcastic here?

[OneGrassRoot]

6. Too many are duped by satirical sites, like dailycurrant

Everything is so batshit crazy that what used to be obvious satire is no longer obvious.

I'm coming across too many articles referring to how liberals have been duped by satirical articles, sharing them and making them go viral -- believing they're factual reports -- even though they're not based in truth. The recent Ann Coulter/pilot thing is one.

[rurallib]

7. the one on Limbaugh at the Mexican restaurant got me

I was already to start sending it around.

[skydive forever]

13. Me too

completely fell for it. Mostly because it was so believable.

[NewJeffCT]

14. I didn't send it around

but, it was believable to me as well.

[SCVDem]

15. Nowhere did it say satire.

I believed it and not until I read some of the responses did I know it was fake.

If I were the first reader and acted, it would have been to a lie, not satire.


Our bad if we miss seeing 'The Onion' on a story link.

[datasuspect]

18. satire does not equal fictional story

is idiocracy already here?

was idiocracy a documentary?

i can see people getting tricked: there is no attempt at satire except for labeling it as such.

i agree with you.

[Mira]

21. Identical thing happened to me on that one.

It's how wishing it were so can momentarily cloud your judgment!

I think - actually - that a caution ahead of time takes away part of the joy of satire. The startling second, when it dawns on you that you are being had, is fun and stimulating, and part of it's magic.
Though I do think an indication of it being satire at the end is appropriate to make sure folks like you and I get bridled in time.

[Coyotl]

40. The inevitability of the event got me at first. This should happen to Rush!

The poster did a good job of putting the URL downpost and hiding the dailycurrent part until the end.

[treestar]

53. I believed that too until it was pointed out

Didn't know that site. Story not all that implausible!

[baldguy]

10. Because too often real life out-WTFs satire.

[alphafemale]

16. That kind of ruins the point of satire.

Saying "This is satire" at the beginning.

The game is to keen onto that by clues in the story.

good lord

spoiler alerts wanted for sarcasm now

[SCVDem]

45. Seeing anything from 'The Onion' is a giveaway

Knowing that doesn't change the popularity, does it? The stories are still funny, right?

I'm not up on my satire sites other than that.

[alphafemale]

49. um....no.

Some things are meant to be figured out.

That is the fun part of it.

[paulbibeau]

19. I respectfully disagree.

I write satire. Sometimes I try to make it bone dry. I like to explore that point where it becomes disorienting. I wrote a piece in which someone was describing how Michele Bachmann was actually making a few reasonable points recently, and embedded in the text were clues that the writer was having some kind of neurological event. NO ONE got it. I wish I'd connected with more readers - I like sharing the joke, when people surface from the insanity of the prose, and realize what I am actually saying. But I wouldn't change it.

Here's what I'm trying to do, successfully or not: Make you pay attention. Make you cling to the words, like you're trying to figure out the code to disarm the bomb that every, absolutely every, worthwhile message contains.

Here's what I'm trying to avoid, and this occurs on many, many political websites: That moment where you can't stop agreeing with me long enough to think about what I really mean.

I'm not perfect at what I do. Sometimes I'm not even good at it. But shortcuts like you describe spoil it. And it's worth doing.

[SCVDem]

46. Michele Bachmann was actually making a few reasonable points

Satire and Alert!!!

[rickford66]

20. I agree

Some satirical headlines are obviously believable otherwise they aren't satire. But, many of us looking to read real news or facts feel like we've wasted time. Satire in the comments are entertaining of course but we've had the heads up and expect it. Those who want fake headlines can always go to WND and FOX. I don't waste time on the Freeper sites unless someone here posts a link to something relevant to the discourse at hand. Just my thoughts.

[paulbibeau]

22. And about fake news stories that cross the line...

I didn't like the Ann Coulter-on-the-plane piece either. But I could tell it was satire, because it wasn't a well-sourced news story. There was no indication of how the reporter knew what he or she knew. No quotes that could be backed up, or debunked.

Think about that. And think about this: Maybe the people who want easy, problem-free access to "facts" are looking at this exactly the wrong way. The mental skill set you need to analyze satire is the same you need to think critically about "real news." And you should never, ever put that toolbox down - especially when you read something you want to agree with.

[csziggy]

24. Thank you!

[paulbibeau]

42. You're very welcome.

Don't you think it makes us better at being progressive? I do. I'd say the same to my thoughtful conservative friends. I have a buddy who is a crazy rightwinger, but he's tough to argue with, because he really, honestly puts his whole brain at work when he advocates for his appalling madness. So I have to work. I have to think, "Why do I think he's about to lead us to a dystopian nightmare? Why exactly is that?" And then I get down to what I believe and know.

And then maybe I add a fart joke. Blog writes itself after that, really.

[rock]

23. Are you being sarcastic?

Well, I am.

[Sheldon Cooper]

26. This is satire, and it's obvious to everyone:

Hillary Clinton Opens Chili's Franchise Just Outside Of Washington, D.C.

http://www.theonion.com/articles/hillary-clinton-opens-chilis-franchise-just-outsid,31125/?utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=SocialMarketing&utm_campaign=standard-post:headline:default

It's clearly satire because it's preposterous on its face. The story about Limbaugh being thrown out of a Mexican restaurant is not (good) satire because the story is mostly believable.

[mountain grammy]

39. And I love it! Yay "Onion!"

[Coyotl]

29. And take all the fun out of a good satire. I hope not.

Sorry you got snookered though.

[demwing]

31. Part of the responsibility rests with the reader

Have you never had someone respond to a post, and it's clear they didn't read the post, just the title?

[Posteritatis]

33. I thought for awhile "respond based on thread titles only" was somewhere in the TOS. (nt)

[demwing]

38. No fair

you didn't use the tag. How can anyone understand you without pictures?

[Posteritatis]

32. I think it's more courteous to assume readers aren't that dense.

Most satirical articles here aren't terribly subtle.

[SemperEadem]

34. I take it this refers to the article about

limpfuck being booted from a Mexican restaurant...

I, too, didn't get the satirical spin at first. But once I got into the article, the language being used and the things said made me question how they got away with that. So I went to the website and clicked on their home page and took a look at the other articles... when I saw most of the titles were over the top, then I realized that it was like The Onion.

It's too bad the story wasn't true--would have made my day.

Word of caution---take the time to read the story from its website--and look at other articles from the website before posting it and then being called out for it being false.

[mountain grammy]

35. The Limbaugh story got me too, so very believable

and I've been reading "The Onion" for years, plus, I've often been called a sarcastic bitch, so I think I know sarcasm. Rarely does a fake story get by me. What I don't understand, is why some on this thread seem so offended because a few of us just "didn't get it." Lighten up!

[iandhr]

37. Disagree

The whole point of some of the stuff the Onion does is that the line between satire and reality have blurred.

EG Todd Akin spend election night trying to figure out what went wrong.

[quinnox]

41. its easier to just put those who try to pass off satire as real on ignore

It is so childish, like they are 5 years old or something.
I don't want to waste my time clicking on their threads in the first place.

[cyberswede]

44. LOL - the only two DUers I have on ignore...

are Don Davis and ThisThreadIsSatire.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

43. Watch out for confirmation bias,

which is basically that you want to believe things that reinforce your existing opinion. So if, for example, you read an article about a Mexican restaurant refusing to serve Rush Limbaugh because he's a racist, or Ann Coulter refusing to fly on an airplane whose pilot was a black woman, you might miss the satire because you don't like these people, you know they have expressed racist views in the past, and you are inclined to believe the worst of them. So you read the articles and think "Ha! I knew something like this would happen to these assholes someday!" Doesn't mean you're stupid; it means you're susceptible - as everyone is - to confirmation bias. Just be aware of it - and remember that good satire will make you laugh as well as go "Ha! I knew it!" Bad satire will just confirm your bias. (The Daily Currant is usually bad satire because it's not very funny, just borderline libelous.)

[SCVDem]

47. Here's the problem with the story as satire.

It was only a week or so ago when a waiter of a restaraunt booted customers who wished to be reseated.

"Garcia, who works at the Houston restaurant Laurenzo's, was waiting on a family, regulars with a 5-year-old child, Milo, who has Down syndrome. The server said that another family at the restaurant commented on Milo’s behavior, which Garcia described as “talking and making little noises." Garcia moved the complaining family to another table, but they were still unhappy. "Special needs children need to be special somewhere else," the father reportedly said.

The waiter then took a stand. He told FoxNews.com that such talk is ignorant and is due to people's fear of the unknown. "My personal feelings took over," he said, leading him to tell the father, "Sir, I won't be able to serve you.” The family left the restaurant." The Lookout http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/waiter-refused-customer-becomes-hero-144638357--finance.html


So while this could have been satire , the Rush story comes on the heels of this and copy cats are not uncommon. Maybe this waiter energized peoples sensibilities.


Or would that be

[rickford66]

48. Maybe FOX is really satire

I give those wingnuts a hearty round of applause. They really had me fooled.

[ZombieHorde]

51. Wait, is this OP satire?

Are you really saying we are dumb if we believe a satirical article was meant to be true?

[Nye Bevan]

54. "Never post anything from the Daily Currant" is a pretty good rule.

Since pretty much everything from that wannabe-Onion site is not clever or funny.

[DavidDvorkin]

55. Yes!