The deal with religious satire
Ok, I figured it’s about time I said something about religious satire on the net. There are a number of articles floating around TGA that may in fact be satire rather than the real thing, including this video and this article. My issue is with the fact that a) most of the people who watch read these articles or watch these videos have no idea it is in fact satire and are therefore convinced it’s real, and b) good satire (like the stuff Edward Current does) clues you in gradually to the fact that it is, in fact, parodying the very thing it purports to support. Here’s the dictionary definition of satire:
the use of irony, sarcasm, ridicule, or the like, in exposing, denouncing, or deriding vice, folly, etc.
Mike Adams’ article is entitled “An Immodest Proposal”, supposedly an homage to Jonathan Swift’s “A Modest Proposal” that hilariously suggested Irish babies be eaten to deal with the growing poverty problem in 18th century Britain . In the case of Swift, however, it was so blatantly obvious it was in fact satire that to compare the two articles is a grotesque overestimation of the writing prowess of Adams. Is there any irony in his article? If there is, it seems to be lost on some of his readers:
Yes we as Christians AND as Americans could learn something from the Taliban. They have a passion for their beliefs which too precious few of us have. I am not advocating killing people like the Taliban but they don’t tolerate abuses of their beliefs do they. They stand up for something.
Satire is meant to shame individuals using their own tone and style, but if most people aren’t able to tell the difference (Poe’s Law), then what is being accomplished? Perhaps all of these supposed satirists need to go back and actually read Swift and others like him to get a fucking clue as to how GOOD satire is done. I’ve devised my own rule here at TGA: if you can’t clearly tell it is satire, it may as well be the real thing, and I’ll treat it as such. Consider it punishment for bad comedy.