User:WeinribZ/Archive 2

Old

Nice UnNews

Funny stuff! I liked it! No need to sign them though, you can put a source just like I did on it, or totally invent one. Great to see you have a journalistic fiber! Mattsnow 21:32, May 16, 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, man. I thought I put a lot of effort into it. I know it's short, but there's only so much you can write about a woman hitting a moose. The Hamon Master WeinribJo Joestar of Earth 22:30, May 16, 2012 (UTC)

New

UnNews:Biden does it again

Odd talk page formatting....But I had a go at the Biden UnNews article. Feel free to do what you like to it now, but the thing I found funniest about this is that there is no actual story. This is political muck-raking at it's best - taking a 2 second sound bite which has nothing to do with racism and turning it into a sign of somebodies latent racist tendencies. So I just decided to stretch it from mundane to ridiculous. Nominally Humane! 01:05 28 Aug

Exactly. I don't actually think these things about Biden. I don't know why anybody would take it seriously. It's UnNews, for god's sake. The Hamon Master WeinribJo Joestar of Earth 13:12, August 28, 2012 (UTC)

Nobody's taking the story seriously (or at least I hope they aren't), but the regulars here take their comedy seriously. Nominally Humane! 01:21 28 Aug

Well, somebody seemed to think the article reflected my political views, and that I wanted Romney to win, and that this was a plus for Republicans.

Uh, no. I was (trying to be) satirical. The Hamon Master WeinribJo Joestar of Earth 13:24, August 28, 2012 (UTC)

SPIKE does a lot of patrolling. Sadly we get a fair number of trolls trying to use Uncyc and it's non-neutral point of view as a way of pushing their own agenda. It could have been assumed to be that this was trying to do the same thing. TBH, without seeing the source myself (and not knowing the story) I was a little unsure myself. Looking at the way you wrote conversationally showed me differently. That, and that bloody report from Fox. I mean, I'm a cynic, but even a complete idiot should be able to see the flimsy journalism and political bias there. How the hell does that station survive? Nominally Humane! 02:09 28 Aug

I'm not worried that you are trying to subvert UnNews to the Democratic Party line (unless you are really Aleister!), but that your humor looked the same as that of people whose business it is to subvert humor to a political point of view. As I said in the VFH nomination, scads of radio talk hosts (Republicans) including Limbaugh have jumped on Biden's remark, assuming the worst. They are making sport of it too, but they are dead serious. Puppy has taken a turn at this UnNews and has given it a theme (hypersensitivity during political campaigns), on which I comment at User talk:Xamralco#UnNews: Biden does it again.

On my and other comments at VFH, blunt criticism, alas, is my specialty; still, the point of a VFH nomination is not to spare your feelings. Whether or not Biden exposed himself as a fool, and whether or not this is chronic, is highly controversial; you will see many Republican web pages answering in the affirmative; and I would not have the Uncyclopedia main page even appear to do so without it being much clearer that we are just having fun. Spıke ¬ 14:53 28-Aug-12

PS to Puppy: Americans are taking Biden's remarks extremely seriously. A week ago Saturday, Larry Kudlow asked each of his guests on his syndicated "financial" radio show whether the remarks meant Biden was so mentally unstable that it was dangerous to have him be one heartbeat away from the Presidency. This is strategic, as is Republican speculation that Obama might be considering dumping Biden in favor of Hillary as a running mate for 2012. There is a matching campaign on the other side to assert that Todd Akin's daft science personifies Republicans. Separately, although I think Fox News dwells on the trite and heartstring-tugging, just like ABC News, the journalism is not flimsy and (apart from shows hosted by commentators) the news is not especially biased. Your comments to the contrary suggest that your edit of this UnNews ended with some advocacy of your own. Spıke ¬ 15:01 28-Aug-12

I'm going to be dumb for a second and disregard politic garble. I feel like the satiric content here is taken INSANELY seriously. I get that stuff about political opinions not deserving to be flaunted on the main page. I'm just saying, the purpose of this wiki is to make people laugh. It seems like most of the time this goal is squandered by over-analyzation and taking something too seriously. I'm not talking about you alone, I mean everyone here in general. Even myself. I find myself judging a perfectly good article and taking it too seriously, and the value of the humor vanishes. I'll admit, I understand why a lot of people don't find my articles funny. But there are some articles I find hilarious that someone else violently despises because it isn't chock full of their favorite things, or because it doesn't have enough references to their culture. Sometimes I feel like everyone around me is a comedy scholar or something. The Hamon Master WeinribJo Joestar of Earth 18:13, August 28, 2012 (UTC)

No personal offense taken, and I agree with your statement about the goal of Uncyclopedia. However, it is not "over-analysis" but analysis. Humor about politics (or religion, or the races) must be done with analysis, toward what is said elsewhere without any smile at all. To "disregard politic garble" is to disregard the reader. Spıke ¬ 19:40 28-Aug-12

Although you do have a point in regards to my advocacy, but it's less political and more my frustration with MSM, given it's my line of work at the moment. But part of my style of comedy is to push the stupid to its ridiculous extreme, and in this case that was my aim, and the target of it was the journalism itself. Obama's remark is out of character, and actually not what has been said (from what I've read here) as he actually defended Biden saying that the comment was taken out of context, but given this is an UnNews, and the following statements, and a few of the earlier statements, are obviously facetious, I saw it as continuing the thread, and an opportunity for a poo joke. My comments on the journalism being flimsy are obviously not included in the article, but I stand by them. Could you imagine Woodward running with this story? Nominally Humane! 10:21 28 Aug

Uh, Spike, when I said "disregard political garble", I meant I was going to go off topic from what you were talking about. The Hamon Master WeinribJo Joestar of Earth 02:16, August 29, 2012 (UTC)

Okay. Returning to a previous topic, it is true that authors here do differ notoriously in their styles of humor (mine is dry and mostly a perverse take on true facts; some others rely on Grues and Chuck Norris) and we also have colossal disagreements on the threshold for deleting articles. My objection to this article, in its various forms, is not that "it isn't chock full of my favorite things" but as I specifically set out above.

Meanwhile, Pup, we aren't going to agree on media bias and this isn't a good place to thrash it out. (Bob Woodward, despite quality journalism, also had it in for Richard Nixon. He might not have pursued the Biden gaffe--but neither is it quality journalism to deal with current weather near the Republican convention with continual flashbacks to Bush and Hurricane Katrina.) Your satire of journalism is evident in the revised article, and well done; my objection is solely to the Fox News stuff and to the way the article starts out. "Channel 99 is biased" is as much a reflection of the author's bias as of that of Channel 99. "Channel 99 is a joke" is not a joke, unless you tell a joke. Thus, "Fox news is a laughing-stock" is not funny without additional work. Spıke ¬ 15:55 29-Aug-12

Fair enough. I wasn't specifically calling you out though, as I said earlier. I meant most of the time, that's why articles don't seem to have much success. Because everyone has a different sense of humor. And that's okay, just as long as you try to see it from someone else's point of view, and try to take a reader's generic sense of humor and then judge it. As for my article, I figured it needed work, but I wasn't sure of myself. This has been an awesome opportunity to improve my articles, and use these tools for later. The Hamon Master WeinribJo Joestar of Earth 18:13, August 29, 2012 (UTC)

Again, no harm taken. You keep writing, and we'll keep commenting. I've now taken my own advice and written UnNews:Romney/Ryan to re-institute Negro slavery. Spıke ¬ 14:49 30-Aug-12

Just the name makes me laugh. This is sure to be great. The Hamon Master WeinribJo Joestar of Earth 14:52, August 30, 2012 (UTC)

My favorite approach to UnNews is to imagine a clueless reporter interpreting stuff that really happened. The anachronism "Negro" is the perfect way to set the tone that the reader is now in the hands of a dope. Spıke ¬ 15:01 30-Aug-12

I would have changed it to "Negroid" in that instance, but I come from a somewhat less PC culture. Nominally Humane! 12:18 31 Aug

No, please. To these American ears, "Negro" suggests that the narrator is not just non-PC but, again, a total anachronism; "Negroid" just sounds weird. (Though I do enjoy the conservatives' use of "Obamoid" to disparage executive-branch appointments.) Spıke ¬ 10:52 31-Aug-12