In which satire is misunderstood

Charlie Brooker’s Guardian piece on the mayoral elections isn’t the finest thing he’s ever written, although it does capture quite well the “yes, I know Ken’s a bit dodgy, but at least he’s not the other cunt” feeling that appears highly popular at the moment.

[everyone I've spoken to in real-world-life on this either believes in the abolition of all social benefits and the reintroduction of flogging, or thinks that Boris is a disastrous idea for mayor and would happily vote for a hyena in a red rosette to keep him out...]

In response, DK and Longrider have written utterly stupid articles – definitely unworthy of DK, at least (some people seem to like Longrider, but I’ve never seen him produce anything beyond slightly less insane and witless versions of Richard Littlejohn talking points).

Both of them seem distraught at Charlie’s suggestion that:

Now, even if the Standard photographs Ken carving a swastika into a dormouse’s back, I’ll vote for him…

Look guys, it’s pretty simple. Charlie isn’t not suggesting that if Ken is actually caught carving a swastika into a doormouse’s back, he’ll still vote for him. He’s taken a mildly surreal example of The Worst Thing Someone Could Possibly Be Caught Doing, and then used it hyperbolically to explain his actual point, that his dislike of Boris Johnson is so strong that Ken would need to do something really unpleasant in order to lose his tactical vote.

And Longrider wins extra Aspergers points for the suggestion elsewhere in his “fisking” (it seems odd that someone a million times braver and more informative than these bastards, and who turned out to be right about more or less everything he was slated for in 2003, has had his name turned into an adjective for “unconvincingly calling someone better than you a cunt”, but there you go) that Brooker doesn’t understand satire…

12 thoughts on “In which satire is misunderstood

  1. I’ll accept the implied compliment and also the overt criticism. I was being rather lazy.

    I have updated the original post, clarifying my “bigot” remark.

    DK

  2. I’m not sure Fisk was right about Iraq. It is terrible but nowhere near as Terrible as he put forward

    RS

  3. Dirty Protest says:

    Devil, even from the squalor of our council houses we can still manage to muster hate for the man.

  4. Falco says:

    What pisses me off about the aforementioned dog dirt of an article is that Brooker has a brain but has clearly chosen not to use it:

    “I’m genetically predisposed to hate the Tories. It’s my default, hard-wired position.”

    Bollocks of the first water showing that he has obviously put sod all thought into his views, preceded by lies and with a side dose of hypocrisy. What a little shitbag.

  5. PDF says:

    Where are the lies exactly? Everything he says about Boris is true (c’mon, if Ken had come up with the kind of pathetic explanation that Boris gave over the Guppy-reporter-beating, then the ES would run a front-page spread that he was a lying thug whose friends were fraudsters, and you lot would rightly rip him to shreds. And where’s the libel suit exactly).

    Also – if you suggest that you hate a particular bunch of lying scumbags because they were a bunch of lying scumbags when you first became politically aware, and that you’d therefore need to be damn confident that the alternative was worse in order to trust a single word that the lying scumbags say, does not mean you haven’t thought about the position.

    When someone like Falco or DK, who we know hates Gordon Brown with every fibre of his heart and soul, points out that GB is a cunt for [whatever the latest reason is], do we automatically assume the post is ill-thought-out tripe on the grounds that it begins with “Gordon Brown is a shitty shitty cunt and I fucking hate him with every fibre of my heart and soul”, or do we read the post while bearing in mind that the writer is unlikely to be wholly objective? If we aren’t fuckwits, we do the latter.

    Finally, anyone who uses pathetic euphemisms like “dog dirt” on this blog from now on gets a permanent ban. It’s dog faeces, dog excrement, dog shit or dog poo – I’ll even accept dog turd and dog crap – but fuck off with your ‘dirt’…

  6. Jim Bliss says:

    What about “dog sludge”?

  7. PDF says:

    Assuming it’s an authentic Irish colloquialism, it can be used by anyone eligible for an Irish passport.

  8. Jim Bliss says:

    Actually, it’s not an Irish colloquialism. It was a phrase used by a Saudi Arabian engineer who worked on a project I was managing in Riyadh. His previous contract had been at a sewage-treatment plant where they used the term “sludge” to describe the incoming effluent. He assumed it was the English word for “shit” and remarked, after a brief visit to England, that he couldn’t believe the streets of London had so much “dog sludge” on them.

    Since then the phrase has become a bit of a private joke.

  9. PDF says:

    Yes, OK, allowed.

  10. Falco says:

    I apologise fucking profusely for the use of “dog dirt” rather than “dog shit/poo/etc” but I happened to like the cunting alliteration, you cunt.

    As for the bollocks about Guppy, just because the ES would run an equivalent story about Ken does not mean that I would agree with it or be impressed by the journalistic standards. I don’t like Ken, I disagree with much of his political philosophy, believe him to be corrupt and think it is time for him to go. Despite this if someone made shit up about him that I knew to be untrue I would, as you know perfectly fucking well, defend him on that specific point.

    My point about Brooker was simply that he has closed off his mind completely about the tories. I am not keen on them at the moment because they are very much against many policies that I believe to be important but if they changed their views I would reconsider. The tories could support everything that Brooker believes in and have halos coming out of their arses and he still wouldn’t vote for them. That’s what is fucking stupid about the point of his I quoted.

  11. Larry Teabag says:

    Brooker is intolerant of Tories and is, therefore, a bigot.

    Whereas DK is tolerant to a fault of Labourites, Lib-dems, socialists, etc., and is therefore not a bigot. Or a hypocrite. Christ. Let’s just say that post isn’t the finest thing he’s ever written.

  12. CBass says:

    Proof that Boris Johnson is, as the scouser said, a Dickhead (why don’t they use a still of the bewigged cock on a bike as their intro?)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>