Comments on: Princeton parody

By: Prince Roy

Prince Roy — Tue, 30 Jan 2007 09:52:40 +0000

so sorry, that would be ‘poor excuse for satire’.

By: Prince Roy

Prince Roy — Tue, 30 Jan 2007 09:50:35 +0000

I happen to agree with dogberrt: Borat was spectacularly unfunny (I like his Ali G character much better) and this letter is a pure excuse for ’satire’. IMHO, satire works best when it is subtle and doesn’t have to beat your over the head to get its point across. This letter was not satire, but more like slapstick. Very lowbrow slapstick.

By: The Marmot’s Hole » More on Princeton and Asians

The Marmot’s Hole » More on Princeton and Asians — Mon, 29 Jan 2007 08:38:02 +0000

[...] found a little background on Princeton parody that Rob briefly mentioned [...]

By: Andy Jackson

Andy Jackson — Sat, 27 Jan 2007 07:37:16 +0000

seouldout,
Doh!

OK, I give up. Every bad stereotype of Southerners must be true. I guess I will never get a job when I get back to the States.

By: slim

slim — Sat, 27 Jan 2007 07:07:30 +0000

ensuing

By: slim

slim — Sat, 27 Jan 2007 07:07:12 +0000

Speaking of underwhelming comedic efforts and ensiung controversy, what ever happened to the Pusan 9?

By: Zonath

Zonath — Sat, 27 Jan 2007 06:50:57 +0000

I read the link you posted… The part where it really started to unravel for me is where the author used the word ‘liberal’ as an epithet.

composing (with Asian writers involved) a targeted satire.

Well, for the first part, the fact that there were Asian writers involved counts for exactly jack. For the second part, although I can maybe understand why these dumb-asses at Princeton felt compelled to lampoon someone who sued their university, it seems a bit disingenuous for them to claim that their piece was ‘just a satire’ when they honestly should have known better.

By: michael

michael — Sat, 27 Jan 2007 04:49:01 +0000

Zonath, per the Swift reference, read the link I posted.

I agree “Free speech isn’t always in good taste,” but you like others here are missing the point that the student’s paper wasn’t putting on a minstrel show but composing (with Asian writers involved) a targeted satire. Again, read the Crimson piece, which I think makes valid points.

By: seouldout

seouldout — Sat, 27 Jan 2007 04:12:45 +0000

Andy - As the husband of a lovely daughter…

You do the southern man proud.

By: Zonath

Zonath — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 17:17:48 +0000

Some of you must think Jonathan Swift actually wanted English people to eat Irish children.

How’d Johnathan Swift get hooked into this? Did he write “A Modest Proposal” in a phony ‘Mick’ accent and liberally pepper his work with references to eating potatoes, getting drunk, and beating women? It’s been a long time since I read the piece, so I don’t remember exactly.

satire is protected free speech

Just because something is ‘protected free speech’ doesn’t mean we can’t call someone an asshole for saying it. Actually, under the basic premise of free speech, calling that person an asshole is pretty much protected free speech, as well. Free speech isn’t always in good taste. Some illustrations of ‘protected free speech’ that could be considered to be offensive or in bad taste:

A blackface minstrel show. The KKK website. Holocaust denial. Any of Shelton’s posts

Sure, I think you could argue that a minstrel show is just ’satire’ and is ‘protected free speech’, but I don’t think Princeton would win points with many people by staging one…