![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Via ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
rabbitucker via Facebook, I present to you the following:
NRA Starts Up Their Shit About What Would Be Even Greater Injustice
The above article is from The Onion. It is a satirical piece.
Now, I also present to you the following:
NRA Board Member Blames Murdered Reverend For Death Of His Congregants In Charleston Church Mass Shooting
The above article is from Media Matters. It is reporting on a thing that was actually expressed by a human being (and, in fact, the same human being who was being satirized in The Onion article, that Charles L. Cotton shitbird from the NRA). It is not a satirical piece.
I'll just copy/paste here my comment torabbitucker's Facebook post:
Poe's Law. Oh man, Poe's Law. If I hadn't explicitly known this was an Onion article and had just found it floating around in the wilds of the Internet, I'd have probably believed it at first (or, at least, would have believed that it was indeed someone legitimately reacting angrily to something that was actually said by some NRA assclown and that the article writer was simply using hyperbole to describe it, rather than it merely being The Onion doing what The Onion does best). Aside from the last bit about about them urging Congress to pass a law to allow carrying of semi-autos into a church, which would seem pretty crazy even for the NRA... but even then... ¬_¬
Except that... well... based on that Media Matters link you posted, it turns out that the Onion article truly could have been, and likely *was*, someone legitimately reacting angrily to something that was actually said by that NRA assclown and using hyperbole to describe it. Yeah, the difference between the MM article and the one from The Onion are minuscule. The only real difference I saw is that the Onion article puts a more positive spin on it by saying (as satire) that they wanted to "honor" the victims by passing the law, whereas the MM article (i.e. the thing that is reporting something that was actually said/typed by a human being) is actually *worse* in that the NRA guy being reported on is negatively blaming the victim for NOT supporting similar laws. In other words, the thing that was meant as satire somehow managed, at least for me, to actually be *less* outrageous and offensive and idiotic than the thing that was legitimately said.
(...and then I made the *horrendous* mistake of briefly scrolling down to the comments under the MM article. Hoo boy.)
rabbitucker via Facebook, I present to you the following:NRA Starts Up Their Shit About What Would Be Even Greater Injustice
The above article is from The Onion. It is a satirical piece.
Now, I also present to you the following:
NRA Board Member Blames Murdered Reverend For Death Of His Congregants In Charleston Church Mass Shooting
The above article is from Media Matters. It is reporting on a thing that was actually expressed by a human being (and, in fact, the same human being who was being satirized in The Onion article, that Charles L. Cotton shitbird from the NRA). It is not a satirical piece.
I'll just copy/paste here my comment to
rabbitucker's Facebook post:Poe's Law. Oh man, Poe's Law. If I hadn't explicitly known this was an Onion article and had just found it floating around in the wilds of the Internet, I'd have probably believed it at first (or, at least, would have believed that it was indeed someone legitimately reacting angrily to something that was actually said by some NRA assclown and that the article writer was simply using hyperbole to describe it, rather than it merely being The Onion doing what The Onion does best). Aside from the last bit about about them urging Congress to pass a law to allow carrying of semi-autos into a church, which would seem pretty crazy even for the NRA... but even then... ¬_¬
Except that... well... based on that Media Matters link you posted, it turns out that the Onion article truly could have been, and likely *was*, someone legitimately reacting angrily to something that was actually said by that NRA assclown and using hyperbole to describe it. Yeah, the difference between the MM article and the one from The Onion are minuscule. The only real difference I saw is that the Onion article puts a more positive spin on it by saying (as satire) that they wanted to "honor" the victims by passing the law, whereas the MM article (i.e. the thing that is reporting something that was actually said/typed by a human being) is actually *worse* in that the NRA guy being reported on is negatively blaming the victim for NOT supporting similar laws. In other words, the thing that was meant as satire somehow managed, at least for me, to actually be *less* outrageous and offensive and idiotic than the thing that was legitimately said.
(...and then I made the *horrendous* mistake of briefly scrolling down to the comments under the MM article. Hoo boy.)
