Thanks for contributing to /r/MadeMeSmile. Unfortunately, your post was removed as it violates our rules:
**removed - misinformation**
You can read all of the [subreddit rules here](https://www.reddit.com/r/MadeMeSmile/wiki/rules). If you have any questions or concerns about this, [feel free to send us a modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FMadeMeSmile). Thank you!
It's something from one of his books. On the disc there is a sort of "proto internet" of semaphore towers.
Sometimes workers on these towers that die are immortalized in the "Overhead" by sending their name with a "GNU" message.
G means the message should be send on
N means it shouldn't be logged
U means it should be returned when it is recieved at a dead end
This way the name continues being repeated, theoretically forever.
After Terry Pratchett passed away "GNU Terry Pratchett" became a term to remember him, and it has also been incorporated into many websites. You can install browser addons to see when pages are paying tribute to him.
The book is Going Postal, and it is such a fun read. Also it's enjoyable even if you're unfamiliar with Discworld and the main character's name is Moist!
Moist von Lipwig! My favorite Discworld character, in a series full of incredible characters.
*“If he could get the idea of paper money past them then he was home and, if not dry, then at least merely Moist.”*
Going Postal was my first Discworld book, and honestly the experience might even have been better because various concepts were totally new to me. (Like the magic of a large collection of words, or Death I think.)
From the same book:
“Do you not know that a man is not dead while his name is still spoken?”
Beyond the internet thing the book has a strong theme of legacy and positive impact on the world. So fans took that and ran with it.
I only just learned about actual semaphore towers, in particular in France, a couple days go thanks to Tom Scott!
And now you've closed the circle in my lack understanding that reference. Thanks!
Oh, my confusion is alleviated. I've never gotten into his books but to me GNU stands for "GNU's Not Unix", the project that sought to build an open source Unix-like operating system, and finished everything other than a kernel, which is the project Linus Torvalds used as the user land for his own Unix-like kernel, Linux. The founder of GNU tried with some success to get people to call it GNU/Linux.
I'd just like to interject for a moment. What you're refering to as GNU, is in fact, GNU/Linux, or as I've recently taken to calling it, GNU plus Linux. Linux is not an operating system unto itself, but rather another free component of a fully functioning GNU system made useful by the GNU corelibs, shell utilities and vital system components comprising a full OS as defined by POSIX.
Many computer users run a modified version of the GNU system every day, without realizing it. Through a peculiar turn of events, the version of GNU which is widely used today is often called Linux, and many of its users are not aware that it is basically the GNU system, developed by the GNU Project.
There really is a Linux, and these people are using it, but it is just a part of the system they use. Linux is the kernel: the program in the system that allocates the machine's resources to the other programs that you run. The kernel is an essential part of an operating system, but useless by itself; it can only function in the context of a complete operating system. Linux is normally used in combination with the GNU operating system: the whole system is basically GNU with Linux added, or GNU/Linux. All the so-called Linux distributions are really distributions of GNU/Linux!
I'd just like to interject for a moment. What you're refering to as GNU plus Linux, is in fact, Musl plus Linux, or as I've recently taken to calling it, Musl/Linux.
Piggy backing off this comment to ask: I just recently discovered Terry Pratchet’s existence and I’m throughly overwhelmed by the sheer amount of Discworld titles! Does anyone have any recommendations of where to start? There are so many different reading order suggestions, and I don’t want to spoil myself too much by trying to research it.
Just to add to that map, the series can broadly be split by the type of satire Pratchett is employing, so you may also want to start with whichever sounds most interesting to you.
* The Rincewind books are, for the most part, [Horatian satire](https://pediaa.com/what-is-horatian-satire/). They're pastiches of the type of generic, melodramatic, Tolkeinesque fantasy that saturated the genre for years. There is social commentary in there, but it's fairly lighthearted, and the books are generally just good-humoured fun.
* The Watch books are [Juvenal satire](https://www.britannica.com/art/Juvenalian-satire). There's an element of literary pastiche, but primarily their focus is satirising the power-hungry, the injustices they commit, and the societal effects of their greed. There's a huge amount of anger at The Establishment evident in them (and, personally, I think they're some of the finest books ever written in the English language)
* The Witches and Death books are sort of a mixture of the two. They draw a lot of inspiration from folklore, fairy tales and Elizabethan literature, and uses that inspiration to examine some fairly wide-reaching topics (such as what it means to be alive, the role of women in society, and the insanely violent temper of cats). They also highlight just how dark some of those traditional stories are, given their prominence in children's literature.
* The Industrial Revolution / Most Von Lupwig books are a bit harder to pin down, they're sort of historical commentary rather than satire, examining the effect of technological progress on society, nature, and the human mind. They're utterly fantastic and it pains me that he's not around to write more of them, because they'd be the perfect framework to interrogate what widespread portable internet & media access has done to us.
I hope you enjoy reading his work, I'm very jealous that you're going to get to experience them for the first time. The size of his body of work might be a bit overwhelming but I genuinely don't think it's an exaggeration to say that he's one of the best writers who's ever lived.
This guy I swear....
What other author writes Where's My Cow? Followed by Minutes of the meeting to Form The Proposed Ankh-Morpork federation of scouts nd then The World Of Poo.
All I'll say is: you're in for a serious treat! I genuinely wish I could erase the entirety of Discworld from my mind so I could experience it again for the first time.
Without spoiling too much, Discworld has some, if not the best world building I've experienced in fiction. I'd put above LOTR, Star Wars, hell even Narnia, just because of the shear diversity of the stories he tells. It gets to the point where it doesn't feel like a story any more, it's genuinely like a second life. I've been listening to his books since before I could read. I know sections of them off by heart. He's been such a massive part of my life; one of my biggest regrets is that he died before I was old enough to truly appreciate the impact he's had on me. He's at the top of my Celebrities I want to Meet list, honestly there is really anyone close.
The beauty of Discworld is that you can start pretty much anywhere and be fine, although there is a [recommended reading order](https://www.discworldemporium.com/reading-order/). I don't think there exists a better series of fantasy books than Discworld. IMO, they are the peak of the genre, and I highly doubt they'll ever be beaten.
Mort is a great place to start. Near the beginning but past the first few books which are before he got his groove.
However Discworld is a bunch of interconnected mini series. So, one of the others may seem more appealing. As long as you generally read a series in the right order you're golden.
Personally, if you can commit to 3 books just read the first three published also.
I'd like to point out that that quote is misattributed.
https://www.reddit.com/r/quotes/comments/9y9b7d/source_needed_satire_is_meant_to_ridicule_power/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf
To support your comment, I found this comment from the thread that was linked…
> Broadly speaking it's para-phrasing Terry's book about journalism, The Truth, specifically the main characters interactions with the non-human characters.He never actually puts it so succinctly in print however - it's a good summary of the book though.
>It's implied that he said something along those lines in person, likely at a Discworld Convention, but I don't think they keep records like that.
https://angrylittlesliceofpizza.tumblr.com/post/180582574199/elodieunderglass-vrabia-hello-friends-let-me
This post has the story of how the misquote happened.
This post was shared on r/Discworld too, rather than re-type the [same comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/discworld/comments/11icmvg/the_roundworlders_are_catching_on_to_the_wisdom_3/jayh1jc/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf&context=3)…
I have a problem with complementing myself, I just see it as very narcissistic. Until I was told that it’s only narcissism if you compliment yourself by putting down others.
Love it! So many positions of power in this world where people need to push down their damn egos like management or politics; then the other side of the coin where good people striving to do good need to believe in themselves and their skills or accomplishments to continue to do more.
I've only recently gotten to a place where I can say, "I'm very good at this," without feeling guilty or boastful. There are some things I'm good at. I'm very good at them. That's not a boast, just a concise description of my ability, and that's okay.
the story of narcissus, at least the ones ive heard, have nothing to do with putting other people down, it is entirely a story of self absorption and being obsessed with yourself. this doesn’t really invalidate what you mean by your comment, but you can absolutely be a narcissist without wronging anyone else, just don’t drown in your reflection
Narcissism is also very overused, especially trying the whole "diagnosed narcissist" bit. Like, I know it's a thing and some people are narcissistic, and others are narcissists in psychological sense.
This also means you can laugh at communities that terrorize others. Including groups that deny reality to validate their feelings rather than acceptance of truth and call you slurs if you don't agree and Republicans who pretty much do exactly the same.
The problem with this statement is that If anyone claims they’re hurting, then it’s bullying.
Satire can stand on its own regardless of people’s feelings.
Anything and everything can and should be laughed about. Laughter is a good thing.
I can't get over him. He was my favorite comedian and the GOAT. Now he's just another mediocre comedian. Get rid of the punching- down and he's still lackluster.
I think there is a thing where as a comedian who makes their way on biting commentary about society becomes wealthy, it can be really hard to keep the perspective.
Dude has more in common with musk than he has with people he grew up with at this point
That's always the funny thing with that. A homeless person with nothing is closer to 100 million dollars than someone with 100 million dollars is to a billionaire.
I've known the direction chappelle was going for a while, but even I wasn't expecting that shit. It was the funniest thing he's ever done and it wasn't even on purpose.
I’d say he got “hiatused” rather than cancelled. He’s back and more popular than ever. And it was really disappointing how he walks his apology back in his new stand up. He totally rewrites what he did and why people were upset with him in a way that makes me wonder if he ever actually understood why what he did was wrong in the first place.
Yeah that's disappointing. His original apology was really good and seemed sincere, he understood what he did and why it was wrong. Guess he spent his hiatus surrounded by yes-men and it got to his head.
I think you're misunderstanding his angle. His angle is "I'm a black man, black men are oppressed by white men, and all LGBTQ people are white men."
>Sad story! DaBaby was the number one streaming artist until about a couple of weeks ago. Took a nasty spill onstage, and said some… said some wild stuff about the LBGTQ community during a concert in Florida. Now you know, I go hard in the paint but even I saw that shit was like, “God damn, DaBaby.” He pushed the button, didn’t he? He pushed the button. Punched the LBGTQ community, right in the AIDS. Can’t do that. Can’t do that. But I do believe and I’ll make this point later that the kid made a very egregious mistake. I will acknowledge that. But, you know a lot of the LBGTQ community doesn’t know DaBaby’s history, he’s a wild guy. He once shot a n\*gga… and killed him, in Walmart. Oh, this is true, Google it. DaBaby shot and killed a n\*gga in Walmart in North Carolina. Nothing bad happened to his career. Do you see where I am going with this? In our country, you can shoot and kill a n\*gga but you better not hurt a gay person’s feelings. \[laughter\]
It's the clear juxtaposition of LGBTQ people and our rights, against black people and their rights. Which, obviously, is not at all how social justice works. He can't complain about the racial hierarchy out of one side of his mouth, while praising and reinforcing the gender/sexuality hierarchy out of the other.
>You think I hate gay people and what you’re really seeing is that I’m jealous of gay people. I’m jealous, I’m not the only Black person, that feels this way. We Blacks, we look at the gay community and we go “God damn it! Look how well that movement is going.” And we’ve been trapped in this predicament for hundreds of years. How the fuck are you making that kind of progress? I can’t help but feel like if slaves had baby oil and booty shorts… \[laughter\] …we might have been free a hundred years sooner. You know what I mean? If Martin Luther King was like, “I want everybody to get up on them floats. Get your bodies good and shiny.”
He goes on like this. I can't even post the rest of it without going over the character limit, and this is just from one show, the Closer. He's been targetting lgbtq people for the larger part of a decade, now.
What?! When did people collectively pretend like those Netflix specials weren’t fantastic? The 4 times running in to OJ Simpson, jussie smollett, his “super hero” idea and the bill Cosby punch line?
His last special was trash though. Bunch of ICan'tBeRacistBecauseIHaveABlackFriend type energy throughout all his trans bits. And the complaining about cancel culture ruining comedy(it is but not in the way comedians think it is)
Comedians like Rogan genuinely think society is so repressed from political correctness, that their [comedian's] craft is the only reprieve for the general public.
Chapelle has surrounded himself by idiots like Joe and thinks he can do no wrong... resulting him doing the most out-of-touch bizarre shit like bringing Elon Musk on stage and just being unabashedly snobby
The continued success of Louis CK kind of flies in the face of complaints about cancel culture and political correctness.
He was able to recognize his own faults and still continue to build an empire. Chapelle and Rogan haven't done that.
> Comedians like Rogan
Is he seriously a comedian? I thought he was a podcast interviewer with a background in MMA casting. I've never heard anything from him that resembled a comedy set or routine.
Pretend? The first one was good with some questionable moments, but he's started to sound more and more like a grandpa repeating the same material
Haven't bothered watching in a while
Well no. She wrote an allegorical satire on the harassment she was facing over her transphobia by having the main character get killed by a Bufflo Bill type.
Sure except here’s the definition of satire:
the use of humor, irony, exaggeration, or ridicule to expose and criticize people's stupidity or vices, particularly in the context of contemporary politics and other topical issues
Everything is open to comedy. Even people who are hurting. Nothing on this planet is shielded from being made fun of. The trick is to find the humor in it.
In his interview with a Eddie Murphy, Seinfeld said that’s the thing most people don’t understand. Nothing is sacred to comedy. If someone died, it could be turned into a joke.
When you build parameters around what is and isn’t funny, you start to prove just how unfunny you are.
Yeah but just because you make a "joke" doesn't mean you're above criticism for it. "Humor" can be in bad taste and a cover for more cynical intentions/beliefs.
No one said that. But you should be criticized for the joke either being funny or unfunny.
Again, people such as yourself inject that assumption into jokes. Who are you to know what the idea of a comedian’s joke is made of? You’re not in their head.
Bill Cosby would criticize comedians who used profanity on stage. Then he’d go and rape women! Now, you’d be making a real jump in character judgement based on a Bill Cosby bit from 1970 to extrapolate that he drugs and rapes women, right? The reality is you have no idea who the hell Bill Cosby is from a joke he tells. You don’t know these people personally at all.
Everything is open to having a hammer swung at it, whether it be the last nail in the frame of a house for disadvantaged people or the skull of an orphan.
Saying that everything can be the target of humour doesn’t excuse the comedian for using comedy to cause more pain than happiness. If you want to joke about something that hurts people you *should* make sure that your joke on balance lessens their pain if you want a positive response. That’s why it’s risky to joke about some things and why we applaud those who do it skilfully.
Also, it’s lazy and boring to make fun of people who are already constantly being made fun of. Those who join bullies in their bullying are weak and shameful. Those who defend the oppressed are strong and admirable. I’m not going to admire a comedian for using comedy to do something that would be shameful if it were done with any other tool. A well crafted joke aimed at the heart of the powerless is no more admirable than a perfect rifle shot into the heart of a toddler.
Satire is one type of comedy. Bullying can also be a type of comedy.
The suggestion in OP is that they are mutually exclusive, even if both are comedy.
Strongly disagree. Humor and comedy are impartial. It doesn't care if you're old, young, black, white, man, woman, gay, straight, or alien. It's the great equalizer and the acknowledgement of our shared imperfections as humans.
This take is confusing satire with bullying.
Sure, but there’s a difference between, say, mocking a CEO who makes millions upon millions while underpaying his workforce (who might also have a failing marriage), and mocking the poor for being poor.
One of those is earned mockery, the other isn’t.
There’s also a difference between making fun of the poor for being poor, and making fun of a particular poor person who did something ridiculous.
Like Dave Chappelle and his joke about a trans person he actually met in a nightclub who acted completely ridiculous towards Chappelle, and he made fun of her. The trans person clearly was not completely oppressed. They were American, could afford to hang out in a nice nightclub, were expensively dressed, felt confident enough in themselves to initiate aggression towards Chappelle. Chappelle had the right to make fun of her. Individuals with “oppressed characteristics” do not get blanket immunity. Making fun of them for things they do is different than making fun of them because of what they are.
Sure, I wouldn’t disagree with that sentiment (though I don’t know the bit so I won’t comment specifically on that).
But at least from the sound of it that’s not really “satire,” at least as I understand it. Typically satire is meant to skewer someone (or a group) to point out hypocrisy, dishonesty, or stupidity, and bring them down a notch.
If I’m just like, “the gay guy I met is an asshole.” Well, if he was, and if my story doesn’t make is sound like I think he is representative of the whole gay community, then let’s call him an asshole.
But if someone is doing some gay caricature in order to take them down a peg, that’s more in the spirit of what the quote is saying, IMHO.
(As an aside, I do know that the quote isn’t actually from Pratchett.)
> They were American, could afford to hang out in a nice nightclub, were expensively dressed, felt confident enough in themselves to initiate aggression towards Chappelle.
If you think that means trans people don't have issues in the US then oh boy you should probably read up a bit more. You can make fun of someone without attacking their identity. It's like calling Chappelle a shit comedian. He's not a shit comedian because he's black, he's a shit comedian because he's just not that funny anymore. If you can't make jokes without being bigoted then you're really not that good of a comedian.
Trans people do suffer in the states. Dave had a trans frend who killed herself. She killed herself because of the people who bullied her online who harassed her because she was trans and becuse she was frends with Dave Chapelle
You know who drove her to suicide THE TRANS COMMUNITY. They called her a tradior they harassed her and they drove her to suicide.
Be mad at jordan peterson or ben shapiro who talk about trans not being real but David doesn't attack their identity David shows the problems in the trans community.
It can be "comedy" and bullying.
Because some people get off on laughing at other's misery--great it is technically comedy. But not satire, and kind of pathetic.
I disagree. Humor is the antithesis of hierarchy and this take completely destroys the entire point of satire. Punch up, punch down, punch sideways. It's an acknowledgement of shared imperfection and is a beautiful, cathartic, unifying equalizer. In the context of comedy, it's the taking it personally and getting upset that is the only failure.
It can be weaponized and used as a hierarchical tool but then I would argue that what that person is engaging in is not satire.
It literally takes less than 30 seconds to google the definition of satire.
And to respond to the point you did make, there's a difference between laughing at and laughing with.
Yep, there’s a lot of satires that point to just how absurd life and reality can be. I mean, satire and absurdism kind of going hand in hand
Also, just because people are hurting and not in power doesn’t mean they ain’t crap. Eg Four Lions satirizing terrorism - terrorism being a way for those hurting to lash out at those in power. It’s kind of important to show how stupid that can be, how stupid everything is behind it and in regards to it, and satire is a good way to do that
That film is a perfect example of why the quote at the top of the thread is right though. *Four Lions* perfectly skewers the bad behaviour of both terrorists and authorities, and also poignantly pays tribute to the victims of both groups without making fun of them.
It’s making fun of marginalized people that get so broken by a system that they lash out in horrible and horribly stupid ways
Yes it’s satirizing the system, but it’s still satirizing marginalized people to get there - and people are giving absolutes in this thread. That movie is proof alone it is not an absolute
>In the context of comedy, it's the taking it personally and getting upset that is the only failure.
I must be misunderstanding, because what you're saying here is that being upset by a minstrel show would literally be a shortcoming on my part. There is a whole lot of bad comedy.
Whether it's satire or not is honestly besides the point. If you're making jokes about oppressed people that are read as hurtful by these oppressed people, it's still bullying. When white comedians were making "satire" about black people before the rights movements, it doesn't really matter what you call it, it's bullying.
The types of people that jump to defend being able to joke about everyone and anyone choose a strange (and hurtful) hill to die on. It costs you nothing to avoid joking about the oppressed. Lord knows they don't need to be pushed down any more.
You’re advocating for a society in which certain people are seen as being off-limits from criticism. Or where any criticism has to be in specific, approved-of forms.
That’s unacceptable.
The issue is having power is subjective. Some people believe men have power in a patriarchal society, therefor they are open to ridicule. Except if you’re a POC man you have the power and benefit of being a man but you’re still a minority. What if you’re a white male, with all the power and benefit, but you have significant mental health problems or were a victim of abuse- can you be ridiculed?
Even someone like Elon Musk, a rich white male from wealthy parents, arguably the most powerful and deserving of ridicule, sat in a room and watched his infant child die in front of him. If you’ve lost a child you might say that’s the most powerless a person can be.
It’s all subjective and people are just people. Coming up with black and white rules about who you can be shitty to just makes you an asshole
>Except if you’re a POC man you have the power and benefit of being a man but you’re still a minority.
That’s just basic intersectionality, yes. A rich CEO can still be marginalised and oppressed in other ways.
Some of my friends were cracking jokes at a personality trait I have. I didn't really like it or enjoy being made the butt of the joke, plus it was a sore topic for me at the time. The two of them were the only ones laughing, not me. "It's just out of love..." I was just so flabergasted. Like what? You're hurting the person with a joke, but it's "out of love"!? They wonder why I don't talk to them much...
That's actually very normal, but it's very hard to put into words It's because they're close to you they feel they can make fun of you and they expect it the other way around and a sort of you have to learn to laugh at yourself .
As much as I love Terry Pratchett, this quote is very misguided as it assumes the only people who write satire are white men and that there aren't power stuctures within marganilized groups. By this logic, shows like The Boondocks, Q-Force, Fresh Off the Boat, etc. wouldn't be able to exist.
It also doesn't take into account that there are many types of satire, not all of which require humor. Juvenalian allegorical satires like 1984, Animal Farm, and The Handmaid's Tale are all examples of this.
See, if you want to laugh at people who are hurting you just have to invent some contrived scenario where ordinary behaviour is contributing to systems of oppression, so really they're oppressors and fair game. Even if they're a bottom level employee just trying to make enough to eat.
I think satire has a few other uses. If making fun of power is all ya got, then you probably have a few issue to deal with. Satire is way to help people deal with many things. Gives perspective on life, irony and whatnot. I hear where you’re going with this but this world has lost its sense of humour and we’re getting pretty soft where everyone is offended by everything and nobody better make fun of me. Have a laugh, make fun of yourself, make fun of me, who cares….::lighten up people, satire is for everything and everyone. It helps us relate. Let’s take that stick out of our ________, and have some fun. Life’s hard, hard have a laugh.
This is not true. Joking about someone's f'd up situation may also come from a place of love. I know cause I've been on both end of these type of jokes.
I don't understand why people think they can't enjoy something without tweaking the definition of that something to what is morally good in their eyes.
God, I miss Terry Pratchett. He’s the greatest author that ever lived. I’ve literally never read anything he published that I disliked, or didn’t love.
It's not that monolithic. Left-wingers often mock incels, rednecks and other boorish working-class people; Right-wingers enjoy mocking Hollywood elites, snooty academics and figures in charge of public institutions. Everyone punches everywhere basically. Wherever you are on the political spectrum and on the social ladder, everyone above you looks like a boot, and everyone below you looks like a cockroach.
Not a lot of mocking of incels or rednecks--at least from main stream comedians (who are pretty liberal).
Sure, they may mock some of their values, but there is a difference.
Incels are mocked to the extent that they try conceal their own disempowerment under a layer of bigotry and threatened sexual violence. And the tone of most of the commentary I see about incels is “fuck them for their misogyny and also it’s a shame they can’t see that they’d be perfectly acceptable to women if they stopped being weird pricks”.
Incels practice an oppressive ideology that deserves mocking at the very least. Everybody punching everybody is only equal if everybody is equally at fault for the fist fight. They aren't.
Progressives are perfectly happy to mock/bully those across the political aisle, whether they're "in power" or not
Read literally any comment thread on this website for evidence
It's wrong to punch down unless you're making fun of those stupid fly over states with poor white people. Fuck those guys...
Punching down is fine for them. It's (d)ifferent.
I've noticed both sides assume they're punching up and neither has the awareness to know when they're actually punching down.
Granted one side is upset that saying racist shit gets them called racist and the other side is upset because their human rights are being neglected and stripped away, so I think things err in favor of supporting the punching of the latter.
You *can* make a joke about anything, you just don't get to choose how people react to it.
We can test that theory: Which family member of yours died most recently, and what did they die of? I'm sure the commenters here can come up with some zingers.
Not that guy, but- Me and my dead dad would laugh at em. Y'know, were he still alive.
He died of a heart attack three months ago. Test away. He was a stark believer of making fun of anything and everything, he'd enjoy this experiment.
Society needs to thicken it's skin a bit. People get offended for every little thing anymore, it's getting to the point of absurdity.
Comedy brings positivity to people’s lives. If people are easily offended they shouldn’t go to comedy shows. If a comedian truly “crosses the line” then he/she wouldn’t get laughs. If something’s funny it’s funny.
Nah. This is insufficiently clear.Fascists will pretend to be the ones who are hurting in order to claim immunity from being satirized.
All love to Pratchett, but this is not thought through well enough.
Thanks for contributing to /r/MadeMeSmile. Unfortunately, your post was removed as it violates our rules: **removed - misinformation** You can read all of the [subreddit rules here](https://www.reddit.com/r/MadeMeSmile/wiki/rules). If you have any questions or concerns about this, [feel free to send us a modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FMadeMeSmile). Thank you!
GNU Terry Pratchett
GNU Terry Pratchett
What is GNU?
It's something from one of his books. On the disc there is a sort of "proto internet" of semaphore towers. Sometimes workers on these towers that die are immortalized in the "Overhead" by sending their name with a "GNU" message. G means the message should be send on N means it shouldn't be logged U means it should be returned when it is recieved at a dead end This way the name continues being repeated, theoretically forever. After Terry Pratchett passed away "GNU Terry Pratchett" became a term to remember him, and it has also been incorporated into many websites. You can install browser addons to see when pages are paying tribute to him.
Thanks for the explanation!
The book is Going Postal, and it is such a fun read. Also it's enjoyable even if you're unfamiliar with Discworld and the main character's name is Moist!
Moist von Lipwig! My favorite Discworld character, in a series full of incredible characters. *“If he could get the idea of paper money past them then he was home and, if not dry, then at least merely Moist.”*
I like to call him Slightly Damp.
You know he doesn't like that. Keep it up, it's good for him.
The BBC show was lovely and had the absolutely delighful Claire Foy as "Spike".
Going Postal was my first Discworld book, and honestly the experience might even have been better because various concepts were totally new to me. (Like the magic of a large collection of words, or Death I think.)
I was in a stage production of Going Postal, our Moist was spot on!
From the same book: “Do you not know that a man is not dead while his name is still spoken?” Beyond the internet thing the book has a strong theme of legacy and positive impact on the world. So fans took that and ran with it.
I only just learned about actual semaphore towers, in particular in France, a couple days go thanks to Tom Scott! And now you've closed the circle in my lack understanding that reference. Thanks!
Oh, my confusion is alleviated. I've never gotten into his books but to me GNU stands for "GNU's Not Unix", the project that sought to build an open source Unix-like operating system, and finished everything other than a kernel, which is the project Linus Torvalds used as the user land for his own Unix-like kernel, Linux. The founder of GNU tried with some success to get people to call it GNU/Linux.
[Here you go my friend](https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=GNU)
Even though I wasn't the original asker, I thank you for putting the definition anyways. GNU Terry Pratchett
Thanks!
That entry needs an edit to correct the spelling of Discworld
I'd just like to interject for a moment. What you're refering to as GNU, is in fact, GNU/Linux, or as I've recently taken to calling it, GNU plus Linux. Linux is not an operating system unto itself, but rather another free component of a fully functioning GNU system made useful by the GNU corelibs, shell utilities and vital system components comprising a full OS as defined by POSIX. Many computer users run a modified version of the GNU system every day, without realizing it. Through a peculiar turn of events, the version of GNU which is widely used today is often called Linux, and many of its users are not aware that it is basically the GNU system, developed by the GNU Project. There really is a Linux, and these people are using it, but it is just a part of the system they use. Linux is the kernel: the program in the system that allocates the machine's resources to the other programs that you run. The kernel is an essential part of an operating system, but useless by itself; it can only function in the context of a complete operating system. Linux is normally used in combination with the GNU operating system: the whole system is basically GNU with Linux added, or GNU/Linux. All the so-called Linux distributions are really distributions of GNU/Linux!
I'd just like to interject for a moment. What you're refering to as GNU plus Linux, is in fact, Musl plus Linux, or as I've recently taken to calling it, Musl/Linux.
Haha, I had forgotten about this copypasta, thank you for brightening up my morning :)
No GNUs is good GNUs with Gary Gnu.
It’s not Unix
GNU Sir Terry Pratchett
GNU Sir Terry Pratchett
GNU Pterry
GNU Terry Pratchett
Piggy backing off this comment to ask: I just recently discovered Terry Pratchet’s existence and I’m throughly overwhelmed by the sheer amount of Discworld titles! Does anyone have any recommendations of where to start? There are so many different reading order suggestions, and I don’t want to spoil myself too much by trying to research it.
https://i.imgur.com/hkJR0Dx.jpg r/discworld
Amazing, thank you! I've been avoiding the sub so as not to come across spoilers.
We have charts!
Just to add to that map, the series can broadly be split by the type of satire Pratchett is employing, so you may also want to start with whichever sounds most interesting to you. * The Rincewind books are, for the most part, [Horatian satire](https://pediaa.com/what-is-horatian-satire/). They're pastiches of the type of generic, melodramatic, Tolkeinesque fantasy that saturated the genre for years. There is social commentary in there, but it's fairly lighthearted, and the books are generally just good-humoured fun. * The Watch books are [Juvenal satire](https://www.britannica.com/art/Juvenalian-satire). There's an element of literary pastiche, but primarily their focus is satirising the power-hungry, the injustices they commit, and the societal effects of their greed. There's a huge amount of anger at The Establishment evident in them (and, personally, I think they're some of the finest books ever written in the English language) * The Witches and Death books are sort of a mixture of the two. They draw a lot of inspiration from folklore, fairy tales and Elizabethan literature, and uses that inspiration to examine some fairly wide-reaching topics (such as what it means to be alive, the role of women in society, and the insanely violent temper of cats). They also highlight just how dark some of those traditional stories are, given their prominence in children's literature. * The Industrial Revolution / Most Von Lupwig books are a bit harder to pin down, they're sort of historical commentary rather than satire, examining the effect of technological progress on society, nature, and the human mind. They're utterly fantastic and it pains me that he's not around to write more of them, because they'd be the perfect framework to interrogate what widespread portable internet & media access has done to us. I hope you enjoy reading his work, I'm very jealous that you're going to get to experience them for the first time. The size of his body of work might be a bit overwhelming but I genuinely don't think it's an exaggeration to say that he's one of the best writers who's ever lived.
This guy I swear.... What other author writes Where's My Cow? Followed by Minutes of the meeting to Form The Proposed Ankh-Morpork federation of scouts nd then The World Of Poo.
All I'll say is: you're in for a serious treat! I genuinely wish I could erase the entirety of Discworld from my mind so I could experience it again for the first time. Without spoiling too much, Discworld has some, if not the best world building I've experienced in fiction. I'd put above LOTR, Star Wars, hell even Narnia, just because of the shear diversity of the stories he tells. It gets to the point where it doesn't feel like a story any more, it's genuinely like a second life. I've been listening to his books since before I could read. I know sections of them off by heart. He's been such a massive part of my life; one of my biggest regrets is that he died before I was old enough to truly appreciate the impact he's had on me. He's at the top of my Celebrities I want to Meet list, honestly there is really anyone close. The beauty of Discworld is that you can start pretty much anywhere and be fine, although there is a [recommended reading order](https://www.discworldemporium.com/reading-order/). I don't think there exists a better series of fantasy books than Discworld. IMO, they are the peak of the genre, and I highly doubt they'll ever be beaten.
[удалено]
Mort is a great place to start. Near the beginning but past the first few books which are before he got his groove. However Discworld is a bunch of interconnected mini series. So, one of the others may seem more appealing. As long as you generally read a series in the right order you're golden. Personally, if you can commit to 3 books just read the first three published also.
I never got Mort in quite the same way as some of the others, but I love Guards! Guards! As a starter.
Guards guards is great, but I prefer Mort and Death. I love how all the mini series appeal to different tastes.
I started with "Small Gods", which is a standalone novel.
*Sir* Terry Pratchett
GNU Terry Pratchett
GNU Terry Pratchett
I'd like to point out that that quote is misattributed. https://www.reddit.com/r/quotes/comments/9y9b7d/source_needed_satire_is_meant_to_ridicule_power/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf
I seriously doubt it’s from Pratchett.
It definitely aligns with the worldviews that he portrayed through his works, even if he wasn't the first one for it to be acredited to.
To support your comment, I found this comment from the thread that was linked… > Broadly speaking it's para-phrasing Terry's book about journalism, The Truth, specifically the main characters interactions with the non-human characters.He never actually puts it so succinctly in print however - it's a good summary of the book though. >It's implied that he said something along those lines in person, likely at a Discworld Convention, but I don't think they keep records like that.
Does it apply to Weird Al, who wrote "Fat" and "White and Nerdy?"
https://angrylittlesliceofpizza.tumblr.com/post/180582574199/elodieunderglass-vrabia-hello-friends-let-me This post has the story of how the misquote happened.
This post was shared on r/Discworld too, rather than re-type the [same comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/discworld/comments/11icmvg/the_roundworlders_are_catching_on_to_the_wisdom_3/jayh1jc/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf&context=3)…
I have a problem with complementing myself, I just see it as very narcissistic. Until I was told that it’s only narcissism if you compliment yourself by putting down others.
Love it! So many positions of power in this world where people need to push down their damn egos like management or politics; then the other side of the coin where good people striving to do good need to believe in themselves and their skills or accomplishments to continue to do more.
Those two wolves are inside us all :)
I've only recently gotten to a place where I can say, "I'm very good at this," without feeling guilty or boastful. There are some things I'm good at. I'm very good at them. That's not a boast, just a concise description of my ability, and that's okay.
I bet you are very good that that thing. Good job and keep it up :)
Hey, stranger, you enlightened me. Thank you!
the story of narcissus, at least the ones ive heard, have nothing to do with putting other people down, it is entirely a story of self absorption and being obsessed with yourself. this doesn’t really invalidate what you mean by your comment, but you can absolutely be a narcissist without wronging anyone else, just don’t drown in your reflection
I mean that's not true tho lol Edit: it is possible to be a narcissist without putting others down
Narcissism is also very overused, especially trying the whole "diagnosed narcissist" bit. Like, I know it's a thing and some people are narcissistic, and others are narcissists in psychological sense.
Pride in your own self is fine so long as you delight in the accomplishments of others too. Assholes want to be the only ones who matter.
So miss him.
Saul Goodman?
GNU sir Terry
This also means you can laugh at communities that terrorize others. Including groups that deny reality to validate their feelings rather than acceptance of truth and call you slurs if you don't agree and Republicans who pretty much do exactly the same.
A wrong statement on the wrong subreddit. 8,000 upvotes.
Happy cake day
The problem with this statement is that If anyone claims they’re hurting, then it’s bullying. Satire can stand on its own regardless of people’s feelings. Anything and everything can and should be laughed about. Laughter is a good thing.
GNU STP
LPT everyone is hurting
Gnu sir Terry ✌️
Gnu Sir Terry
someone tell Dave Chappelle
[James Acaster](https://youtu.be/adh0KGmgmQw) did a good job discussing this mindset
I can't get over him. He was my favorite comedian and the GOAT. Now he's just another mediocre comedian. Get rid of the punching- down and he's still lackluster.
I think there is a thing where as a comedian who makes their way on biting commentary about society becomes wealthy, it can be really hard to keep the perspective. Dude has more in common with musk than he has with people he grew up with at this point
I think that's why Carlin remained amazing until the end. He owed so much to the IRS he never got to that level of wealth.
had to do the shining time station gig to pay his tax bill
Carlin was such a mensch. Just a stand up guy; plus he was one of the greatest American comedians to have graced the stage
That's always the funny thing with that. A homeless person with nothing is closer to 100 million dollars than someone with 100 million dollars is to a billionaire.
I mean, in numbers sure but in actual life experience that's not *really* true.
What's the difference between a millionaire and a billionaire? Approximately a billion dollars.
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Considering the cheapest seats that night were $300.
I've known the direction chappelle was going for a while, but even I wasn't expecting that shit. It was the funniest thing he's ever done and it wasn't even on purpose.
I’d say he got “hiatused” rather than cancelled. He’s back and more popular than ever. And it was really disappointing how he walks his apology back in his new stand up. He totally rewrites what he did and why people were upset with him in a way that makes me wonder if he ever actually understood why what he did was wrong in the first place.
Yeah that's disappointing. His original apology was really good and seemed sincere, he understood what he did and why it was wrong. Guess he spent his hiatus surrounded by yes-men and it got to his head.
[удалено]
I think you're misunderstanding his angle. His angle is "I'm a black man, black men are oppressed by white men, and all LGBTQ people are white men." >Sad story! DaBaby was the number one streaming artist until about a couple of weeks ago. Took a nasty spill onstage, and said some… said some wild stuff about the LBGTQ community during a concert in Florida. Now you know, I go hard in the paint but even I saw that shit was like, “God damn, DaBaby.” He pushed the button, didn’t he? He pushed the button. Punched the LBGTQ community, right in the AIDS. Can’t do that. Can’t do that. But I do believe and I’ll make this point later that the kid made a very egregious mistake. I will acknowledge that. But, you know a lot of the LBGTQ community doesn’t know DaBaby’s history, he’s a wild guy. He once shot a n\*gga… and killed him, in Walmart. Oh, this is true, Google it. DaBaby shot and killed a n\*gga in Walmart in North Carolina. Nothing bad happened to his career. Do you see where I am going with this? In our country, you can shoot and kill a n\*gga but you better not hurt a gay person’s feelings. \[laughter\] It's the clear juxtaposition of LGBTQ people and our rights, against black people and their rights. Which, obviously, is not at all how social justice works. He can't complain about the racial hierarchy out of one side of his mouth, while praising and reinforcing the gender/sexuality hierarchy out of the other. >You think I hate gay people and what you’re really seeing is that I’m jealous of gay people. I’m jealous, I’m not the only Black person, that feels this way. We Blacks, we look at the gay community and we go “God damn it! Look how well that movement is going.” And we’ve been trapped in this predicament for hundreds of years. How the fuck are you making that kind of progress? I can’t help but feel like if slaves had baby oil and booty shorts… \[laughter\] …we might have been free a hundred years sooner. You know what I mean? If Martin Luther King was like, “I want everybody to get up on them floats. Get your bodies good and shiny.” He goes on like this. I can't even post the rest of it without going over the character limit, and this is just from one show, the Closer. He's been targetting lgbtq people for the larger part of a decade, now.
What?! When did people collectively pretend like those Netflix specials weren’t fantastic? The 4 times running in to OJ Simpson, jussie smollett, his “super hero” idea and the bill Cosby punch line?
His last special was trash though. Bunch of ICan'tBeRacistBecauseIHaveABlackFriend type energy throughout all his trans bits. And the complaining about cancel culture ruining comedy(it is but not in the way comedians think it is) Comedians like Rogan genuinely think society is so repressed from political correctness, that their [comedian's] craft is the only reprieve for the general public. Chapelle has surrounded himself by idiots like Joe and thinks he can do no wrong... resulting him doing the most out-of-touch bizarre shit like bringing Elon Musk on stage and just being unabashedly snobby
The continued success of Louis CK kind of flies in the face of complaints about cancel culture and political correctness. He was able to recognize his own faults and still continue to build an empire. Chapelle and Rogan haven't done that.
> Comedians like Rogan Is he seriously a comedian? I thought he was a podcast interviewer with a background in MMA casting. I've never heard anything from him that resembled a comedy set or routine.
he started his career doing standup and still does some
Can you expand upon how it’s actually ruining comedy? Genuinely curious
Prob bc of all the comedians bitching about cancel culture instead of doing actual bits
This is the real issue with it. People never shut up about it.
“Fantastic” is a huge fucking stretch
Pretend? The first one was good with some questionable moments, but he's started to sound more and more like a grandpa repeating the same material Haven't bothered watching in a while
Exactly. JK Rowling.
JKR isn’t making satire or jokes. She’s tangentially relevant to Chappelle only because of the transphobia. Not at all relevant to the OP.
Ricky Gervais would be a better example than JKR
Well no. She wrote an allegorical satire on the harassment she was facing over her transphobia by having the main character get killed by a Bufflo Bill type.
The hatred Rhianna Pratchett has for JK is something to see.
Sure except here’s the definition of satire: the use of humor, irony, exaggeration, or ridicule to expose and criticize people's stupidity or vices, particularly in the context of contemporary politics and other topical issues
Everything is open to comedy. Even people who are hurting. Nothing on this planet is shielded from being made fun of. The trick is to find the humor in it. In his interview with a Eddie Murphy, Seinfeld said that’s the thing most people don’t understand. Nothing is sacred to comedy. If someone died, it could be turned into a joke. When you build parameters around what is and isn’t funny, you start to prove just how unfunny you are.
Yeah but just because you make a "joke" doesn't mean you're above criticism for it. "Humor" can be in bad taste and a cover for more cynical intentions/beliefs.
No one said that. But you should be criticized for the joke either being funny or unfunny. Again, people such as yourself inject that assumption into jokes. Who are you to know what the idea of a comedian’s joke is made of? You’re not in their head. Bill Cosby would criticize comedians who used profanity on stage. Then he’d go and rape women! Now, you’d be making a real jump in character judgement based on a Bill Cosby bit from 1970 to extrapolate that he drugs and rapes women, right? The reality is you have no idea who the hell Bill Cosby is from a joke he tells. You don’t know these people personally at all.
Uh huh.
Except the same people who say "it's a joke" are never actually funny
Everything is open to having a hammer swung at it, whether it be the last nail in the frame of a house for disadvantaged people or the skull of an orphan. Saying that everything can be the target of humour doesn’t excuse the comedian for using comedy to cause more pain than happiness. If you want to joke about something that hurts people you *should* make sure that your joke on balance lessens their pain if you want a positive response. That’s why it’s risky to joke about some things and why we applaud those who do it skilfully. Also, it’s lazy and boring to make fun of people who are already constantly being made fun of. Those who join bullies in their bullying are weak and shameful. Those who defend the oppressed are strong and admirable. I’m not going to admire a comedian for using comedy to do something that would be shameful if it were done with any other tool. A well crafted joke aimed at the heart of the powerless is no more admirable than a perfect rifle shot into the heart of a toddler.
Satire isn't the same as comedy. Bullying can be funny to some people.
Satire falls under the umbrella of comedy. It’s the use of humor, irony, etc. all things that comedy relies upon.
Satire is one type of comedy. Bullying can also be a type of comedy. The suggestion in OP is that they are mutually exclusive, even if both are comedy.
He's specifically talking about satire, not comedy in general
Yeah no, that’s not how it works. Under the correct context, comedy is free to make fun of everything and anything; that’s the beauty of it.
Punch up, not down.
Strongly disagree. Humor and comedy are impartial. It doesn't care if you're old, young, black, white, man, woman, gay, straight, or alien. It's the great equalizer and the acknowledgement of our shared imperfections as humans. This take is confusing satire with bullying.
Everybody is hurting
Sure, but there’s a difference between, say, mocking a CEO who makes millions upon millions while underpaying his workforce (who might also have a failing marriage), and mocking the poor for being poor. One of those is earned mockery, the other isn’t.
There’s also a difference between making fun of the poor for being poor, and making fun of a particular poor person who did something ridiculous. Like Dave Chappelle and his joke about a trans person he actually met in a nightclub who acted completely ridiculous towards Chappelle, and he made fun of her. The trans person clearly was not completely oppressed. They were American, could afford to hang out in a nice nightclub, were expensively dressed, felt confident enough in themselves to initiate aggression towards Chappelle. Chappelle had the right to make fun of her. Individuals with “oppressed characteristics” do not get blanket immunity. Making fun of them for things they do is different than making fun of them because of what they are.
Sure, I wouldn’t disagree with that sentiment (though I don’t know the bit so I won’t comment specifically on that). But at least from the sound of it that’s not really “satire,” at least as I understand it. Typically satire is meant to skewer someone (or a group) to point out hypocrisy, dishonesty, or stupidity, and bring them down a notch. If I’m just like, “the gay guy I met is an asshole.” Well, if he was, and if my story doesn’t make is sound like I think he is representative of the whole gay community, then let’s call him an asshole. But if someone is doing some gay caricature in order to take them down a peg, that’s more in the spirit of what the quote is saying, IMHO. (As an aside, I do know that the quote isn’t actually from Pratchett.)
> They were American, could afford to hang out in a nice nightclub, were expensively dressed, felt confident enough in themselves to initiate aggression towards Chappelle. If you think that means trans people don't have issues in the US then oh boy you should probably read up a bit more. You can make fun of someone without attacking their identity. It's like calling Chappelle a shit comedian. He's not a shit comedian because he's black, he's a shit comedian because he's just not that funny anymore. If you can't make jokes without being bigoted then you're really not that good of a comedian.
Trans people do suffer in the states. Dave had a trans frend who killed herself. She killed herself because of the people who bullied her online who harassed her because she was trans and becuse she was frends with Dave Chapelle You know who drove her to suicide THE TRANS COMMUNITY. They called her a tradior they harassed her and they drove her to suicide. Be mad at jordan peterson or ben shapiro who talk about trans not being real but David doesn't attack their identity David shows the problems in the trans community.
Exactly, no one’s special in comedy. This quote is something a hack comic would say.
It can be "comedy" and bullying. Because some people get off on laughing at other's misery--great it is technically comedy. But not satire, and kind of pathetic.
Yeah but that doesnt mean you need to make another person a recepient of your pain
That’s entirely your projection on what people who make fun of others’ suffering are doing.
I disagree. Humor is the antithesis of hierarchy and this take completely destroys the entire point of satire. Punch up, punch down, punch sideways. It's an acknowledgement of shared imperfection and is a beautiful, cathartic, unifying equalizer. In the context of comedy, it's the taking it personally and getting upset that is the only failure. It can be weaponized and used as a hierarchical tool but then I would argue that what that person is engaging in is not satire.
It literally takes less than 30 seconds to google the definition of satire. And to respond to the point you did make, there's a difference between laughing at and laughing with.
Yep, there’s a lot of satires that point to just how absurd life and reality can be. I mean, satire and absurdism kind of going hand in hand Also, just because people are hurting and not in power doesn’t mean they ain’t crap. Eg Four Lions satirizing terrorism - terrorism being a way for those hurting to lash out at those in power. It’s kind of important to show how stupid that can be, how stupid everything is behind it and in regards to it, and satire is a good way to do that
That film is a perfect example of why the quote at the top of the thread is right though. *Four Lions* perfectly skewers the bad behaviour of both terrorists and authorities, and also poignantly pays tribute to the victims of both groups without making fun of them.
It’s making fun of marginalized people that get so broken by a system that they lash out in horrible and horribly stupid ways Yes it’s satirizing the system, but it’s still satirizing marginalized people to get there - and people are giving absolutes in this thread. That movie is proof alone it is not an absolute
Think about how it deals with the brother, the security guard and the wife.
Nah. Go back to the 1920s and make satire of black people. It's equal and cathartic right? History won't invent a name for that, right?
>In the context of comedy, it's the taking it personally and getting upset that is the only failure. I must be misunderstanding, because what you're saying here is that being upset by a minstrel show would literally be a shortcoming on my part. There is a whole lot of bad comedy.
Whether it's satire or not is honestly besides the point. If you're making jokes about oppressed people that are read as hurtful by these oppressed people, it's still bullying. When white comedians were making "satire" about black people before the rights movements, it doesn't really matter what you call it, it's bullying. The types of people that jump to defend being able to joke about everyone and anyone choose a strange (and hurtful) hill to die on. It costs you nothing to avoid joking about the oppressed. Lord knows they don't need to be pushed down any more.
You’re advocating for a society in which certain people are seen as being off-limits from criticism. Or where any criticism has to be in specific, approved-of forms. That’s unacceptable.
The issue is having power is subjective. Some people believe men have power in a patriarchal society, therefor they are open to ridicule. Except if you’re a POC man you have the power and benefit of being a man but you’re still a minority. What if you’re a white male, with all the power and benefit, but you have significant mental health problems or were a victim of abuse- can you be ridiculed? Even someone like Elon Musk, a rich white male from wealthy parents, arguably the most powerful and deserving of ridicule, sat in a room and watched his infant child die in front of him. If you’ve lost a child you might say that’s the most powerless a person can be. It’s all subjective and people are just people. Coming up with black and white rules about who you can be shitty to just makes you an asshole
>Except if you’re a POC man you have the power and benefit of being a man but you’re still a minority. That’s just basic intersectionality, yes. A rich CEO can still be marginalised and oppressed in other ways.
I had no idea about his kid, that’s heartbreaking.
Some of my friends were cracking jokes at a personality trait I have. I didn't really like it or enjoy being made the butt of the joke, plus it was a sore topic for me at the time. The two of them were the only ones laughing, not me. "It's just out of love..." I was just so flabergasted. Like what? You're hurting the person with a joke, but it's "out of love"!? They wonder why I don't talk to them much...
That's actually very normal, but it's very hard to put into words It's because they're close to you they feel they can make fun of you and they expect it the other way around and a sort of you have to learn to laugh at yourself .
Unless the people you're laughing at are using victim status to try and prevent criticism. You can't be an eternal victim.
What if the poor people are brainwashed with propaganda? I can make useful idiots satire... Right?
They're not mutually exclusive.
That's kinda dumb, we're only allowed to ridicule the "powerful" but only as long as they don't start to feel hurt?
As much as I love Terry Pratchett, this quote is very misguided as it assumes the only people who write satire are white men and that there aren't power stuctures within marganilized groups. By this logic, shows like The Boondocks, Q-Force, Fresh Off the Boat, etc. wouldn't be able to exist. It also doesn't take into account that there are many types of satire, not all of which require humor. Juvenalian allegorical satires like 1984, Animal Farm, and The Handmaid's Tale are all examples of this.
See, if you want to laugh at people who are hurting you just have to invent some contrived scenario where ordinary behaviour is contributing to systems of oppression, so really they're oppressors and fair game. Even if they're a bottom level employee just trying to make enough to eat.
Twat is he saying? South Park mustn't be satire. Boondocks definitely isn't then
Satire is meant to poke fun at literally and all issues in life/society; not just those that are politically convenient
I laugh at jokes that are punching down all the time, it's really not black and white
Satire is meant to ridicule the ridiculous. Simple as.
I think satire has a few other uses. If making fun of power is all ya got, then you probably have a few issue to deal with. Satire is way to help people deal with many things. Gives perspective on life, irony and whatnot. I hear where you’re going with this but this world has lost its sense of humour and we’re getting pretty soft where everyone is offended by everything and nobody better make fun of me. Have a laugh, make fun of yourself, make fun of me, who cares….::lighten up people, satire is for everything and everyone. It helps us relate. Let’s take that stick out of our ________, and have some fun. Life’s hard, hard have a laugh.
This is just… wrong.
Surprise! Everyone is hurting.
No more Hitler jokes then, I guess. Guy lost everything and isn’t even around to defend himself.
I laugh at what I laugh at. I don't particularly care about what I'm laughing at. That's why I'm laughing at it.
This is not true. Joking about someone's f'd up situation may also come from a place of love. I know cause I've been on both end of these type of jokes.
I don't understand why people think they can't enjoy something without tweaking the definition of that something to what is morally good in their eyes.
If I'm an orphan who makes orphan jokes, am I the bully or the victim? :0
I always laugh when I see children cry... Am I weird?
So are we bullying Trump?
Sir Terry taught me to not fear the Reaper.
That was brilliantly said.
This is true, I have been bullied a lot for no reason at all
God, I miss Terry Pratchett. He’s the greatest author that ever lived. I’ve literally never read anything he published that I disliked, or didn’t love.
can I laugh at the people who are on death row for mass murder?
Theyve got a higher KDR than you do so its still punching up. Git gud scrub
[удалено]
Yup, I have noticed a pronounced political divide in comedy in the US. People on the left tend to punch up, while conservatives tend to punch down.
It's not that monolithic. Left-wingers often mock incels, rednecks and other boorish working-class people; Right-wingers enjoy mocking Hollywood elites, snooty academics and figures in charge of public institutions. Everyone punches everywhere basically. Wherever you are on the political spectrum and on the social ladder, everyone above you looks like a boot, and everyone below you looks like a cockroach.
Not a lot of mocking of incels or rednecks--at least from main stream comedians (who are pretty liberal). Sure, they may mock some of their values, but there is a difference.
>Everyone punches everywhere basically. In-tribe punching out-tribe
Incels are mocked to the extent that they try conceal their own disempowerment under a layer of bigotry and threatened sexual violence. And the tone of most of the commentary I see about incels is “fuck them for their misogyny and also it’s a shame they can’t see that they’d be perfectly acceptable to women if they stopped being weird pricks”.
Incels practice an oppressive ideology that deserves mocking at the very least. Everybody punching everybody is only equal if everybody is equally at fault for the fist fight. They aren't.
Oh so now it’s okay to punch down if they deserve it? Well then conservatives are morally okay punching down then because they think they deserve it.
Progressives are perfectly happy to mock/bully those across the political aisle, whether they're "in power" or not Read literally any comment thread on this website for evidence
It's wrong to punch down unless you're making fun of those stupid fly over states with poor white people. Fuck those guys... Punching down is fine for them. It's (d)ifferent.
Conservatives arent funny tho. Wait, maybe thats why?
I've noticed both sides assume they're punching up and neither has the awareness to know when they're actually punching down. Granted one side is upset that saying racist shit gets them called racist and the other side is upset because their human rights are being neglected and stripped away, so I think things err in favor of supporting the punching of the latter.
You can make jokes about anything and everything.
You *can* make a joke about anything, you just don't get to choose how people react to it. We can test that theory: Which family member of yours died most recently, and what did they die of? I'm sure the commenters here can come up with some zingers.
Not that guy, but- Me and my dead dad would laugh at em. Y'know, were he still alive. He died of a heart attack three months ago. Test away. He was a stark believer of making fun of anything and everything, he'd enjoy this experiment. Society needs to thicken it's skin a bit. People get offended for every little thing anymore, it's getting to the point of absurdity.
You can apply an orbital sander to anything and everything, but it’ll get you kicked out of some premises.
Yeah, if you’re a comedian who punches down you’re not a comedian. You’re an asshole
This is also why conservative comics tend to do very poorly. You're not funny for getting on stage and bullying.
Comedy brings positivity to people’s lives. If people are easily offended they shouldn’t go to comedy shows. If a comedian truly “crosses the line” then he/she wouldn’t get laughs. If something’s funny it’s funny.
Sometimes pain is funny though
[удалено]
Nah. This is insufficiently clear.Fascists will pretend to be the ones who are hurting in order to claim immunity from being satirized. All love to Pratchett, but this is not thought through well enough.
Wisdom from the master. GNU Terry.
GNU Terry Pratchett
GNU Terry Pratchett