Imagine if, in 1729, there had been a number of letters to the editor by various authors proposing that Irish children be exterminated and eaten. Imagine that laws of that nature were being seriously debated in Parliament, and that one of the parties had made it a part of their platform. While the laws were being regularly defeated, opponents still had to stand up and seriously debate why it was unethical to eat babies. Imagine that a candidate for prime minister actually solemnly suggested that we ought to at least consider the merits of eating Irish children.
In that context, Swift's essay would have fallen flat as a cowflop dropped from the Tower of London. His efforts to use straight-faced absurdity and hyperbole and satire to expose the lesser injustices of the time would not have succeeded at all. The invisible quotation marks would be undetectable, because there would have been a substantial background of equivalent proposals given in absolute seriousness.
There are a number of spoof sites on religion (and it's a measure of what's at the bottom of the barrel on the religious side that it can be hard to tell the spoofs from the real deal). There is, for example, The Society of Christians for the Restoration of Old Testament Morality (sorry if I blew your cover) or Landover Baptist Church (much easier to identify as a spoof, although I have no doubt there are people who miss it). Read their mail page. Read the religious believers praising them for their stance. Then read the nonbelievers flaming them. Then come back here and tell me with a straight face that nonbelievers are inherently more rational, better informed, and better at critical reasoning than believers.
—Steven Dutch, The Dumbest Statements About Religion
Disclaimer: THIS IS A PARODY. Apparently, Answers in Genesis feels that some people might mistake this for their original work and not a parody. While it can be pretty hard to tell whether their original cartoons are meant to parody Biblical Creationists or are actually serious, it should be noted that the above cartoon is a PARODY of an original cartoon◊ from the AIG website. The original art is copyrighted by AIG, but it has been modified with the intent to poke fun at how ridiculous the original cartoons and creationism are.
Some conservatives consider noted homophobe Fred Phelps to be so over-the-top that they think he's a "deep cover liberal" trying to discredit more mainstream homophobes.
I actually defended Frank Millerís All Star Batman and Robin when it came out, because I thought it was hilarious. I thought the whole thing was a send-up. I thought Sin City, too, was meant to take the broad archetypes of Noir and push them out to their logical extremes, and I thought by making something that highlighted and extreme and ridiculous you could get at the emotional truths that had spawned these sorts of revenge fantasies to begin with. I said I liked these comics. This is embarrassing now. Marv and Dwight punching shit in Sin City is actually how Frank Miller views the world.
Most of the themes in my comic strip "Dilbert" involve workplace situations. I routinely include bizarre and unworldly elements such as talking animals, troll-like accountants, and employees turning into dishrags after the life-force has been drained from their bodies. And yet the comment I hear most often is: "That's just like my company."
—Scott Adams, The Dilbert Principle
"HAHAHAHAHA - Oh wait, you were serious, let me laugh even harder."
—Bender Bending Rodriguez, Futurama
"The problem with irony and satire is the dumb motherfuckers don't get it."
— Ray Wylie Hubbard
If the video was intended to be a parody of teen pop convention, it would be on par with some of the best SNL Digital Shorts by Lonely Island.
And what I'm doing now, as everyone in this room understands- just in case there's anyone from the Mail On Sunday watching this- is I was using an exaggerated form of the rhetoric and implied values of Top Gear to satirize the rhetoric and the implied values of Top Gear. And it is a shame to break character to explain that, but hopefully it will save you a long, tedious exchange of emails.
Some filmmakers are embracing this idea of movies being designed to be consumed ironically, while other filmmakers are just making shitty movies. And the frustrating thing is that there is no observable difference between the two.
This is a joke both so old and so obvious that it's a puzzlement anyone would take it seriously enough to ask us "Is this true?", but appparently there's never so obvious a joke but that someone doesn't get it.
"Sheesh! This chart has so many half-truths that it's hard to believe it wasn't made by someone that was trying to make Christians look BAD!"
It is an interesting world we live in, where you can tell a group of people that you made a crop circle with a rope, even show them how you did it, and they still insist that an unknown paranormal intelligence did it. You can tell them that two plus two equals four and they'll insist that it's five.
— Brian Dunning of Skeptoid
When, many years ago, I was given this book, I thought it was a satire. I learned later that it was the first work of a distinguished sociologist. Otherwise, when we look closely enough into a society, we know is not Utopia and its fair description runs the risk of border on satire.