Log In

Home
    - Create Journal
    - Update
    - Download

LiveJournal
    - News
    - Paid Accounts
    - Contributors

Customize
    - Customize Journal
    - Create Style
    - Edit Style

Find Users
    - Random!
    - By Region
    - By Interest
    - Search

Edit ...
    - Personal Info &
      Settings
    - Your Friends
    - Old Entries
    - Your Pictures
    - Your Password

Developer Area

Need Help?
    - Lost Password?
    - Freq. Asked
      Questions
    - Support Area



Gun o' the Pants ([info]gun) wrote in [info]otf_wank,
@ 2007-02-11 09:45:00


Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
alan sokal would turn in his grave if he were dead
Some jackass COMEDIC GENIUS writes a "satirical" piece about how ZOMGAWESOME rape is for everyone.

Nobody else gets the humour.

The college newspaper it was printed in has a bit of a whinge:

Our editorial staff was unaware that only “official” journalists benefit from the right of freedom of the press—we happen to believe that all citizens of this country enjoy that right—but even if only “official” journalists are entitled, who gets to decide what makes a journalist “official” in the first place? Must they be published in a regular, hard-copy newspaper, or should a devoted blogger who follows journalistic procedure be considered “official” as well?

We are of the opinion that all journalists are “official,” regardless of if they are published in the Hartford Courant, The Recorder or slate.com. There is not, after all, any magical “journalist certificate” that is required by law for someone to carry a tape recorder.

As such, all journalists should be treated with an equal amount of respect. It is absolutely inexcusable for some journalists to be censored or imprisoned while others roam free, and it is certainly in contradiction to everything this nation supposedly values.


LOL SENSITIVE.

Feministe.Us points out, in a most FTW fashion:

Predictably, the mouth-breathing editors at the Central Connecticut State University newspaper claim that it’s “satire,” and that Petroski is a “gifted satirist” (no, seriously) and his brilliance simply “fell on deaf ears.”

It’s a shame that, for all his satirical brilliance, he couldn’t find an equally brilliant copy editor to correct his repeated use of the word “benifits.”


They find even more excerpts of his genius, where he manages to break Snacky's Law by bitching about the mean girls at school who won't sleep with him. Funny, that, you'd think they'd be lining up around the block to bang such a worthy piece of cock:

They seem to still think that they’re invincible, or that their good looks and charm will see them through life. While that might work for a while, there are some harsh realities to face. Ladies, your breasts will sag and there will always be a younger model right around the corner, anyway.

I'm wanking it because it's caused a fair bit of stir over the internets the past few days and at any rate, some of the smackdowns in the comments are just beautiful:

Is there any chance this thing may be full-blown satire, what with the spelling mistakes and all? I mean, “flidgling nation”?


(Read comments) - (Post a new comment)


[info]ladyvorkosigan
2007-02-11 02:19 am UTC (link)
Okay, like, it's stupid and offensive (and on a side note, what is it with college newspapers, anyway? Do they ever print humor pieces that are actually funny?). And people have every right to denounce it. But yeah, I'm also going to say they have a right to print it as well, because it's a bad precedent to set.

(Reply to this)(Thread)


(Anonymous)
2007-02-11 02:53 am UTC (link)
Definitely a bad precedent. Without such enthusiastic participants in freedom of speech, I might be forced to figure out who the cockweasels are by long, thoughtful deduction - whereas now they are simplifying matters by publishing what cockweasels they are in papers.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]ecchaniz0r
2007-02-11 06:11 am UTC (link)
O mouse, thou art the bomb. ♥

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]edgyspice
2007-02-11 02:54 am UTC (link)
The humorist P.J. O'Rourke once visited his old college campus and paid a visit to the newspaper offices. He found the staff debating whether or not they should print an ad from a Holocaust-denying group. Some were claiming that the ad was too offensive to print, and others argued that not printing it would deny that group's right to free speech. O'Rourke noted that it never occurred to them to simply throw the thing away because it was a piece of shit.

(I feel like I violated Godwin's Law in some weird way. Oh well.)

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]gun
2007-02-11 03:10 am UTC (link)
No, I think your comment had a really good point. Freedom of speech is all well and good, but what about when a journalistic piece is just of poor quality?

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]amyheartssiroc
2007-02-15 06:54 am UTC (link)
Exactly.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]ladyvorkosigan
2007-02-11 01:28 pm UTC (link)
Oh, sure, they should definitely have thrown this piece of crap away too. And God knows what the meeting where they decided to print it looked like. Morons. It's just, you know, abstractly, they also had a right to print it (which doesn't mean they're not morons, it just means also that some of the more, hmm, enthusiastic commentors calling for various hyperbolic punishments are also kind of wrong.)

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]fevered_ego
2007-02-13 10:48 am UTC (link)
I would vote to print the stupid piece of shit, and devote the entire rest of that page to quotes from Holocaust survivors and civil rights advocates.

Nobody said freedom of speech extended to controlling the context in which you're allowed to be such a dick, after all. It would be a beautiful fuck-you.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


iwanttobeasleep
2007-02-11 03:30 am UTC (link)
I think some people in the argument are mistaking "right" with "responsibility". Just because someone said it and submitted it to a newspaper doesn't mean the newspaper can't and shoudn't say, "You flaming moron, the only way this is going to make it into print is if you buy yourself a press."

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]ladyvorkosigan
2007-02-11 01:29 pm UTC (link)
Yeah, the editors are clearly idiots. No argument there. But idiots I think we probably shouldn't be talking about expelling and what not.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]queencallipygos
2007-02-12 04:23 pm UTC (link)
on a side note, what is it with college newspapers, anyway? Do they ever print humor pieces that are actually funny?

Consider the average age of the college journalist -- 18-21. Consider how much of their humor at this stage is informed by "trying to be shocking and edgy." Consider how little experience they actually have.

In other words, sometimes a college will get lucky and have a natural genius, but mostly...no, they don't.

(end way-too-serious mode)

(Reply to this)(Parent)


(Read comments) -

 
   
Privacy Policy - COPPA
Legal Disclaimer - Site Map