So many people reacted to 9/11 for so long that they exhausted all the giving-a-fuck that there is to be had. If knee-jerk patriotism and the War On Terror are what it takes to prevent another 9/11, then this is my new opinion:
img]http://i.imgur.com/fqdKM.jpg[/img
(http://i.imgur.com/M5Lcn.jpg)
This is also my first attempt at making a demotivational poster (IIRC). I think it turned out well. What do You think?
EDIT: Replaced with (hopefully) less offensive more to the point version.
As someone who was directly effected by the towers falling, you can eat my asshole.
If you lost someone in the attacks then you have my sympathy.
But of the 2000-6000 victims who didn't know someone that I sort of know as an online acquaintance, why do they deserve more of my sympathy than the ~147,300* other unaffiliated people who died that day, (assuming that it was otherwise normal), many of them also in my country and also by violence?
(It should be stated here that a more accurate caption would have read "apathy", but I felt that taking it a step too far would make it pop more)
*Based on World Health Organization statistics estimating an average 56 million deaths per year, or about 153319 deaths per day; minus the high end estimate of the WTC death toll to produce a lowball estimate of unrelated deaths.
you think 'apathy' and 'schadenfreude' are conceptually close enough for one to be construed as 'a step beyond' the other in any way?
:?
When the jokes funny, poor taste is generally quite forgivable, even with the understanding that some people will have bad shit triggered (good discussions around this in rape thread).
Problem here is joke isn't really funny, and the point being made is too unclear to be punchy. So the effort falls flat, regardless of your intentions.
Later thoughts;
If the point is to try to desensitize people to the imagery of 9/11 I can in some ways understand the concept- but the message still comes through as a bit of a fuck you to the victims, which is itself a little jarring.
How old are you, PDS?
Because your sense of what's "edgy" and "rebelling against the dominant paradigm" or whatever the fuck you're trying to do is roughly on par with a 15 year old. This is basically the same shit as "I'm happy Steve Jobs is dead," only with a more serious topic: going for the most obnoxious take on an issue and pretending it's some kind of profound insight.
After 10 years, your "revised opinion" on 9/11 is that you choose not to care that 3000 people were killed in an act of religious extremism? Sorry, but there's really no value in that shift in perspective.
Quote from: Prelate Diogenes Shandor on December 12, 2011, 05:54:59 AM
But of the 2000-6000 victims who didn't know someone that I sort of know as an online acquaintance, why do they deserve more of my sympathy than the ~147,300* other unaffiliated people who died that day, (assuming that it was otherwise normal), many of them also in my country and also by violence?
WTF so you have "Schadenfreude" over the
other people that died that day as well?
Cause that's even worse.
And not just because FUCK YOU MY HIGH SCHOOL TEACHER'S NEIGHBOUR DIED FROM UNRELATED CAUSES ON 9/11.
Quote(It should be stated here that a more accurate caption would have read "apathy", but I felt that taking it a step too far would make it pop more)
Ummmmm I'm just going to assume, and this is giving you a
big benefit of the doubt, maybe because it's a German loanword and because there actually isn't any proper equivalent in the English language (and no, it's not "horrormirth" either), that you simply don't have a fucking clue what you're talking about.
But THIS is "Schadenfreude" :
(http://i174.photobucket.com/albums/w120/jeffreyquah/simpsons_nelson_haha2.jpg)
It's
exactly that, including the negative complete asshole dickbag connotations that you attach to this familiar scene.
When you say you got "Schadenfreude" over a collapsing WTC tower and the thousands that died in it,
you are Nelson, pointing with his finger at that tower and saying "Ha Ha!".
BTW this is just for clarification and possibly for other people's sake. Because even
if you got the concept of "Schadenfreude" wrong, I don't expect whatever your actual intent might have been would be any less idiotic moronic stupid dumb and/or fuckbrained.
Quote from: Cainad on December 12, 2011, 01:22:26 PM
This is basically the same shit as "I'm happy Steve Jobs is dead," only with a more serious topic
Oh, wait. This is the same guy who was happy Steve Jobs was dead.
:troll:
Quote from: Beardman Meow on December 12, 2011, 01:44:20 PM
Quote from: Cainad on December 12, 2011, 01:22:26 PM
This is basically the same shit as "I'm happy Steve Jobs is dead," only with a more serious topic
Oh, wait. This is the same guy who was happy Steve Jobs was dead.
:troll:
Exactly. One-trick pony.
Although I suppose it
does effectively raise our collective hackles. :? Deep-cover troll?
THIS THREAD IS NOW ABOUT META-ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION OF HOW WE AS A GROUP AND AS INDIVIDUALS REACT TO CERTAIN TROLLING TACTICS
AND PDS IS NOT INVITED, NYEH-NYEEEHH.
I think we have to err on the side of explaining every little thing because all assholes think others are secretly assholes too and responding with anything but "that's a dumb thing to say" risks encouraging a sociopath.
Also it's good to practice explaining why something is a fucking stupid thing to say, given how often we encounter fucking stupid opinions.
We're not being trolled, oh no. We're responding on PURPOSE. WE ARE THE SOCIOLOLGICAL EXPERIMENTERS.
Quote from: Beardman Meow on December 12, 2011, 01:44:20 PM
Quote from: Cainad on December 12, 2011, 01:22:26 PM
This is basically the same shit as "I'm happy Steve Jobs is dead," only with a more serious topic
Oh, wait. This is the same guy who was happy Steve Jobs was dead.
:troll:
It's not a troll, though. PDS is kinda dumb and more that a little assburgery.
Quote from: Cainad on December 12, 2011, 01:48:09 PM
AND PDS IS NOT INVITED, NYEH-NYEEEHH.
(http://i174.photobucket.com/albums/w120/jeffreyquah/simpsons_nelson_haha2.jpg)
Quote from: Prelate Diogenes Shandor on December 12, 2011, 05:54:59 AM
If you lost someone in the attacks then you have my sympathy.
But of the 2000-6000 victims who didn't know someone that I sort of know as an online acquaintance, why do they deserve more of my sympathy than the ~147,300* other unaffiliated people who died that day, (assuming that it was otherwise normal), many of them also in my country and also by violence?
(It should be stated here that a more accurate caption would have read "apathy", but I felt that taking it a step too far would make it pop more)
*Based on World Health Organization statistics estimating an average 56 million deaths per year, or about 153319 deaths per day; minus the high end estimate of the WTC death toll to produce a lowball estimate of unrelated deaths.
Because it was a deliberate act that murdered +3000 people and changed the life of everyone else to varying degrees?
You're really a pathetic little dickweed if you can't see that.
Ok the WTC reference was a little out of control. I've modified it to show the pentagon, which seems more more on-message, I hope (as its the war on terror, the patriot act, etc that are mainly what bother me (well, also also don't like the media milking it, but mainly the government's response)).
The message is still a bit muddled. There are actually a couple of points that I'm trying to make, but I can't think of how to express them all at once that doesn't instead simply come off as pointlessly offensive rather than the kind of pointedly shocking that I was going for.
On a slightly different note, my rationale for apathy being related to schadenfreude was that schadenfreude can be seen as a negative value of sympathy, where apathy is zero sympathy.
Your message is more than a little garbled. What the fuck is the point you are trying to make? Because you are utterly failing at making one.
Quote from: Nigel on December 12, 2011, 07:20:13 PM
Your message is more than a little garbled. What the fuck is the point you are trying to make? Because you are utterly failing at making one.
This. Make your point whether you look like an assbag or not.
Because you already do look like one, and may as well clarify what you're on about.
Quote from: Prelate Diogenes Shandor on December 12, 2011, 05:53:48 PM
The message is still a bit muddled. There are actually a couple of points that I'm trying to make, but I can't think of how to express them all at once that doesn't instead simply come off as pointlessly offensive rather than the kind of pointedly shocking that I was going for.
my suggestion ---
Humor is a powerful tool! But you have to use it properly.
If your goal is to show that something is absurd and needs to change, help us see why it's absurd and why we should laugh at it.
Your audience sees this "schadenfreude" caption beneath a familliar image of destruction. Does the caption mean that their reaction to this image should be schadenfreude? Or are they supposed to feel disgusted at the caption? That is, are you trying to incite the audience by drawing their attention to people that rejoice in this destruction?
Above all, the demotivational-poster is a form of humor, so if you want the image to have punch, it needs to be a joke. When the audience laughs, you want them to be laughing with you, seeing your point from your perspective. The poster draws attention to what they
should (in your opinion) be laughing at.
I sense that you're making a point here, but I'm having trouble distilling exactly what it is. Am I laughing at the destruction? the people who laugh at the destruction? Are you trying to increase or decrease schadenfreude? It's unclear to me.
What Cram said about the demotivational poster.
Were meme literate enough to know that style of image gives a one punch joke. If it's something more complex well, make something more complex. Write a poem, story, paint something. But don't rely on something too simple to express something too complex.
The issue is the same: fir my money it's less jarring now but it's still no more funny. Or coherent.
I don't know what you guys are on about. My mind = blown.
For those of you asking, The point that I was trying to make, is that :
the government and the DHS and the media are basically all saying "We need the Patriot Act, and increased oversight, and perpetual baleful mourning, unless of course you like seeing out country attacked"
And the poster is meant to respond "if those are the only two options you're going to give me then apparently I must like seeing our country be attacked. Here's a poster to that effect."
But I don't know how to artfully express that in a demotivational poster...
That's a stupid message. Why are you trying to say it at all?
you've got an if:then in there, which is a bit complicated for the demotivational form.
Sounds like ... you're juxtaposing two images:
-terrorists destroying america
-and {whatever busted thing it is you're shining a flashlight on}
You're essentially saying "YOU MUST CHOOSE"
The next step is to think of a way to present that choice in an absurd and/or humorous way.
I think using explicit 9/11 imagery is a bit much - those images have a lot of connotations (and emotional associations) that you ALSO evoke when you use those images, and that can have the opposite effect than what you intend.
Memetic protip: Any time you use a symbol, you've also evoked the symbol's other associations and contexts. So be careful what you reference!
The last "beat" of the image should punch. If you have a caption under the image, that's where the joke will play out. Humor relies on surprise. So here's what you do: Use an American flag as a bitchin cape. Grab a baseball bat. Yell GET ER DONE. blast the fuck out of a security camera.
FREEDOM=TERRORISM.
Quote from: Prelate Diogenes Shandor on December 13, 2011, 12:03:21 AM
But I don't know how to artfully express that in a demotivational poster...
Then don't try.
Quote from: Beardman Meow on December 13, 2011, 12:10:47 AM
That's a stupid message. Why are you trying to say it at all?
Disagree. That governments and media try to manipulate people into perpetual rage and depression en mass, in order to bypass reason with emotion to manipulate people into complacency with their own agenda is worth expressing artistically.
Problem here is the medium sucks for anything other than a quick punchy joke.
Quote from: Placid Dingo on December 13, 2011, 07:37:27 AM
Quote from: Beardman Meow on December 13, 2011, 12:10:47 AM
That's a stupid message. Why are you trying to say it at all?
Disagree. That governments and media try to manipulate people into perpetual rage and depression en mass, in order to bypass reason with emotion to manipulate people into complacency with their own agenda is worth expressing artistically.
Problem here is the medium sucks for anything other than a quick punchy joke.
That's a different message to the one PDS gave.
(http://img857.imageshack.us/img857/9904/security437.jpg)
Quote from: Placid Dingo on December 13, 2011, 07:37:27 AM
Quote from: Beardman Meow on December 13, 2011, 12:10:47 AM
That's a stupid message. Why are you trying to say it at all?
Disagree. That governments and media try to manipulate people into perpetual rage and depression en mass, in order to bypass reason with emotion to manipulate people into complacency with their own agenda is worth expressing artistically.
Problem here is the medium sucks for anything other than a quick punchy joke.
Problem here is that OP is unclever. And lazy. Doing actual work to elucidate is beyond his wilingness.