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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
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.
It depends on whether the underlying message is true. If the viewer thinks it is a lie, it’s misinformation. If they think it is true, it is satire. Is the underlying message in this post true?
It seems clear that you don’t think it is true. Others think it is, and see it as satire. The question that begs to be asked is, “Why do they think it is true?”
I happen to be in full agreement about the hypocrisy people are identifying.
However, I believe your definition of “satire” leaves so much gray area to make it a useless word. Pizza gate is satire according to your definition. Q Anon is satire. All the lies republicans spread about democrats is satire.
I’m not willing to accept that and I expect better from the content that supports my ideology.
Pray tell, what satirical truth was Pizza Gate and Q-Anon elucidating? Were there Democrats feasting on the adrenochrome of infants in a basement of a pizza restaurant? No? Then it is “deceptive,” and thus misinformation. Is President Biden a cloned actor that is trying to instate a One World Government? No? Then it is misinformation and deception.
Deception seeks to subvert or mask the truth. Satire seeks to comically demonstrate the truth. Satire can’t be untruthful, or else it ceases to be satire and becomes just a lie. This post, if truthful, can’t be a lie; thus, it is satire.
Pray tell, what satirical truth was Pizza Gate and Q-Anon elucidating? Were there Democrats feasting on the adrenochrome of infants in a basement of a pizza restaurant?
No?
In your opinion. Others have different opinions. Satire can be whatever the viewer wants it to be apparently…
If you think this is satire, then that’s fine for you. I think at best it is a crappy attempt at satire that muddles whatever point they wanted to convey. At worst it is a lie meant to appeal to the homophonic Facebook (pardon the slur) boomers looking to justify their ideology.
For me, if you want to call it satire, it better be obvious that the creator intended it to be taken as satire and not truth.
It might be bad satire. It could also be conservative disinformation. Truth can be subjective , dependent on culture and lived experiences. But we should never stop trying to discover Objective Truth for the sake of humanity. Our existence depends on it.
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”.
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)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I mean that someone saw hostile architecture and then decided to photoshop a trans flag over it for political reasons.
We, as strangers, will never know their exact motivation, but I think if their idea was a message regarding the unfair treatment of economically disadvantaged people or neoliberal hypocrisy, there would be much better ways to communicate the issue, that don’t involve something that can easily be construed as anti-trans messaging.
It’s a bit vibes based, but you know… people ain’t robots, and even if that wasn’t the original intent, that’s how the message comes across. And I’d rather have a better, more poignant statement that’s worth repeating, rather than this, perhaps unintentionally, bad one.
Especially because people will take this at face value and there are more photoshopped images just like this, making the whole thing a bit sussy, imo.
I’m an entire person, not a single-sided strawman. I edited my reply to also state that I think neolibs suck too, if that helps to unflatten my thoughts on this a bit. And because I think they do.
I’d also like to add that I’ve seen this image and others like it posted in anti-progressive groups by anti-progressive people, instilling exactly the message I explained earlier. Which is why I say the message either isn’t clear, or just bad.
I don’t feel like I’m “gasping at straws”. I feel my argument is somewhat reasonable and I hope my point is a little clearer now.
I still believe that your interpretation is unreasonable and mine is much more likely regardless of your anecdotal experience in anti-progressive groups, but I apologize for unfairly assuming bad intent on your part. Have a nice day!
If I had to take a guess at the motivations, I think someone saw the spikes as well as the equality sign in the window and took a picture because that’s kinda a juxtaposition. But I’m guessing that didn’t give enough “zing” that would be noticed as an internet post, so they edited the trans flag on the spikes to make it less subtle.
You’re at the top of my comment chain, so I’m replying to agree with you and take this further.
Whoever photoshopped this and the other one with the park bench that’s floating around is trying to pit liberals against each other by making it seem like fighting for trans rights and fighting to house the unhoused are opposed to each other.
Damn, didn’t realize conservatives put that little amount of thought into their political statements.
Literally the best result here is someone goes “yeah, that’s politicians for you, pretending to do something, by displaying something, but actually doing something else” If anything, this is basically commentary on how shitty politics is. More than whatever the fuck anyone else thinks it could possibly be.
Sure, except I’m in California where it is two very different fights. Try reversing any LGBTQ Rights and you’ll get tarred and feathered. Suggest the Homeless shouldn’t be hunted in the streets and you also get tarred and feathered.
It’s like living in reverse land where instead of “fiscal responsibility” and “traditional social values”; we have “fiscal responsibility” and “progressive social values”.
I mean yeah the point is the same, and this is universally awful no matter the colour. I would still like to know if this exact case of lib bs has actually occurred
“Ya’ll, we made a mistake! While rocks r a common [part] of anti-homeless architecture, this particular rock is NOT. It’s a Japanese garden,” said the Coalition On Homeless. “Izakaya Sushi is a valued member of the community and is supportive of its homeless neighbors. We apologize [and] offer deep appreciation to the staff.”
Add comment