Forum:Satire does not have to be funny- hahahahahahaha!!

Forums: Index > Village Dump > Satire does not have to be funny- hahahahahahaha!!

Note: This topic has been unedited for 4223 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over. Do not add to unless it really needs a response.

There seems to be a confusion among some users that satire (and we are a satire site) has to be funny. To evoke laughter. To pee your pants laughing (as I do). No, satire is thusly, according to Dictionary.com and other definition sites:

"sat·ire

   [sat-ahyuhr]

noun

1. the use of irony, sarcasm, ridicule, or the like, in exposing, denouncing, or deriding vice, folly, etc.

2. a literary composition, in verse or prose, in which human folly and vice are held up to scorn, derision, or ridicule.

3. a literary genre comprising such compositions.

Origin: 1500–10; < Latin satira, variant of satura medley, perhaps feminine derivative of satur sated ( see saturate)

Can be confused:  1. burlesque, caricature, cartoon, parody, satire (see synonym note at burlesque; see synonym note at the current entry ) "

I'm back now. Satire has a long backbone as a political and historical form of all the things mentioned above. Some satire is funny - but it doesn't have to be imnho and in the opinion of many definition makers. I've noticed over my many years here (well, not quite 3) that some users judge VFH entries on if it makes them laugh out loud. That's fine, yet I just wanted to point out that uncyclopedia is a satire site and not a lol (LOL) site. None of my dozen or so articles are funny, I've never written a funny article. Most of mine are actually used at bars to sober people up so they don't laugh. This is true. Thanks for not laughing. Discussion is welcome, but I won't be here myself for a week or so. Aleister 17:24 August 20, '12

Ah, but don't forget, our official rule #1 is "Be funny and not just stupid." And if the admins had been doing their jobs, then articles like Neil Young would get a reworking by now. ~[ths] UotM 17:57, 08/20/2012

A good point, both about the holy law and Neil Young. So a chink in the holy law #1 has been discovered, as we are, I think, officially a satire site. And why oh why don't we have an article on Johnny Depp????? Aleister 18:01 Aug20'12

Must make you feel bad kinda bad that everyone finds your intentionally unfunny articles so hilarious. --EMC ^[TALK] 18:09 Aug 20 2012

That's not funny dude, don't rub it in. Aleister 18:10 aug20'twelve

p.s. what did I do wrong here, I can't fix the wiki link. Help! Help! For gods sake help me.

But if I don't I'll get the hose again! :( --EMC ^[TALK] 18:11 Aug 20 2012

@Aleister: I fixed your wiki link for you. You're welcome. ~[ths] UotM 18:46, 08/20/2012

So what we have here is a logical fallacy of the type "Some animals walk on four legs, humans are animals, therefore some humans walk on four legs." Just because we are a satire site, it does not follow that we don't always have to be funny. Given HTBFANJS, we can just simply say we must remain on the funny side of satire. FTW -- GlobalTourniquet: UnAstrologer, UnJournalist, shameless narcissistic America-hating liberal atheist award-winning featured writer 19:12, August 20, 2012 (UTC)

Clap clap clap hey. Let's all be funny and write shit. -- T​K​F​​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​UU​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​CK 01:54, August 21, 2012 (UTC)

<whore mode>shit shit shit shit</whore mode> -- GlobalTourniquet: UnAstrologer, UnJournalist, shameless narcissistic America-hating liberal atheist award-winning featured writer 01:57, August 21, 2012 (UTC)

Being funny is something we can all leave for Illogicopedians -- Кıяву ^Тαгк _{Сойтяıвs} 2012-08-31T00:14

Response

Im linking the comment I put on Hiroshima to Aleisters comment on my original comment (not voting for...though not voting against). Im putting it here so that Aleister will read it after his week absense and not miss it per the nom page being archived. Ali is correct, not all satyr has to be funny, and non-funny-satyr or other articles such as one of my own is featured from time to time. But a user should feel free to vote against an article because they don't find it humerous (as thats what they want to see featured) and that not all non-funny satyr articles are well written enough to be featured according to some users. --ShabiDOO 04:47, August 21, 2012 (UTC)

So, in conclusion:

Satyr that is NOT funny

Satyr that IS funny

-- GlobalTourniquet: UnAstrologer, UnJournalist, shameless narcissistic America-hating liberal atheist award-winning featured writer 18:19, August 21, 2012 (UTC)

1. the use of irony, sarcasm, ridicule, or the like, in exposing, denouncing, or deriding vice, folly, etc.

Irony

A statement that, when taken in context, may actually mean something different from, or the opposite of what is written literally; the use of words expressing something other than their literal intention, notably as a form of humor. [1]

Sarcasm

A form of humor that is marked by mocking with irony, sometimes conveyed in speech with vocal over-emphasis. Insincerely saying something which is the opposite of one's intended meaning, often to emphasize how unbelievable or unlikely it sounds if taken literally, thereby illustrating the obvious nature of one's intended meaning. [2]

Ridicule

to criticize or disapprove of someone or something through scornful jocularity; to make fun of [3]

Just thought I'd point that out, being the primary definition of the word. Nominally Humane! 05:44 28 Aug