What is SATIRE and what Gives it Such POWER? How to Recognize and this Tool in Today’s Charged World

by | December 5, 2019

Satire is an immensely powerful tool used to take down the powerful and slay the dragons throughout the history of civilization. It is indirect, often laced with humor to help it be absorbed by the target. It differs from sarcasm though. Real life examples starring Gad Saad, AOC, Jordan Peterson, and Cathy Newman. ———————————— Satire […]

Satire is an immensely powerful tool used to take down the powerful and slay the dragons throughout the history of civilization. It is indirect, often laced with humor to help it be absorbed by the target. It differs from sarcasm though. Real life examples starring Gad Saad, AOC, Jordan Peterson, and Cathy Newman.


Satire is a tool, used throughout history, as in invitation for self reflection, as well as to ridicule the powerful.

It has often been employed when direct disagreement might lead directly to negative consequences, ranging from ostracism in today’s politically correct world, to imprisonment or death in many countries, even today, with authoritarian regimes.

Part of its potency lies in being indirect argument, which makes it harder to confront with outsized force, without looking heavy handed or ridiculous.

So how can you make use of satire to catalyze change, and, be, just recognize it when you see it?

What is Satire?

Satire is a technique to expose and criticize foolishness and corruption of an individual or a society, by using humor, irony, exaggeration, or ridicule. It intends to improve humanity by criticizing its follies and foibles.

How is it Different Than Sarcasm?

Sarcasm is defined as a sharp or ironic utterance designed to cut or give pain;  It is often bitter and caustic, and is usually directed against an individual, whereas satire is meant for a broader audience.

Satire is less incisive, generally more subtle, and roundabout in its critiques.

Difference between satire and trolling

While satire usually tries to criticize an argument or an idea, trolling goes after individuals with the express purpose of provoking an emotional response or deliberately misleading or confusing the reader. Satirists generally do not appreciate confusion or emotional responses, because the satirist attempts to make his absurdity and his argument clear to the majority of people. The satirist implicitly assumes his audience is capable of comprehending subtlety, and this assumption should be seen as a form of respect towards his audiences abilities. He does not assume that many people will not recognize the intention of the absurdity. 

It is true that satire is often confused with trolling, and causes an emotional response, but it must be made clear that this is not the intention of satire, and such responses are usually the result of confusion or misunderstanding on the part of the specific audience.

Why is Satire Effective?

What if I come up to you and tell you, “Your political views, they’re all wrong. You’re a terrible person.”
Most of you will inherently recognize, you have a greater chance surviving standing in the epicenter of a nuclear blast, than changing someone’s mind employing this tactic.

The direct accusation/approach triggers an ego response in the other. It’s viewed as an attack on one’s self, and thus an existential threat to one’s survival, and is generally dealt with harshly, sometimes violently.

Satire, by using mockery or humor, exposes the fallacy of unappealing ideas in a more circuitous fashion. Satire is an invitation to self-reflection.

And the more strident the ideas you’re satirizing, like in judo or jijitsu, the more easily you can use your opponents’ force to throw them off balance and pin them down logically.

You don’t kill the jester.

In midevil times the jester was the one member of the court allowed to point out inconsistencies or foibles of the nobles, or even the king and queen without fear of repercussion.

In today’s political landscape, there are serious consequences for speaking out against the dogma of leftists politics.
Disagree in any way, and you’re instantly labelled a cretin, or worse a Nazi enemy to be dealt with harshly, possibly violently if you’re Andy Ngo a gay, Asian journalist reporting on an Antifa rally in Portland.

Being satirical, allows one to make their point in a manner which is less of a direct attack, and as the modern day jester, is less likely to be meted out with calls of death.

Disguising the medicine

It’s like giving children medicine, a spoonful of sugar makes the medicine go down. Here the satirical humor makes the underlying message easier to swallow.

How To Recognize Satire

One of the reasons that we actually made this video was because in today’s hyper polarized world, it seems everyone is ready to jump down each other’s throat without taking time to evaluate the context or the history of the person they’re engaging.
The issue at hand here, prominent young conservative, Charlie Kirk, a bright guy, took great issue with Dr. Gad Saad, who tweeted out a satirical defense of Alexandria Ocasio Cortez and her making US detention centers the equivalent of Nazi concentration camps by use of the term “never again.”

Charlie, reacted, accusing Professor Saad of being an ideological educator of the worst kind.

So, let’s take a look at how Mr. Kirk, or anyone else, could tell that this was guaranteed satire.

Baseline—  establishing the baseline of the individual

You probably know super calm people who speak slowly and softly and don’t move much.
Then you have people like me who speak quickly and their hands fly about as they describe things.
This is a description of a general trend of behavior that can be expected from an individual- aka our baseline.

When a person deviates from their baseline, we recognize it as abnormal, and hopefully judge their actions accordingly.

So, if your friend whose demeanor is normally much more sloth-like, suddenly starts jumping around and explaining an event to you in hurried speech, you’re likely correct in assuming that he might be agitated or excited.

Much more so than if I were to behave in a similar manner.

If you have a friend who’s normally a slob, and you go over to his home and he’s feverishly cleaning, you might assume that he might have a compelling reason to be doing so; whereas if you found your neat freak Mom cleaning her house, you wouldn’t think twice.

Again, you’ve established a baseline, and an un-anticpated behavior, creates an impetus to explain it.

So, let’s take this to the AOC debate.

When Dr. Saad, as a Jew, fled Lebanon due to the fact that members of the Religion of “Peace,” (note the quotes) were going to murder him and his family, and then tweets that, AOC, under Trump, has it way tougher than any Jew in the holocaust; well there seems to be a massive dichotomy there.
And even if you don’t know his personal history, a simple dig into any Dr. Saad’s writings, tweets, or videos will quickly lead you to a plethora of criticism of SJW’s and Alexandria Occasional Cortex. Mounting an honest defense of her, for anything other than her decision to resign from Congress, seems to be incredibly un  likely.

Of course, you are likely to find a very similarly written post by someone who works for Vox or the Guardian defending Alexandria Occasional Cortex for comparing our border detention facilities to concentration camps in Nazi Germany, where they literally rounded up Jews, shipped them to the camps, and worked them to death or systematically murdered them in gas chambers.

By looking at their other brain dead writings and false comparisons, that they proudly stand behind, you’ve established a baseline, and know that they’re actually serious in their AOC defense.

So the first trick is to actually do a little investigation and establish a baseline, rather than respond with injured emotion to something which on the surface disagrees with your beliefs.
There is no doubt that in today’s society we are inundated with so much much data that we often respond in a Pavlovian manner, and that’s almost certainly what took place when Charlie Kirk criticized Dr Saad.

Breaking Down Satire- reductio ad absurdum

Though it comes in a variety of subtly different forms, the most common variant of satire is “reductio ad absurdum,” in which the author agrees with the basic assumptions that he wants to satirize by pushing them to a logically ridiculous extreme. This exposes the foolishness of the original assumption.

An example of this is when Dr. Saad admits to not knowing the names of famous female soccer players, and blames it on the “patriarchy” which has wrongly taught him to pay attention only to male soccer, and as penance, self-flagellates himself with a belt.

Once again, in this example of reductio ad absurdum, Dr. Saad harnesses the energy and force of his detractors outrage by agreeing with them, and pushing their views to the extreme end, both logically, and meting out to himself the punishment leftist feminists and their allies would like to inflict out to those who refuse to bow to their irrational decrees.

Now, when you see a group of Shiite Muslims self flagellating on the holy Day of Ashura to mourn the passing of the Prophet Muhammad’s grandson, believe it or not this is not meant satirically, as they have tradition, convictions, and scars to back it up.

When Satire Backfires

Satire can risk backfiring when done poorly. This is especially true when there is little to no truth recognized by the audience when one attempts using the tool.

Take for example the Jordan Peterson/Cathy Newman interview.

Jordan, who is incredible debater and wordsmith, does not regularly employ satire, and conversely Cathy Newman went to great lengths in her attempts to exaggerate Peterson’s views and have a “gotcha” moment, pushing them to a logical extreme.

As she did so repeatedly, she clearly was not engaging in a good faith conversation or debate, and inherently the audience recognizes this and turns against the mocking/insincere party with growing hostility.

Good satire is like judo, where the greater the oncoming/extreme force of your opponent, the more you are able to exploit their momentum against them in order to arrest their movements then throw them or pin them with a technique— thus controlling the opponent. In this case Peterson gave her zero to work with, and her attempts made her look absolutely foolish.

So, hopefully, you’ve gained some some insight into recognizing satire and a few of its finer points. In the mean time, let’s all organize our society along the lines of the lobster, let’s stand up against concentration camps, like that recent antifa member did in Washington State when he tried to burn it down with everyone in it, but apparently none of the squad/ leftists/ biased reporting media heard of it, or they would have surely condemned this violent attempt on multiple lives, and hey if you’re on the far Left, I know this probably is over your head as you defend the man as a a “martyr” and all, as you people have lost any sense of humor you might have had.

So just one question:

“Why so serious”
Let’s put a smile on that face. Remember, you don’t kill the joker.


Connect with us


Popular posts

Featured post

Latest posts

Recharge Freedom
Stay Updated

Stay Updated

Because You Save for a Sunny Day, not a rainy one. 

You have Successfully Subscribed!

Share This