Talk:American Commitment to the Rights of Man

If I may get the ball rolling - this article seems too much like an opinion piece and less like a satirical piece. It's pretty clear (at least in my mind) that the article is impassioned and angry - something that satire is not supposed to be. Isn't satire supposed to make a cutting point without one getting red in the face? --UtarEmpire 00:30, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

There was rather an argument on VFD. The end result was a rather narrow lead for keeping it. In the end, I decided that it ought to be kept because we are in the business of humor, not censorship and this article (despite it's flagrant angry rant nature) has at least as much humor as plenty of other articles that are kept under the expectation that other people will improve them. It is my sincere hope that the wiki system will do what it's supposed to by encouraging people to come along and make this article funnier and less biased. --Sir gwax (talk) 06:09, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

---

Funny, I just checked this discussion for the first time. In response to UtarEmpire's point...well, yeah, sure. You sure are right there my boyo. Rush Limbaugh, for instance, never ever sounds angry or gets red in the face when he's satirizing liberals, does he. Golly how could I have been so mistaken.

Get a clue, chappy: if there is no feeling behind political satire then the blood flow stops and the work cools rapidly to room temperature because it is dead.

Besides, how could one argue against a piece which celebrates "The rights of men and blancmanges" and "Freedom of bedclothes"? ;) ----OEJ 18:33, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

---

It appears this piece still gets under the skin of conservatives. Smrt-guy put a "whining" template at the top; I removed it because opinions about an article belong here, on the discussion page. That's what a discussion page is for! The use of templates to express one particular reader's personal reaction to an article is, to my mind, no different from that particular reader vandalizing the piece by adding irrelevant prose or insults to it.

Face it: angry satire is always going to piss off people who don't agree with it. The idea that satire should be inoffensive is nonsense. For example, editorial cartoons in newspapers regularly draw letters from readers who find them offensive for various reasons. But a political cartoon is satire -- it's not meant to be The Family Circle or Peanuts. It's the same with an article satirically claiming Donald Rumsfeld wiped his ass with the Constitution of the United States.

My understanding about dissenting opinions on Uncyc is that such opinions are encouraged -- but should take the form of new articles which take an opposite point of view. They should not take the form of blanking or vandalizing existing articles. I may be mistaken, of course. ----OEJ 19:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC)