I know the tag says "satire" but, that's not satirical.
South Park is satirical. If you want something with more heft then I offer Jonathon Swift. Although, honestly, his writings were quite similar to to South Park in tone despite having been neutered a bit by those that romanticize that period in literature.
The tag you really need to use is "puerile engagement" or "schoolyard bullying." Although, I doubt the latter would be accurate and bullies would be offended at the association with such a weak attempt at humor designed to scorn.
I know the tag says "satire" but, that's not satirical.
As a starting point, you could use Dictionary.com's definition: "the use of irony, sarcasm, ridicule, or the like, in exposing, denouncing, or deriding vice, folly, etc."
If you want something with more heft then I offer Jonathon Swift. Although, honestly, his writings were quite similar to to South Park in tone despite having been neutered a bit by those that romanticize that period in literature.
1. I'm not quite sure Jonathan Swift would appreciate the comparison with Trey Parker and Matt Stone!
2. In any case I don't share your judgment. I don't find the comparison between Swift and South Park apt.
For one thing, Swift was more conservative in his political and social views than the South Park creators are. He may or may not have been conservative in comparison to his contemporaries but (since you set up the comparison) in comparison to Parker and Stone he is. I would say Parker and Stone are more libertarian and socially liberal. Not unlike many Redditors, which probably also helps explain why so many Redditors like South Park.
Also, Swift frequently had a reasonable purpose and point in his satire (e.g. A Modest Proposal, Gulliver's Travels), whereas Parker and Stone are equal opportunity offenders just because they are. They take the opportunity to ridicule anyone and everyone without feeling the need for explanation or justification.
Swift was more learned in the satirical tradition (e.g. Horace, Juvenal) and made better use of this tradition than Parker or Stone. Swift had deeper roots while Parker and Stone are more akin to iconoclasts. Iconoclasm can be good in certain contexts. But since you framed the comparison between Swift and South Park in terms of historical satire, then this is worth pointing out.
Swift could be far more subtle and clever in his writings than Parker and Stone's work in South Park. Parker and Stone are far more crude. Often unashamedly and gratuitously so.
I don't have the time or space to compare their moralities and immoralities. I'll just say Parker and Stone may revel in ridiculing certain immoralities but I think they frequently revel in other or sometimes even similar immoralities themselves in a way which Swift does not. I say this even though I don't necessarily share Swift's moral values.
But as far as animated TV "satires" go, if I had to pick, I'd prefer Futurama to South Park anyway. Although Futurama isn't without its share of problems.
4. I'm also not sure who you think romanticizes the period of Augustan literature. Who do you have in mind?
Besides, if they exist, I'd doubt the sort of people who would likely "romanticize" the Augustan period would seek to "neuter" Swift if by "neuter" you're largely referring to his satire. Given that the period was marked by satire (among other things) and given that people who "romanticize" a period would presumably appreciate or over appreciate the aspects which mark a period, then I would think Swift's satire would likely be played up rather than down.
But again it depends who and what you have in mind. Your objection is too vague at this point.
5. Not to mention it's easy enough for people these days to simply read Swift for themselves. They don't need to read Swift through the eyes of another, even the eyes of someone who has "neutered" him if such people exist and if such people have had the sort of influence in "neutering" him that you imply they've had.
6. There are other aspects we could compare and contrast and other things we could say about this. But anyway I think your bringing up the likes of Swift and South Park is actually a red herring to the real issue.
I think you just don't like that I satirized Rauser because you consider him your friend and because you admire him. Had it been someone you didn't know or admire, then I doubt you'd mind as much.
If that's what's happening, there's no shame in this, per se. Generally speaking friends should stick together.
However if your friend is doing something wrong or is acting in a way he shouldn't, if this has become standard behavior for him, then if you were a real friend you'd try to find a way to point it out to him.
Rauser often makes authoritative pronouncements on topics which he has little or even no understanding about. Among other things, it's a form of arrogance. Masked under a sort of genteel Christian posturing.
In other words, Rauser is arrogant and ignorant often about very important matters while trying to maintain a hip and cool frood façade as a "Christian."
This is a lethal combination. Not just for himself. But also for those who subscribe to what he says.
South Park is satirical...The tag you really need to use is "puerile engagement" or "schoolyard bullying."
You must have a rather skewed perspective when you can indirectly suggest the label "peurile engagement" wouldn't apply to South Park.
Haven't you said you no longer attend church? That you left the church in the past? If so, then this might partially explain your skewed perspective.
Although, I doubt the latter would be accurate and bullies would be offended at the association with such a weak attempt at humor designed to scorn.
What you've said yourself could be associated with things you deride in this post like ridicule, bullying, and "a weak attempt at humor designed to scorn."
" Thus finishing his grand Survey, Disgusted Strephon stole away Repeating in his amorous Fits, Oh! Celia, Celia, Celia shits! [...] I pity wretched Strephon blind To all the Charms of Female Kind; Should I the Queen of Love refuse, Because she rose from stinking Ooze? [...] He soon would learn to think like me, And bless his ravisht Sight to see Such Order from Confusion sprung, Such gaudy Tulips rais'd from Dung."
First, you assume to much, about me, about any relation to Randal and about Swift. Please note the above *ahem* scatalogy from Mr. Swift. Perhaps if you can't see the satire in South Park, might I suggest that you are too disturbed by the images of babies being eaten to see the that the point lies deeper than what appears on the surface. I recommend viewing "South Park:Bigger, Longer and Uncut" as a case study.
You should note that the point is not to hate Canada. Although, seeing your distaste for Randal, it appears that you might have missed that.
I also can't help but laugh at not-so-subtle arrogance you displayed through with your six-point list to deride me which was followed by an ironic statement about me being guilty of that which I accused you of doing. Seems that knife cuts both ways.
I would also like to point out that what you wrote about Swift has no more useful content than what any US 10th grader could find in a rudimentary Wikipedia/Google search (which would explain why you were seemingly unaware of "The Lady's Dressing Room," quoted above, as an example of contextual "potty humor" not unlike that employed by South Park). Seeing as how this is one of the key marks you offered against I would hope that you would live up to what I assume are the higher scholastic standards you expect in others.
As for my "neutered" comment, I think you demonstrate my point quite well, to wit; "Swift could be far more subtle and clever in his writings than Parker and Stone's work in South Park. Parker and Stone are far more crude. Often unashamedly and gratuitously so." You happen to find Swift subtle and clever and find Matt and Trey crude. Surely, proclaiming that "Celia, Celia, Celia SHITS!" would be crude in any generation. I also have to wonder how you find the blatant sexuality that runs throughout Gulliver's Travels to be subtle?? Have you only read the highschool anthologies? Because it's fairly blatant. But, as I said, in the 21st century we revere Swift for his significant role in English Lit, while South Park is often dismissed as "potty humor" and/or being "just a cartoon." To do so takes the bite away from Swift and grossly underestimates South Park.
"Haven't you said you no longer attend church? That you left the church in the past? If so, then this might partially explain your skewed perspective."
To the first charge, I have said no such thing. To the second, the statement is true as it stands but lacks a significant amount of context. However, if constructing that false binary -"those outside the church are wrong, those, like [Patrick Chan] inside the church are right!"- makes you feel good, then so be it. I don't care to get to know you or for you to get to know me. I'm simply enjoying stirring the proverbial pot because I thought your cheering section was rather boring.
Oh, Coram Deo, and signing off "in Christ" after fantasizing about portraying someone poorly is simply laughable. I'm not sure I could see Christ salivating at the opportunity to mock his detractors for his own amusement. That seems more like Screwtape territory.
1. You take the use of bad language and "potty humor" as proof positive that Swift's tone is on par with South Park's. You're arguing since Swift's writings contain bad language and potty humor and since South Park contains bad language and potty humor, then they must somehow be on par with one another. As if there was nothing else to compare between the two. But there is. Bad language and potty humor aren't the only components when it comes to satirical tone. Let alone when comparing the composite satire of the one to the other. At best, you have a simplistic understanding of literary tone and satirical form.
2. I would think it'd be obvious but citing an example from Swift (or South Park) isn't the same as a fuller survey of their work, which is necessary given what you're trying to argue.
3. You said: "You happen to find Swift subtle and clever and find Matt and Trey crude."
a. With all due respect, it sounds like you need to brush up on some basic reading comprehension. I never said Swift wasn't rude and crude. Rather the point of contention is how Swift contrasts with South Park. That's how you framed it, remember? My response was, as rude and as crude as Swift may have been, I find South Park even more so. And again that's only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to comparing and contrasting satirical form and elements between Swift and South Park.
b. BTW, perhaps your poor reading comprehension is due to a paucity in reading in general? That would be a good explanation. Or at least due to a paucity in reading satire? If so, then this might further explain why your responses don't appear to grasp such subtleties and complexities.
4. While you've already made a couple of ironic statements, it's further ironic you've said, on the one hand, "You happen to find Swift subtle and clever and find Matt and Trey crude" even though that's not what I said, while on the other hand you see me as "constructing [a] false binary." It's ironic how you think in terms of black and white and can't see the shades of gray. However such nuance would better help you understand satire as a literary genre.
5. You said: "what you wrote about Swift has no more useful content than what any US 10th grader could find in a rudimentary Wikipedia/Google search."
a. First of all, this is a vague objection. What does it even mean to say this? Aren't some or many 10th graders capable of incorporating "useful content"? What's wrong with using Wikipedia or Google to search or research? Isn't Google a solid search engine? Don't major universities partner with Google to power some of their searches as well as research? Even if (arguendo) it's true 10th graders lack what you require in them, why do you assume 10th graders use Wikipedia or Google as their primary means of research rather than as, say, starting points? And so on and so forth.
b. Much more importantly, you don't give 10th graders enough credit here. But I happen to think many 10th graders are quite intelligent in their approach to research, data collection, and the like. It's sad you're so dismissive of 10th graders as a whole.
c. You later talk about my apparent arrogance. But aren't you behaving rather arrogantly toward 10th graders here?
d. Also, you impugn 10th graders' aptitude for research in bulk here, as if they were a homogenous, monolithic unit. This is yet another example of your inability to detect and appreciate nuance. But, again, appreciation for satire is based in part on being able to see such fine distinctions. And again, I ask, since you can't see such intricacies here, how can you even stand in a position to adjudicate between the satirical tones let alone other satirical elements in South Park and Swift and further compare and contrast the one to the other?
e. And if it's true "what you wrote about Swift has no more useful content than what any US 10th grader could find in a rudimentary Wikipedia/Google search," then it would reflect poorly on you if you can't even interact with content that "any US 10th grader could find in a rudimentary Wikipedia/Google search."
6. Anyway, like I've already said above, I happen to think all this is a red herring to the real issue. Or at least superfluous to the real issue.
The real issue is your devoted admiration for Rauser. This comes out again in your latest comment which makes it sound like you're quite emotionally invested in Rauser. You seem to take my satire against Rauser as if he were your BFF and I were satirizing your BFF. An attack on Rauser is an attack on your BFF. You go all emotional. You take it personally even though it's not about you but about Rauser. You rush to his defense.
Like I said above, it's fine and good for friends to stick together. But if your friend does something wrong, then you should point it out to him. But you display a blind, uncritical loyalty or devotion to Rauser.
Instead I recommend you come back to this post someday when you're not so prepossessed with Rauser and re-read your own comments and see how they sound.
Besides, Sean, you could do far better than Rauser! :-)
7. I never said "those outside the church are wrong, those, like [Patrick Chan] inside the church are right." I said: "If so [if you have left the church], then this might partially explain your skewed perspective." In other words, if it's true you're no longer part of a church, then it could affect your spirituality which could affect how you view things including the apparent inability to see the "puerile" (as you put it) in South Park.
8. One last thing. You've taken issue with my satire of Rauser. You say as far as satire goes my satire of Rauser is bad satire. You say Swift was better satire. You say South Park was better satire.
I could very well agree with you in comparison to Swift and even South Park my satire is bad satire. Let's say I do agree.
But is my goal to compare the quality of my satire with other people's satire? Nope.
Rather my only point is to get across the point that Rauser suffers from instant expert syndrome. Rauser makes authoritative pronouncements on a host of topics in which he has little or no expertise in.
Whether I get this point across well or poorly is at best a secondary concern to me. The main concern is that the point goes through.
In truth, I honestly don't mind if you or anyone else happens to think my satire is bad. That's cool. Maybe this will drive me to try and do better satire in the future. (Well, if I had the time for it. I'm a pretty busy student.) Or maybe it'll drive me to spend my time better in other pursuits. In the end, it's really a win-win situation.
Rauser's the Carnac the Magnificent of the blogosphere.
ReplyDeleteIt looks like Rauser the Ridiculous is in town.
ReplyDeleteI know the tag says "satire" but, that's not satirical.
ReplyDeleteSouth Park is satirical. If you want something with more heft then I offer Jonathon Swift. Although, honestly, his writings were quite similar to to South Park in tone despite having been neutered a bit by those that romanticize that period in literature.
The tag you really need to use is "puerile engagement" or "schoolyard bullying." Although, I doubt the latter would be accurate and bullies would be offended at the association with such a weak attempt at humor designed to scorn.
I can't get past the "I just ate your baby" grin on Rauser's face.
ReplyDeleteI really wish I could see what he's looking at.
- is it a capitalist wallowing in his own blood and gore?
- is it a book burning of John MacArthur's commentary series?
- is it someone choking on his rare filet mignon?
The photoshop possibilities are nearly limitless.
In Christ,
CD
Sean R. Reid said:
ReplyDeleteI know the tag says "satire" but, that's not satirical.
As a starting point, you could use Dictionary.com's definition: "the use of irony, sarcasm, ridicule, or the like, in exposing, denouncing, or deriding vice, folly, etc."
If you want something with more heft then I offer Jonathon Swift. Although, honestly, his writings were quite similar to to South Park in tone despite having been neutered a bit by those that romanticize that period in literature.
1. I'm not quite sure Jonathan Swift would appreciate the comparison with Trey Parker and Matt Stone!
2. In any case I don't share your judgment. I don't find the comparison between Swift and South Park apt.
For one thing, Swift was more conservative in his political and social views than the South Park creators are. He may or may not have been conservative in comparison to his contemporaries but (since you set up the comparison) in comparison to Parker and Stone he is. I would say Parker and Stone are more libertarian and socially liberal. Not unlike many Redditors, which probably also helps explain why so many Redditors like South Park.
Also, Swift frequently had a reasonable purpose and point in his satire (e.g. A Modest Proposal, Gulliver's Travels), whereas Parker and Stone are equal opportunity offenders just because they are. They take the opportunity to ridicule anyone and everyone without feeling the need for explanation or justification.
Swift was more learned in the satirical tradition (e.g. Horace, Juvenal) and made better use of this tradition than Parker or Stone. Swift had deeper roots while Parker and Stone are more akin to iconoclasts. Iconoclasm can be good in certain contexts. But since you framed the comparison between Swift and South Park in terms of historical satire, then this is worth pointing out.
Swift could be far more subtle and clever in his writings than Parker and Stone's work in South Park. Parker and Stone are far more crude. Often unashamedly and gratuitously so.
I don't have the time or space to compare their moralities and immoralities. I'll just say Parker and Stone may revel in ridiculing certain immoralities but I think they frequently revel in other or sometimes even similar immoralities themselves in a way which Swift does not. I say this even though I don't necessarily share Swift's moral values.
But as far as animated TV "satires" go, if I had to pick, I'd prefer Futurama to South Park anyway. Although Futurama isn't without its share of problems.
4. I'm also not sure who you think romanticizes the period of Augustan literature. Who do you have in mind?
Besides, if they exist, I'd doubt the sort of people who would likely "romanticize" the Augustan period would seek to "neuter" Swift if by "neuter" you're largely referring to his satire. Given that the period was marked by satire (among other things) and given that people who "romanticize" a period would presumably appreciate or over appreciate the aspects which mark a period, then I would think Swift's satire would likely be played up rather than down.
But again it depends who and what you have in mind. Your objection is too vague at this point.
5. Not to mention it's easy enough for people these days to simply read Swift for themselves. They don't need to read Swift through the eyes of another, even the eyes of someone who has "neutered" him if such people exist and if such people have had the sort of influence in "neutering" him that you imply they've had.
6. There are other aspects we could compare and contrast and other things we could say about this. But anyway I think your bringing up the likes of Swift and South Park is actually a red herring to the real issue.
ReplyDeleteI think you just don't like that I satirized Rauser because you consider him your friend and because you admire him. Had it been someone you didn't know or admire, then I doubt you'd mind as much.
If that's what's happening, there's no shame in this, per se. Generally speaking friends should stick together.
However if your friend is doing something wrong or is acting in a way he shouldn't, if this has become standard behavior for him, then if you were a real friend you'd try to find a way to point it out to him.
Rauser often makes authoritative pronouncements on topics which he has little or even no understanding about. Among other things, it's a form of arrogance. Masked under a sort of genteel Christian posturing.
In other words, Rauser is arrogant and ignorant often about very important matters while trying to maintain a hip and cool frood façade as a "Christian."
This is a lethal combination. Not just for himself. But also for those who subscribe to what he says.
South Park is satirical...The tag you really need to use is "puerile engagement" or "schoolyard bullying."
You must have a rather skewed perspective when you can indirectly suggest the label "peurile engagement" wouldn't apply to South Park.
Haven't you said you no longer attend church? That you left the church in the past? If so, then this might partially explain your skewed perspective.
Although, I doubt the latter would be accurate and bullies would be offended at the association with such a weak attempt at humor designed to scorn.
What you've said yourself could be associated with things you deride in this post like ridicule, bullying, and "a weak attempt at humor designed to scorn."
" Thus finishing his grand Survey,
ReplyDeleteDisgusted Strephon stole away
Repeating in his amorous Fits,
Oh! Celia, Celia, Celia shits!
[...]
I pity wretched Strephon blind
To all the Charms of Female Kind;
Should I the Queen of Love refuse,
Because she rose from stinking Ooze?
[...]
He soon would learn to think like me,
And bless his ravisht Sight to see
Such Order from Confusion sprung,
Such gaudy Tulips rais'd from Dung."
First, you assume to much, about me, about any relation to Randal and about Swift. Please note the above *ahem* scatalogy from Mr. Swift. Perhaps if you can't see the satire in South Park, might I suggest that you are too disturbed by the images of babies being eaten to see the that the point lies deeper than what appears on the surface. I recommend viewing "South Park:Bigger, Longer and Uncut" as a case study.
You should note that the point is not to hate Canada. Although, seeing your distaste for Randal, it appears that you might have missed that.
I also can't help but laugh at not-so-subtle arrogance you displayed through with your six-point list to deride me which was followed by an ironic statement about me being guilty of that which I accused you of doing. Seems that knife cuts both ways.
I would also like to point out that what you wrote about Swift has no more useful content than what any US 10th grader could find in a rudimentary Wikipedia/Google search (which would explain why you were seemingly unaware of "The Lady's Dressing Room," quoted above, as an example of contextual "potty humor" not unlike that employed by South Park). Seeing as how this is one of the key marks you offered against I would hope that you would live up to what I assume are the higher scholastic standards you expect in others.
As for my "neutered" comment, I think you demonstrate my point quite well, to wit;
"Swift could be far more subtle and clever in his writings than Parker and Stone's work in South Park. Parker and Stone are far more crude. Often unashamedly and gratuitously so."
You happen to find Swift subtle and clever and find Matt and Trey crude. Surely, proclaiming that "Celia, Celia, Celia SHITS!" would be crude in any generation. I also have to wonder how you find the blatant sexuality that runs throughout Gulliver's Travels to be subtle?? Have you only read the highschool anthologies? Because it's fairly blatant. But, as I said, in the 21st century we revere Swift for his significant role in English Lit, while South Park is often dismissed as "potty humor" and/or being "just a cartoon." To do so takes the bite away from Swift and grossly underestimates South Park.
"Haven't you said you no longer attend church? That you left the church in the past? If so, then this might partially explain your skewed perspective."
To the first charge, I have said no such thing. To the second, the statement is true as it stands but lacks a significant amount of context. However, if constructing that false binary -"those outside the church are wrong, those, like [Patrick Chan] inside the church are right!"- makes you feel good, then so be it. I don't care to get to know you or for you to get to know me. I'm simply enjoying stirring the proverbial pot because I thought your cheering section was rather boring.
Oh, Coram Deo, and signing off "in Christ" after fantasizing about portraying someone poorly is simply laughable. I'm not sure I could see Christ salivating at the opportunity to mock his detractors for his own amusement. That seems more like Screwtape territory.
Sean:
ReplyDelete1. You take the use of bad language and "potty humor" as proof positive that Swift's tone is on par with South Park's. You're arguing since Swift's writings contain bad language and potty humor and since South Park contains bad language and potty humor, then they must somehow be on par with one another. As if there was nothing else to compare between the two. But there is. Bad language and potty humor aren't the only components when it comes to satirical tone. Let alone when comparing the composite satire of the one to the other. At best, you have a simplistic understanding of literary tone and satirical form.
2. I would think it'd be obvious but citing an example from Swift (or South Park) isn't the same as a fuller survey of their work, which is necessary given what you're trying to argue.
3. You said: "You happen to find Swift subtle and clever and find Matt and Trey crude."
a. With all due respect, it sounds like you need to brush up on some basic reading comprehension. I never said Swift wasn't rude and crude. Rather the point of contention is how Swift contrasts with South Park. That's how you framed it, remember? My response was, as rude and as crude as Swift may have been, I find South Park even more so. And again that's only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to comparing and contrasting satirical form and elements between Swift and South Park.
b. BTW, perhaps your poor reading comprehension is due to a paucity in reading in general? That would be a good explanation. Or at least due to a paucity in reading satire? If so, then this might further explain why your responses don't appear to grasp such subtleties and complexities.
4. While you've already made a couple of ironic statements, it's further ironic you've said, on the one hand, "You happen to find Swift subtle and clever and find Matt and Trey crude" even though that's not what I said, while on the other hand you see me as "constructing [a] false binary." It's ironic how you think in terms of black and white and can't see the shades of gray. However such nuance would better help you understand satire as a literary genre.
5. You said: "what you wrote about Swift has no more useful content than what any US 10th grader could find in a rudimentary Wikipedia/Google search."
ReplyDeletea. First of all, this is a vague objection. What does it even mean to say this? Aren't some or many 10th graders capable of incorporating "useful content"? What's wrong with using Wikipedia or Google to search or research? Isn't Google a solid search engine? Don't major universities partner with Google to power some of their searches as well as research? Even if (arguendo) it's true 10th graders lack what you require in them, why do you assume 10th graders use Wikipedia or Google as their primary means of research rather than as, say, starting points? And so on and so forth.
b. Much more importantly, you don't give 10th graders enough credit here. But I happen to think many 10th graders are quite intelligent in their approach to research, data collection, and the like. It's sad you're so dismissive of 10th graders as a whole.
c. You later talk about my apparent arrogance. But aren't you behaving rather arrogantly toward 10th graders here?
d. Also, you impugn 10th graders' aptitude for research in bulk here, as if they were a homogenous, monolithic unit. This is yet another example of your inability to detect and appreciate nuance. But, again, appreciation for satire is based in part on being able to see such fine distinctions. And again, I ask, since you can't see such intricacies here, how can you even stand in a position to adjudicate between the satirical tones let alone other satirical elements in South Park and Swift and further compare and contrast the one to the other?
e. And if it's true "what you wrote about Swift has no more useful content than what any US 10th grader could find in a rudimentary Wikipedia/Google search," then it would reflect poorly on you if you can't even interact with content that "any US 10th grader could find in a rudimentary Wikipedia/Google search."
6. Anyway, like I've already said above, I happen to think all this is a red herring to the real issue. Or at least superfluous to the real issue.
ReplyDeleteThe real issue is your devoted admiration for Rauser. This comes out again in your latest comment which makes it sound like you're quite emotionally invested in Rauser. You seem to take my satire against Rauser as if he were your BFF and I were satirizing your BFF. An attack on Rauser is an attack on your BFF. You go all emotional. You take it personally even though it's not about you but about Rauser. You rush to his defense.
Like I said above, it's fine and good for friends to stick together. But if your friend does something wrong, then you should point it out to him. But you display a blind, uncritical loyalty or devotion to Rauser.
Instead I recommend you come back to this post someday when you're not so prepossessed with Rauser and re-read your own comments and see how they sound.
Besides, Sean, you could do far better than Rauser! :-)
7. I never said "those outside the church are wrong, those, like [Patrick Chan] inside the church are right." I said: "If so [if you have left the church], then this might partially explain your skewed perspective." In other words, if it's true you're no longer part of a church, then it could affect your spirituality which could affect how you view things including the apparent inability to see the "puerile" (as you put it) in South Park.
8. One last thing. You've taken issue with my satire of Rauser. You say as far as satire goes my satire of Rauser is bad satire. You say Swift was better satire. You say South Park was better satire.
I could very well agree with you in comparison to Swift and even South Park my satire is bad satire. Let's say I do agree.
But is my goal to compare the quality of my satire with other people's satire? Nope.
Rather my only point is to get across the point that Rauser suffers from instant expert syndrome. Rauser makes authoritative pronouncements on a host of topics in which he has little or no expertise in.
Whether I get this point across well or poorly is at best a secondary concern to me. The main concern is that the point goes through.
In truth, I honestly don't mind if you or anyone else happens to think my satire is bad. That's cool. Maybe this will drive me to try and do better satire in the future. (Well, if I had the time for it. I'm a pretty busy student.) Or maybe it'll drive me to spend my time better in other pursuits. In the end, it's really a win-win situation.