Friday, May 15, 2015

hand = short


If you can point me in the direction of one person on the internet who actually knows what she or he is talking about, and isn't merely restating what someone else said from a position of greater illusory expertise, I promise to begin making a list of Real Geniuses for your reading and researching ease.

Alternatively, we could list all the "experts" who write interesting plagiarisms of others' supposed wisdom but presented as their own.  However, I don't think I have enough hours left in this mortal realm to compile such a long list.

Maybe we should look for another topic.  Here's a good one.

I don't think the Venn diagram will help 98% of Internet users.

Well then, how about this one?


Perhaps the subtlety is too nebulous there.  Let's try another.


That one is pretty obvious in suggesting the difference between Irony and hipster irony.  Yet it may still be too obscure for most.


Inigo may be funnier than Mandy.  Is that ironic?

Let's go back to Parody vs Satire, though.  I know a lot of people who think Stephen Colbert and Jon Stewart and Bill Maher are/were satirists.

If the only thing your schtick does is tell its audience they are superior for being not what you are mocking, that's not satire.

Things get murkier at the alleged "home of Internet satire" known as The Onion.  La Cebolla imagines itself a font of satire, but it's actually a nerve center for parody.

Let's recap.

Throughout the history of the Internet, participating internet commenters and writers have repeatedly demonstrated the following:

* most people label as "ironic" things which are not

* most people call parody "satire"

* most people encountering satire call it hate, prejudice, ignorance, or anything but what it is

* many people who fancy themselves writers can't tell irony from parody from satire

This fellow would not be surprised:


Enrico Fermi would ask why the Expert Meme applies to a fellow who copied Fermi's ideas and claimed them as his own.


--Hyman M. Lohmann

8 comments:

Karl Franz Ochstradt said...

Hey Hy,

what about that insipidly mistaken phrase/idea called "scare quotes"?

Paul Behrer said...

I'd like to hear about that one too, Karl. It seemed to gain prominence right along the same time period as Queer Eye had its swishy sashaying sway over the mindless masses. Seems to go hand in hand with the sibilant S, the rising terminal pitch, the worship of mundane things believed to be "scandalous," etc. I wouldn't be surprised if Randy Andy was the architect.


Sir Glenn Greenwald, Internet Royalty Peer said...

I wonder what you idiots who haven't been cited and quoted in the US Congress think about my writing under the handle "Tarzie."

Is that self-parody? Good public relations?

Please assure me of your belief that I am literally an expert, and not just someone who pretends at expertise on the internet.

Charles F. Oxtrot said...

H.M., I wonder if you would take a walk through these assertions and tell us if the writer knows anything about anything contained within:

Who says there needs to be "an" insurgency? More likely there will be several armed factions, probably split along ethnic/racial lines, all fighting each other for turf, kind of like Yugoslavia.

Gang #1: the government.
Currently known as: the government.
Ranks will be drawn from: current active duty, those sufficiently propagandized.
Slogan: USA!

Gang #2: white guys disillusioned with the government.
Currently known as: militia groups, these guys, etc.
Ranks will be drawn from: the Tea Party
Slogan: Liberty!

Gang #3: blacks who have opted out of the system.
Currently known as: drug gangs, prison gangs.
Ranks will be drawn from: pissed-off locals in Baltimore, Detroit, Ferguson et al.
Slogan: something like THROW IT UP!

Gang #4: Mexicans who have opted out. Currently known as: cross-border drug cartels, prison gangs.
Ranks will be drawn from: Mexico, Mexican-American communities, white people's nannies/janitors/landscapers/carpenters/etc.
Slogan: something like ¡Es la nuestra!

Chet Redweld said...

Chuck,

looks to me like almost-parody and not-even-remotely-near-satire with perhaps a microgram of unintended irony.

Gangs 1 and 2 are "funny" (cough cough) portrayals of Evil Rethuglicans.

Gangs 3 and 4 are "funny" (hack hack spitui!) portrayals of dirty nonwhites.

The author sees only in binary while applauding him/her/itself for "insider joking" with Dmitry Orlov. By trying to do dry humor, the author just reveals how inept his understanding of American society. He parrots the "experts" of political partisan demagoguery with 1/2 being Angry but Noble Democrat and 3/4 being Hotheaded Racist Repuke Repugnican, as if there's only 2 choices/views on offer.

If pressed the author would say he was "being ironic" and or "doing satire," but neither would apply. In this manner he might parodize many like-written doofus comments, but if it's there at all the parody is sub-slapstick in gradation and pre-teen in awareness (both self- and other-).

It reminds me quite a bit of the ARCHDRUID and proto-druidic emulators of prolixity, pomoposity, pretense, and outright fraud.

Hyman Mittleman Lohmann said...

I agree with Mr Redweld. His observations are insightful, timely, cogent, well-informed, grammatically acceptable, syntactically permissible, and he gives us a lot to unpack.

I would be inclined to contrast that against the trust fund kiddies of the BlogTrust(TM).

Lewis S. Lyspe, Esq. said...

I agree with Mr Redweld. His observations are insightful, timely, cogent, well-informed, grammatically acceptable, syntactically permissible, and he gives us a lot to unpack.

Is that supposed to be funny? Redweld is an unethical liar who won a pyrrhic victory against me, my firm, my clients, and my good friend Manny Flappe. As soon as Glenn Greenwald takes up the appeal, Redweld's lack of insight, absence of intelligence and dearth of comic timing or sense will be revealed for everyone.

Count on it.

Chet Redweld said...

Speaking of someone who plays at expert on the internet but cannot back it up in person -- there's our friend Mr Lyspe, again trying to rewrite history and redefine on the internet what he couldn't understand or conquer in person.

Lyspe, your defeat was earned by the path you chose when you filed the lawsuit, and by the ineptness with which you handled it. I didn't have to do much and in fact I probably could have let my dog handle the matter in my place with the same result.

As to Greenwald taking up the torch and trying to run with it? I don't think he has the ability to do any such thing, though his ego probably declares in self-counseling moments that victory is his if only he would step forward and pursue it.

By never stepping forward, he can just listen to his ego preening in the back of his mind, and never be troubled by the failure that inevitably would follow his attempt to do what his ego assures him is probable.

When was the last time Greenwald told anyone something that hadn't been revealed by dozens of others quite a few years prior to Greenwald's supposedly owned "revelations"?