Talk:Internet parodist
One simply does not find conservative parodists on liberal forums, and one wonders if perhaps that fact may reflect on the psychological underpinnings of the liberal point of view.
Is this not perhaps because so much of Liberal ideology is beyond parody? In the words of the Conservative British commentator Richard Littlejohn, "You couldn't make it up". Bugler 04:50, 24 October 2008 (EDT)
- I would assume that it's because conservatives have standards than discourage them from deceiving. Philip J. Rayment 05:04, 24 October 2008 (EDT)
- I disagree with Philip. There have been great CPOV parodies and satires, but they are designed to enlighten, and maybe to jerk Liberals into an appreciation of reality. Liberal parodies, especially the rubbish we have to put up with here, are designed simply to damage, with no kind of intellectual underpinning or finesse. Bugler 10:48, 24 October 2008 (EDT)
- There's a difference between an honest parody/satire and an "internet parodist." An internet parodist is someone who goes around pretending to be something they're not, for bizarre reasons. Honest parody, on the other hand, is an art form -- humorous and enlightening. But the people who sit around on CP all day pretending to be something they're not so they can snicker at people are just pathetic. I've never met a conservative who did that. Ungtss 10:59, 24 October 2008 (EDT)
- You're right, Ungtss - ultimately, the joke is on them, not least because they are mentally ill-equipped even to understand the ideas which they are attempting to mock. That's why they are so easy to spot and deal with. Bugler 11:03, 24 October 2008 (EDT)
- There's a difference between an honest parody/satire and an "internet parodist." An internet parodist is someone who goes around pretending to be something they're not, for bizarre reasons. Honest parody, on the other hand, is an art form -- humorous and enlightening. But the people who sit around on CP all day pretending to be something they're not so they can snicker at people are just pathetic. I've never met a conservative who did that. Ungtss 10:59, 24 October 2008 (EDT)
- I disagree with Philip. There have been great CPOV parodies and satires, but they are designed to enlighten, and maybe to jerk Liberals into an appreciation of reality. Liberal parodies, especially the rubbish we have to put up with here, are designed simply to damage, with no kind of intellectual underpinning or finesse. Bugler 10:48, 24 October 2008 (EDT)
- I agree with Ungtss's 10:59 reply; I guess I didn't make it clear enough, but I was talking about deceitful parody, not parody/satire that is clearly that, and which most people would not mistake. Philip J. Rayment 18:41, 24 October 2008 (EDT)
I am a rotten liberal, atheist but I still feel that I basically agree with the gist of this article. I feel that it is perfectly legitimate to edit or debate or even to use humor or sarcasm on Conservapedia but I think to disguise yourself as a parodists or to be a vandal is pretty unproductive. MichaelFAnderson 10:08, 24 October 2008 (EDT)
- Appreciate your perspective. Ungtss 10:59, 24 October 2008 (EDT)
Capitalization
How come the article changes from the convention of not capitalizing the names of political viewpoitns (Here being conservative and liberal) to capitalizing them in the last section of the article? Is this stylistic, or should it be fixed? HDCase 11:51, 24 October 2008 (EDT)
- Different editor. Should probably be fixed. Ungtss 11:53, 24 October 2008 (EDT)
Second half of article
The long paragraph that starts with "one wonders" is basically just speculation (as evidenced by the use of the phrase "one wonders"), and the refs are... strange to say the least. One ref is a viral promotion of a politicized documentary, one is a comment in a forum, and another is a blog.
I'm not sure what the purpose of the last section is. Possible explanations of what? I would think it would be "possible explanations that people parody on the internet", but then the "liberal perspective" list doesn't make any sense. And again, this section is just speculation, as evidenced by the use of the phrase "possible explanations". I think both of these paragraphs should be either removed (my preference) or substantially rewritten. HelpJazz 21:44, 24 October 2008 (EDT)
- Seconding HelpJazz's point. The references for the second half of the article are lacking in authoritative strength. They are comments copied out of comments sections of forums, asserting something was a parody and how foolish for those conservatives/liberals to not see it as such. While these are examples of the behavior, they don't indicate whether this is widespread, nor do they have the authority of a well-documented attack of internet parody - i.e. they could be a fluke. Unless some more substantive references are included (i.e. beyond forums or blogs), I'd propose moving this to the essay space, such as Essay:Purposes for Internet Parody. -Foxtrot 23:41, 24 October 2008 (EDT)
- Poe's law only states that somebody will mistake the parody for the real thing. The cites are to instances where that took place. The first is a parody, and the other two are liberals mistaking a parody for the real thing. That was my only purpose in adding that section. Ungtss 07:59, 25 October 2008 (EDT)