Difference between revisions of "Talk:Internet parodist"
(→Capitalization) |
(Clarifying) |
||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
::::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. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 11:03, 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. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 11:03, 24 October 2008 (EDT) | ||
:::::Easy for some to spot. Not for others. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 11:38, 24 October 2008 (EDT) | :::::Easy for some to spot. Not for others. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 11:38, 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. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|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. [[User:MichaelFAnderson|MichaelFAnderson]] 10:08, 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. [[User:MichaelFAnderson|MichaelFAnderson]] 10:08, 24 October 2008 (EDT) | ||
Revision as of 22:41, October 24, 2008
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)
- Easy for some to spot. Not for others. Ungtss 11:38, 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)
