this post was submitted on 13 Jun 2025
35 points (100.0% liked)
El Chisme
428 readers
145 users here now
Place for posting about the dumb shit public figures say.
Rules:
Rule 1: The subject of a post must be a public person.
Rule 2: All posts must include links to the subject matter, and no identifying information should be redacted.
Rule 3: If your source is a reactionary website, please use archive.is instead of linking directly.
Rule 4: No sectarianism.
Rule 5: TERF/SWERFs Not Welcome
Rule 6: No ableism of any kind (that includes stuff like libt*rd)
Rule 7: Do not post fellow hexbears.
Rule 8: Do not individually target other instances' admins or moderators.
founded 7 months ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Satire does not work. It just reinforces the thing it's satirising because it is literally the content that its fans want to see.
It sells, because people on one side are entertained by the satire and the people on the other side get the exact content they want reinforcing their beliefs anyway.
I am anti-satire.
Interestingly the hogs in the UK hate this. Daily Mail comments section can be summed up with "This sets women back decades, it's like we're in the 60s/70s again".
the way I see it, the problem with satire is that good satire straddles a very very thin line: if you're too subtle, the satirical aspect is lost on the target audience that you're making fun of, but if you're not subtle enough, it's no longer identifiable as a plausible representation of the thing in question, and then it becomes pointless
but see almost anything but outright clownish representation ends up as too subtle unless something else about the work makes it so inapproachable that the only people who bother to consume it are able to pick up on it.
True, but then do you really have an audience, in the first place? Does satire even need to have an audience? Does a satirical product need to be a product in and of itself?
Let's imagine a piece of satire, I dunno, let's say, a fake poster for an Azov battalion documentary that's full of nazi symbols. Make it really outlandish so that nobody could take it seriously. Is that good satire?
But what if you actually make a satirical mockumentary about Azov that's outrageously nazi, to an absurd degree. Well then, you might just end up being liked by the nazis who are also fans of Azov, so did you really do satire, or did you just do a nazi film?
Like I said in the other comment, I'm just spitballing here, trying to figure this out as I go along, because I'm interested in the debate lol
I mean, depends on the portrayal. outrageously Nazi to an absurd degree may be satire but absurdity by itself is not in itself necessary satirical. When I said clownish I wasn't necessarily meaning merely outlandish either but more so the satirical work almost needs to portray the subject of its ridicule in a way a clown portrays themself. Not necessarily just outlandish but with universally understood cultural references that indicate intentional stupidity.
If someone does stupid stuff dressed normally, we may assume mistakes, incompetence etc. If they do the same dress as a clown, there tends to be an assumption of intent due to the clown dress being a thematic explanation. From my understanding, the boys moved to this type of storytelling in season 4 and it made a bunch of people realize it was making fun of them.
There is also the route of outright statements after every bit where you explain you are portraying something you ridicule.
In essence, I think if your concern is a group you're portraying needs to be ridiculed in a way where they don't embrace it via your work you need something along the lines of Garth Marenghi's philosophy.
And in order to do that, they ended up making the show absolute hot garbage for everyone. Now the people being satirized will not watch it, and the people laughing at the people being satirized don't want to watch it anymore.
I think the point is that satire is incredibly hard to pull off while telling a compelling story, and the more compelling it is, the more likely it's just going to be a cultural artifact through which a group of people can laugh at another group. Maybe the point of satire is catharsis, rather than changing minds.
Oh, I fully believe the point of satire is catharsis. I was more playing with the idea presented here:
If that is a requirement for good satire, you're likely not seeing it outside of clownish representations as just about anything short will likely have support from the group in question. i.e. Starship Troopers as you mentioned or the earlier seasons of The Boys.
I do think you can do a form of clownish representation that is compelling as well narratively, but you likely have to start from that point as well as have an extremely strong pen.