Edit to elaborate: Whether or not this specific one is real, it perfectly illustrates the hypocrisy of trans ally neoliberals who persecute and punish unhoused people for existing near them.
If there were so many examples of this in the real world, then you wouldn’t need to photoshop one.
You do to make it fun.
But your statement suggests you don't think its a thing.
The French Revolution was well documented and people still enjoy A Tale of Two Cities
Are you saying we don't need any fiction - novels, tv, movies, jokes, comics, memes... because there exists non-fiction versions?
I think you and the others trying to pass off the same idea don’t seem to understand the problem here. It’s not that you can’t have satire, or fiction that acts as a social commentary. It’s that all of the examples you are mentioning aren’t trying to pass themselves off as reality . Nobody reads A Tale of Two Cities and thinks that it is literal. Or A Modest Proposal. This here is trying to pass itself off as real and as soon as it gets called out for it, the choir shows up to say “Oh, so we can’t have satire anymore”.
I genuinely don't think anyone thinks these are trans-inclusive homeless spikes.
At best they got painted bright colors for visibility and they accidentally used the trans flag
at arguably more best, someone decided to vandalize them as an act of political commentary.
"It's often said that the most potent form of rhetoric is the contradictory form" - i just made that up :)
Again, it's an illustration of the hypocrisy. It doesn't need to literally exist as a physical object in order to make the point.
It's a fabrication of a hypocrisy. If the hypocrisy is real, you wouldn’t need to fabricate it.
Nice try. It is deception. Satire isn’t intended to be deceptive. This post was.
From the description on Wikipedia:
Satire is found in many artistic forms of expression, including internet memes, literature, plays, commentary, music, film and television shows, and media such as lyrics.
Nice try. It is deception. Satire isn’t intended to be deceptive. This post was.
I think I understand. You think it is misinformation. But it would only be misinformation if the underlying message isn’t true. This might help.
It depends on whether the viewer thinks this represents the hypocrisy of trans ally neoliberals who persecute and punish unhoused people for existing near them.
It’s like this real photo from the Black Lives Matter protests:
It was criticized at the time for the hypocrisy of recuperating the protests. If the photo was faked, would it be any less true?
By your definition, there is no difference between deceptive fake news stories and satire. My Facebook wall in 2016 was filled with true news stories and satire and nothing else. You could post whatever lies you want so long as there’s some underlying truth in there.
Then when called out just say it’s satire! You can say pizza gate wasn’t meant to be taken literally. It was just satire pointing out how the elites and lawmakers are abusing our children. Q Anon and Stephen Colbert are two the greatest satirists of our time.
With the advancements of AI, we are going to start seeing more and more fake things that are indistinguishable from reality. If most of the people are convinced the fake thing is literally real, and even if that was the intention of the post, it will still be considered satire because the underlying message is true.
I’m going to assume you don’t believe neoliberal trans allies are being hypocritical about systemic oppression when they advocate for trans rights while shunning the rights of the houseless.
If that is the case, it’s understandable that you would see this post as deceptive misinformation.
But if you understand that systemic oppression affects all intersectional minority groups under capitalism, then you might interpret the post as biting satire.
Just because I don’t understand quantum entanglement doesn’t make it any less real.
Was Stephen Colbert deceptive in the Colbert Report and misinforming the public with fake news? Or was he using satire to inform the public of the hypocrisy of conservative language?
Hmm, biting satire or deceptive misinformation. It’s a personal choice! According to your definitely of satire, you can make up whatever lies you want so long as you believe there’s an underlying truth.
I’ll agree to disagree on that. If the intent is to make you believe the fake thing is real, then it isn’t satire. It doesn’t matter if you or they believe there is truth. It is deception and whatever underlying truth you hoped to convey is lost in the lie.
I mean the hypocrisy really exists, but you're right that this particularly egregious and shocking example is likely a total fabrication.
Sometimes fiction and altered objects depict abstract concept better than real physical objects do and neoliberals tend not to say the quiet parts loudly like the fascist party on the other side of the aisle has increasingly been doing in recent years.
Do you not recognize that this is deceitful? I understand how fiction can present allegories to demonstrate real world themes. But this isn’t that. This is meant to portray reality and real life hypocrisy but is not actually real.
If the hypocrisy is true, why the deception?
If the hypocrisy is true, why the deception
Because the hypocrites do an effective job at explaining away and obfuscating their hypocrisy. This makes it clear in an way that literal reality doesn't.
The rich people weren't literally eating the babies of poor people when Jonathan Swift wrote A Modest Proposal, but that doesn't mean that his point about their callous disregard for those less fortunate was fraudulent.
This is basically visual satire.
Satire is not deceitful. You’re not meant to read A Modest Proposal and think rich people are eating poor babies. You’re meant to recognize the allegory and what it says about our real world.
This post is not satire. It is meant to deceive you into believing it is a real photo.
You're being way too rigid and literal. That's not how it is.
This post is not satire. It is meant to deceive you into believing it is a real photo.
Says you based on faulty reasoning leading to a seemingly willful misunderstanding of the point.
You can’t lie to somebody and when called out say, it’s just satire.
I’m not being rigid at all. You are changing the definition of satire so you don’t have to admit this post is BS.
Nobody said that it physically exists. That's a claim that you inferred.
I repeat: nowhere in the OP or even in the comments does anyone say that it physically exists. The lie you keep complaining about is of your own invention.
This is hilariously flawed logic. I’m guessing you know this and are just trolling now, so I’m gonna tap out.
get fucked with that bullshit. trans allies aren't out there persecuting anyone. jfc, where do you come up with this bullshit?
Tell that to the homeless people forced to play frogger across the interstate near where I live. And the entire working class neighborhood whose flood risk was ignored by the city for decades until this year because it got mostly destroyed.
Camping bans are persecution. Building shiny stuff instead of taking care of people is persecution. It's not bold or in your face but it's real.
Bruh what the fuck did trans people/trans allies have to do with the circumstances that created these issues? Stop using them as a scapegoat.
Anti homelessness is very real and very obvious but I've never seen a fucking pride parade advocating for the removal of safe spaces for the unhoused. I do regularly see politicians advocating for that shit though.
They pass laws protecting the rights of LGBTQ people (Which is awesome). And then they pass laws to criminalize homelessness while they profit off the current state of real estate. (Not awesome)
I don’t think they understand that upstream of these intersectionalities is an indictment of capitalism.
In my experience, the politicians that are out there passing laws to criminalize homelessness are usually the ones that are more outspoken against the rights of LGBTQ people. In any case, trans people's existence has nothing to do with anti homeless laws. Stop trying to conflate the two.
They are both oppressed minority groups under capitalism. This is utilized under the class system to make oppressed minority groups within the system compete with each other for rights.
To go further, hypothetically, the Democrats may advocate for rights for dog lovers while making laws against the cat fans, while Republicans might advocate for the cat fans, while making laws against dog lovers. In that way, the government makes citizens vie for rights while diminishing class unity.
Well yeah, that's the point. They're two different issues and people who support trans people do not necessarily support other oppressed groups. I've been trying to point that out this entire time.
"damn, rich people exist. Ow, fuck, i just fell off a bridge and broke all of my bones" - you rn.
What are you saying?
it's a haha funny about the conflation being made in the original statement.
I'm just smashing two things together, and saying that one caused the other, much like they did.
Then you need to re read something in the chain.
no i understand the point they were making, they stated it in an utterly shit way. That left shit tons of room up for interpretation.
the hypocrisy? The hypocrisy of who? The fucking politicians that fund this type of shit?
WHO ARE WE MAKING FUN OF
The hypocrisy of who? The fucking politicians that fund this type of shit?
WHO ARE WE MAKING FUN OF
The liberals, politician and civilian alike, who support LGBTQ+ people's right to exist without harassment but also are in favor of persecuting and punishing homeless people for existing near them.
Like for example New York Mayor and once a cop always a cop Eric Adams who is in favor of both marriage equality and (not much short of) hunting the homeless for sport.
it's almost like it's not that hard to just, have a good opinion.
True, but it's evidently FAR too hard for anyone with power to not have at least one truly awful one, based on the fact that almost none of them manage it..
to be fair, i think statistically, given the amount of opinions that it is possible to hold, that you are pretty likely to hold at least one objectively shitty opinion.
True, but I'm talking specifically of consequential opinions that profoundly affect the lives of others, not small stuff like not liking black liquorice 😉
i suppose so, but even then, there are just a lot of opinions you can hold. Politics being a massive one. For example, in my opinion, i believe that having any sort of party affiliation is just objectively wrong.
This specific example is badly photoshopped
That's not really the point, though.
Edit to elaborate: Whether or not this specific one is real, it perfectly illustrates the hypocrisy of trans ally neoliberals who persecute and punish unhoused people for existing near them.
If there were so many examples of this in the real world, then you wouldn’t need to photoshop one.
You do to make it fun.
But your statement suggests you don't think its a thing.
The French Revolution was well documented and people still enjoy A Tale of Two Cities
Are you saying we don't need any fiction - novels, tv, movies, jokes, comics, memes... because there exists non-fiction versions?
I think you and the others trying to pass off the same idea don’t seem to understand the problem here. It’s not that you can’t have satire, or fiction that acts as a social commentary. It’s that all of the examples you are mentioning aren’t trying to pass themselves off as reality . Nobody reads A Tale of Two Cities and thinks that it is literal. Or A Modest Proposal. This here is trying to pass itself off as real and as soon as it gets called out for it, the choir shows up to say “Oh, so we can’t have satire anymore”.
I genuinely don't think anyone thinks these are trans-inclusive homeless spikes.
At best they got painted bright colors for visibility and they accidentally used the trans flag
at arguably more best, someone decided to vandalize them as an act of political commentary.
"It's often said that the most potent form of rhetoric is the contradictory form" - i just made that up :)
Again, it's an illustration of the hypocrisy. It doesn't need to literally exist as a physical object in order to make the point.
It's a fabrication of a hypocrisy. If the hypocrisy is real, you wouldn’t need to fabricate it.
It’s called satire.
Nice try. It is deception. Satire isn’t intended to be deceptive. This post was.
From the description on Wikipedia:
Satire often utilizes fiction.
Nice try. It is deception. Satire isn’t intended to be deceptive. This post was.
I think I understand. You think it is misinformation. But it would only be misinformation if the underlying message isn’t true. This might help.
It depends on whether the viewer thinks this represents the hypocrisy of trans ally neoliberals who persecute and punish unhoused people for existing near them.
It’s like this real photo from the Black Lives Matter protests:
It was criticized at the time for the hypocrisy of recuperating the protests. If the photo was faked, would it be any less true?
By your definition, there is no difference between deceptive fake news stories and satire. My Facebook wall in 2016 was filled with true news stories and satire and nothing else. You could post whatever lies you want so long as there’s some underlying truth in there.
Then when called out just say it’s satire! You can say pizza gate wasn’t meant to be taken literally. It was just satire pointing out how the elites and lawmakers are abusing our children. Q Anon and Stephen Colbert are two the greatest satirists of our time.
With the advancements of AI, we are going to start seeing more and more fake things that are indistinguishable from reality. If most of the people are convinced the fake thing is literally real, and even if that was the intention of the post, it will still be considered satire because the underlying message is true.
I’m going to assume you don’t believe neoliberal trans allies are being hypocritical about systemic oppression when they advocate for trans rights while shunning the rights of the houseless.
If that is the case, it’s understandable that you would see this post as deceptive misinformation.
But if you understand that systemic oppression affects all intersectional minority groups under capitalism, then you might interpret the post as biting satire.
Just because I don’t understand quantum entanglement doesn’t make it any less real.
Was Stephen Colbert deceptive in the Colbert Report and misinforming the public with fake news? Or was he using satire to inform the public of the hypocrisy of conservative language?
Hmm, biting satire or deceptive misinformation. It’s a personal choice! According to your definitely of satire, you can make up whatever lies you want so long as you believe there’s an underlying truth.
I’ll agree to disagree on that. If the intent is to make you believe the fake thing is real, then it isn’t satire. It doesn’t matter if you or they believe there is truth. It is deception and whatever underlying truth you hoped to convey is lost in the lie.
I mean the hypocrisy really exists, but you're right that this particularly egregious and shocking example is likely a total fabrication.
Sometimes fiction and altered objects depict abstract concept better than real physical objects do and neoliberals tend not to say the quiet parts loudly like the fascist party on the other side of the aisle has increasingly been doing in recent years.
Do you not recognize that this is deceitful? I understand how fiction can present allegories to demonstrate real world themes. But this isn’t that. This is meant to portray reality and real life hypocrisy but is not actually real.
If the hypocrisy is true, why the deception?
Because the hypocrites do an effective job at explaining away and obfuscating their hypocrisy. This makes it clear in an way that literal reality doesn't.
The rich people weren't literally eating the babies of poor people when Jonathan Swift wrote A Modest Proposal, but that doesn't mean that his point about their callous disregard for those less fortunate was fraudulent.
This is basically visual satire.
Satire is not deceitful. You’re not meant to read A Modest Proposal and think rich people are eating poor babies. You’re meant to recognize the allegory and what it says about our real world.
This post is not satire. It is meant to deceive you into believing it is a real photo.
You're being way too rigid and literal. That's not how it is.
Says you based on faulty reasoning leading to a seemingly willful misunderstanding of the point.
You can’t lie to somebody and when called out say, it’s just satire.
I’m not being rigid at all. You are changing the definition of satire so you don’t have to admit this post is BS.
Nobody said that it physically exists. That's a claim that you inferred.
I repeat: nowhere in the OP or even in the comments does anyone say that it physically exists. The lie you keep complaining about is of your own invention.
This is hilariously flawed logic. I’m guessing you know this and are just trolling now, so I’m gonna tap out.
get fucked with that bullshit. trans allies aren't out there persecuting anyone. jfc, where do you come up with this bullshit?
Tell that to the homeless people forced to play frogger across the interstate near where I live. And the entire working class neighborhood whose flood risk was ignored by the city for decades until this year because it got mostly destroyed.
Camping bans are persecution. Building shiny stuff instead of taking care of people is persecution. It's not bold or in your face but it's real.
Bruh what the fuck did trans people/trans allies have to do with the circumstances that created these issues? Stop using them as a scapegoat.
Anti homelessness is very real and very obvious but I've never seen a fucking pride parade advocating for the removal of safe spaces for the unhoused. I do regularly see politicians advocating for that shit though.
They pass laws protecting the rights of LGBTQ people (Which is awesome). And then they pass laws to criminalize homelessness while they profit off the current state of real estate. (Not awesome)
I don’t think they understand that upstream of these intersectionalities is an indictment of capitalism.
In my experience, the politicians that are out there passing laws to criminalize homelessness are usually the ones that are more outspoken against the rights of LGBTQ people. In any case, trans people's existence has nothing to do with anti homeless laws. Stop trying to conflate the two.
They are both oppressed minority groups under capitalism. This is utilized under the class system to make oppressed minority groups within the system compete with each other for rights.
To go further, hypothetically, the Democrats may advocate for rights for dog lovers while making laws against the cat fans, while Republicans might advocate for the cat fans, while making laws against dog lovers. In that way, the government makes citizens vie for rights while diminishing class unity.
Well yeah, that's the point. They're two different issues and people who support trans people do not necessarily support other oppressed groups. I've been trying to point that out this entire time.
"damn, rich people exist. Ow, fuck, i just fell off a bridge and broke all of my bones" - you rn.
What are you saying?
it's a haha funny about the conflation being made in the original statement.
I'm just smashing two things together, and saying that one caused the other, much like they did.
Then you need to re read something in the chain.
no i understand the point they were making, they stated it in an utterly shit way. That left shit tons of room up for interpretation.
the hypocrisy? The hypocrisy of who? The fucking politicians that fund this type of shit?
WHO ARE WE MAKING FUN OF
The liberals, politician and civilian alike, who support LGBTQ+ people's right to exist without harassment but also are in favor of persecuting and punishing homeless people for existing near them.
Like for example New York Mayor and once a cop always a cop Eric Adams who is in favor of both marriage equality and (not much short of) hunting the homeless for sport.
it's almost like it's not that hard to just, have a good opinion.
True, but it's evidently FAR too hard for anyone with power to not have at least one truly awful one, based on the fact that almost none of them manage it..
to be fair, i think statistically, given the amount of opinions that it is possible to hold, that you are pretty likely to hold at least one objectively shitty opinion.
True, but I'm talking specifically of consequential opinions that profoundly affect the lives of others, not small stuff like not liking black liquorice 😉
i suppose so, but even then, there are just a lot of opinions you can hold. Politics being a massive one. For example, in my opinion, i believe that having any sort of party affiliation is just objectively wrong.