DIE ACTOR DIE

An oxymoron? I would think so. I looked up Satire on Wikipedia and found this:

In satire, human or individual vices, follies, abuses, or shortcomings are held up to censure by means of ridicule, derision, burlesque, irony, or other methods, ideally with the intent to bring about improvement. Although satire is usually meant to be funny, the purpose of satire is not primarily humor in itself so much as an attack on something of which the author strongly disapproves, using the weapon of wit.

As good a definition as I could write (and easier).

Ok, so satire has a POV attached to it. It is subjective. This is nothing new to me and to anyone who has a sense of humor. So today I posted the following item on Phillyist as my weekly column:

How Gay Marriage Will Ruin America

As a straight American man, I believe that the current ruling by California lawmakers to legalize gay marriage is a mistake that will ruin this great American nation of ours! Yet, as a straight American man, I am not allowed to disagree with what the liberal, New York, Hollywood, cheese-eating, French-speaking, Oprah Book Club Reading, media-istas say is acceptable.

Well I say “accept-a-BULL!”

What kind of country is this where a citizen cannot express himself freely?
So let me give it to you straight and American, man. This is How Gay Marriage Will Ruin America (in straight American list form):

1. Out-of-Stock Wedding Registries at Crate & Barrel
2. We Will Lose Our Standing as Divorce Capitol of the World
3. “Closer To Fine” as Standard Lesbian Wedding Song Will Bring About Resurgence of The Indigo Girls’ Career
4. Have To Waste Time and Resources Finding a New Minority to Use As Campaign Wedge Issue
5. Father’s Day Will Have To Be Renamed Fathers’ Day
6. Mexico Will Make Fun Of Us
7. God Will Punish America By Giving California Earthquakes and Giving Boston The NBA Championship
8. The Legalized Same Pet Marriage Movement Now Has Momentum
9. New Jersey Will Act All Superior to Pennsylvania, Upsetting The Natural Balance of Things
10. Happy, Loving Couples Will Create A National Eyesore
I think I have made my point.
Simple satire. Funny, maybe not hilarious, but certainly not to be taken as a serious piece.
Then I got this comment from “JR” on the site:
2. We Will Lose Our Standing as Divorce Capitol of the World
10. Happy, Loving Couples Will Create A National Eyesore

I think I have made my point.

Simple satire. Funny, maybe not hilarious, but certainly not to be taken as a serious piece.

I got this comment from “JR” on the Phillyist site:

2. We Will Lose Our Standing as Divorce Capitol of the World
10. Happy, Loving Couples Will Create A National Eyesore

Are you claiming that same sex couples are immune from the same issues that
cause hetero divorce? That hetero couples are inherently less happy than
same sex couples?

Where is your journalistic objectivity in this post? I can’t find it.

“Journalistic objectivity?” Did he not see Items 8 and 9? I couldn’t let accusations based on ignorance go unanswered. So I replied:

Jay,

Are you seriously questioning the objectivity of a satirical post?

Well let me indulge you:

2. The US has the most divorces per capita (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/peo_div_rat-people-divorce-rate); however in states that support same sex unions, the divorce rate is lower than in a non-supported state (http://www.exgaywatch.com/wp/2006/07/lowest-divorce/).Therefore I made the hy-sterical leap that as the number of our marriages go up, our divorce rates will go down. Hilarious!!!!

10. Yes I believe that the thousands of gay and lesbian couples now afforded the same rights as you and me will be very happy in public. Nowhere do I say gays will be happier than heteros. You inferred that and attributed it to me.

Finally, I am not a journalist. I am not reporting facts. I am writing a humorous essay, satire. I am poking fun at the foibles and narrow mindedness of others.

You can say I am not funny, but you can’t say I’m objective, because I have no obligation to be such. Shame on you for not recognizing the difference.

Where is your sense of humor in this comment? I can’t find it.

-Don

So now, I think I’ve made my point; but the warrior in me wants him to respond. I want a debate, a battle of ideas, a war of words, I want a rebuttal. Mainly because I know I am right.

For my sins, I get one:

I just don’t see why such a blatantly biased post on such an important issue should be published on a site that represents our city.

You can say that you are not required to be objective, and that your “humor” is license to claim hetero marriage is inferior and flawed compared to same sex, but I beg to differ. The way for the gay community to gain acceptance for their cause, which I do not disagree with, is to promote equality, not to further devide the groups with such pathetic “satire”.

I am also a Gothamist reader and I’ve yet to see shuch devisive language from them. In their last post on the Circus elephant walk, they did an excellent job of covering and moderating both sides of the animal cruelity/elephants for entertainment issue. That is objectivity; Something i do not expect from Phillyist.

I’m not expecting bloggers to point-counter point every issue they come across, i just expect them to moderate their personal views when they represent more than just themselves.

“Blatantly biased post?” Of course its biased! It’s satire!!! “Moderate personal views when they represent more than just themselves?” Is he serious? Answer: yes.

Me:

Again Jay you say:

“You can say that you are not required to be objective, and that your “humor” is license to claim hetero marriage is inferior and flawed compared to same sex, but I beg to differ.”

I am say no such thing! Where do I say that hetero marriage is flawed? Please point that exact pharse out to me. You are insinuating that I am making an anti-hetero marriage post when I am not. I am making a satirical comment on the argument that gay marriage will ruin families and destroy America. Why is that so difficult for you to comprehend? It is satire! Does The Daily Show speak for Comedy Central? Does SNL speak for GE? No. I am simply a contributor with a point-of-view and no obligation to anyone other than my own sense of morals and good taste. Does Pencopal speak for Philly when they say that Death Cab For Cutie rocked last night? Or when Jill says that the Arden’s production of OUR TOWN was boring? No. That is their opinion! And yet my humor essay is suddenly given the weight of being Philadelphia’s international face on gay marriage. I am flattered but unwilling to take on such a position.

Satire is not objective. It is biased, it is subjective, it is personal. Once you accept that this is NOT reporting and meant as entertainment (good, bad or otherwise) we will all sleep well tonight.

-Don

Done! Crane kick to the head. He’s down. He’s not getting back up. I have made my point. This is not reporting, it is an essay, a humor piece — hell you could call it an editorial if you wanted to. I mention a “legalized same pet marriage movement.” How can anyone mistake this for reporting?

JR does.

Jill and Pen did not state that Philly improved because death cab played instead of just those other bands that contribute to the decline of good entertainment in the city.

Until you accept that your satire was devisive and only subtracts from the gains that the gay community has made, “we wont sleep well tonight.”

You are insuinating that same sex marriages are somehow superior through happiness or lack of diviorce. You can say I am insuinating also, but you still dont touch on the concept of objectivity (which is not neutrality).

I feel you have a obligation to do so from the pedestal that you are on, and you feel you do not. That is where we differ, and there is nothing more to be said.

To be honest, I have no idea what he is saying in this last post, but he is so unwilling to see that he is mistaken. He cannot specifically cite anything wrong that I have said, it is all general statements and insinuations. Personally, I have no idea how my goofy little piece will set back the gains of the gay community. I’d ask JR but “there is nothing more to be said.”

Unless you have a blog.

JR’s point is that I am not being objective, like that objective comedian…what was his name? Oh yes, there was no fucking person!!!

“What’s the deal with these small bags of peanuts on airplanes? Well I guess the airlines need to save money so it makes sense if you think about it.”

JR’s claim that I am not being objective is the center of his argument. But it also doesn’t apply here, therefore his argument has no weight. But he can’t see that no matter how many times I try to explain it to him. He won’t let it go. Worse, he can’t defend his position with anything from the post. He just didn’t like it and decided to attack it.

Satire is not objective. A sense of humor is. Just say you think it’s unfunny, say it’s offensive, say it’s stupid and move on.

Pic by Rubira