Messages

Clearly he was driven off by my insightful indictment of his sexual orientation, or rather, his lack of any such thing. Automatons can be so temperamental, sometimes, it makes me wonder why we ever constructed them in the first place. Certainly this "mindchamber" fellow cannot be used for any sort of useful task, such as applying bottle caps to bottles of carbonated drink, or spot-welding automobiles. What is his function? I can see none.

While we're on it - and I hate to speak a sentiment that may be considered "un-PC" in today's modern world, but this is the way I was raised - when I was a child, an automaton unoccupied by work today was scrap metal tomorrow. I hate to sound so judgmental, but what is the purpose of creating and supporting such machines, if they're not willing to do the labor they were built to supplement? We fired all those good gentlemen in the lower "blue collar" caste for this purpose, and now their replacements are letting us down! We can't go back to using human laborers! It will make us look weak, and we can never allow that. No, I'm afraid we must be tough with these upstart machano-men, as we would be with an unruly child. Spare the rod, spoil the robot, I always say. If we don't put the fear of god, or rather us, into their cold iron hearts now, they'll never respect us, and they'll be leeches all their lives.

Oh yes, I can hear my critics now, crying "bigot" and "anti-mechanoid" or whatever they're calling it these days. These are the arguments of foolish children and weak men - robot sympathizers are no more the friend of the metal man than I. Sure, they act like they care, standing out in the cold rain, protesting with the rest of them, but do they think that when the 'bots rise up, the sympathizers will be spared their awful, clankering wrath? Ha! Such foolish optimism. There is a line that no man can cross and on one side is the robot, and on the other side is the rest of us. So of course, I side with man. He is not the most noble of beasts, but he is my brother, and I will not abandon him. Damn the robots, and damn any man foolish enough to stand by them!

So I say, let us make an example of this "mindchamber." Let him swing from the highest steeple in town! And then, after a week, when his metal shell is rusting, and his joints are needing oil, we'll take him down and send him on his way, to tell the other robots of what we have done. And then, I tell you, they will fear us, they will revere us, and most importantly - they will respect us. We will have no more trouble from them from then on, I tell you this.

But, I fear I have gone off on a tangent. Back to grading essays on imaginary consonants. Good day to you, gentlemen.

just for the record im the one running the collab, not rtil. i dont know why you are arguing with him about it and i dont really care to go back and check. if you got a problem then PM me about it. itd look a lot better than coming onto these forums all butthurt and whiny. you can save that stuff for your newgrounds review.

haha, aint nothing you shit out that can make me whiny, you know I love your stuff, ya faggot haha. I was just giving your queen there a hard time is all,  

all in good fun yknow?   for some reason everyone is so sensitive and serious here.

but I'll skedaddle.  and let you guys ,,, do whatever it is ya do,

laters!

I would conjecture that this man is a homosexual if it wasn't so blatantly obvious that he is, in fact, an automaton.

hly shit who the fuck is that faggot

Sir, that is just plain rude. I expect an apology forthwith!

What is the difference between Parody and Satire? Many a young student of the humorous arts has confused or even equated the two, but this does both a disservice by oversimplifying them. They are different fruits of the same branch, both delicious in their own right, but neither exactly the same as the other.

To begin- what is parody? I could quote Websters, but would that old trick really service the discussion? Still, I suppose, in this case, where the offender started this mess with a quote from that bastard offspring of reference texts, wikipedia, an old trick may be needed. So let's look at the definition as Webster's  defines it:

1  : a literary or musical work in which the style of an author or work is closely imitated for comic effect or in ridicule  
2  : a feeble or ridiculous imitation

Let's break that apart, shall we? Most of its meaning should be apparent, but examining tiny details are necessary when dealing with profound ignorance.

"For comic effect" - Parody can be seen as an homage, of sorts, a tribute to the original by pointing out the subtle peculiarities of the creative. By exaggerating these eccentricities, one may illicit laughter from his audience, but it does not necessarily connote ridicule.

"or in ridicule" - This is where overenthusiastic (or lazy) students tend to get caught up. But note this - while a parody may ridicule the flaws of a given work, it never explicitly states them. Rather, a true parody points those flaws out by exaggerating them.

"a feeble or ridiculous imitation" - this sums it up perfectly. Parody is an IMITATION, and does not step outside those bounds. What commentary it offers is neither outright stated nor immediately discernible. It may not even make a comment, preferring rather to mine for rich, sweet, laughter from the rich mines of funny that are inherent in a ludicrous situation. Parody is, above all else, about making the audience laugh. Making them laugh is secondary.

Parody is not always at the expense of the subject matter. Note this. It can be, but it isn't always. Parody is always an imitation. ALWAYS. That is what parody is. If you can remember that, you'll be fine. Parody is imitation. No exceptions.

Accepting that, let's look at satire.

I would go with a dictionary definition, but dictionaries tend to not give good example for what it is. Webster's for example says:

1  : a literary work holding up human vices and follies to ridicule or scorn  
2  : trenchant wit, irony, or sarcasm used to expose and discredit vice or folly

This certainly gives you the gist of it, but you may be inclined to believe that satire cannot outright mock a certain individual. In fact, this definition makes one feel like satire has a very narrow reach, with the phrase "vice and follies" thrown about. This definition is, of course, accurate, but it doesn't give the reader an accurate PICTURE of what satire really is.

Works of satire use art to ridicule. Political figures, celebrities, institutions, abstract ideas, it doesn't matter. Whatever the target is, rather than directly parodying (read: "imitating") it, satire puts a context around it in which it can be mocked. A cartoon with a literal political boxing match, where Obama and Hilary bruise each other up, only for the winner to have to take on McCain, tired and bloodied? That's satire. A movie where bureaucracy has lead to a world where a man has to live in a cemetery after accidentally being declared legally dead? That's satire. A story about superadvanced aliens who come to earth, only to ask for directions as far away from here as possible? Shitty-ass satire. But that's beside the point.

Satire is not a mere imitation, it is commentary, a context in which a subject can be held up to derision. Can it be funny? Yes, but that's not the most important part. Satire is about criticizing something or someone by creating a situation where its flaws can be highlighted. Exaggeration can be used, but a point to be made is that it's not just an exaggeration.

So which is which? Indeed, it can be confusing sometimes.

A movie called "eXposed: an eXplanation for why eXpelled is a dumb fucking movie", a piece by piece deconstruction of all the bullshit in Ben Stein's newest movie, and probably a few testimonials from holocaust survivors who don't agree with him about the whole "darwinists caused the holocaust" thing.

It'd probably suck, full of Michael Moore-inspired "humor," but it'd be an accurate satire because it puts a context around Stein's movie and derides the fuck out of it.

A movie called "Kicked Out: The lie of a heliocentric solar system" which exposes the travesty of several scientists from Omaha U who were kicked out by the CONSPIRACY OF ZION-UH I MEAN BIG SCIENCE for their cutting-edge theories about how the earth is flat and the sun revolves around it. It would feature a droning Armenian narrator who formally worked for Nixon, who explains to us why Coperni-cists are responsible for the Armenian genocide, which he would cry about, thus guilting us into siding with him.

It'd probably be funnier than the first one, but its not really as insightful, poking fun of faults it assumes we are already aware of. Parody, an imitation of the original. It may make people more aware of the flaws in the original, but the primary purpose is to make us laugh.

Can you see the difference? Once again - Parody; imitation, Satire; a context through which derision can be delivered, like so many FedEx boxes of diarrhea. Telling the difference is the first step to true happiness. Or something like that.

I hope this has been enlightening, and now I must go, to teach experimental English in the Cornell Subbasement. Away!