Sunday, June 24, 2012
Thursday, June 21, 2012
The Karl Marx MasterCard Is Here
The German bank Sparkasse Chemnitz recently launched a Karl Marx credit card. The bank let people vote online for 10 different images, and Marx was the "very clear winner," beating out a palace, a castle and a racetrack, among others. Reuters has more on the story.NPR's Planet Money Blog has already grabbed the torch from Sparkasse Chemnitz's hilarious customers and started soliciting taglines for this mashup of anti-capitalist and capitalist symbolism. Here are my favorites:
Michael Benveniste (MichaelBenveniste) wrote:
Capital is Dead Labor. Irony is Priceless.
Tim Myers (Mr. Zurkon) wrote:
Control the means of consumption.
Gin Phillips (Ginbug) wrote:
Capitalism: It misses the Marx.
J Sno (Anarchaosmos) wrote:
Philosophers have only interpreted the world, the point, however, is to charge it!
Adam Saunderson (666Larry666) wrote:
Because we all deserve some credit.
David Kemp raised a good question:
Do payments with this card become personal debt, or the people's?
My personal submission is:
Classy.
What does it mean that Sparkasse Chemnitz's customers resoundingly choose such an ironic image for the new credit card? Is it simple kicks and giggles, or a more profound statement about Marxism and the role of credit in contemporary capitalism? Is it satire? I feel like the intentionality required for satire precludes it from arising in a crowdsourced vote. As opposed to a team where the members know each other and are organized to work toward the same end, the members of a group cannot all have the same points to make about a subject. However, a group can think it's pretty funny to put Marx on a credit card. The standard for funny is easier to satisfy than for satire. Like irony, satire has a number of elements interacting together, only one of which is humor (the others being critique, concealment, and imitation). Whenever there is satire there must be humor, but where there is humor, satire is only a possibility.
Tuesday, May 29, 2012
"Throw stuff off a cliff" - DOE
Satire?blog limps into and out of the month of May with the following embed and analysis.
This is from the U.S. Department of Energy's new advertising campaign. They're trying to encourage energy efficiency. They do so by depicting a couple throwing energy-intensive manufactured goods off a cliff: a plasma TV, a bike, a gas grill. The explicit message is "when you don't save energy, you're throwing money away." And the subtext obvious point is mo' money, mo' stuff.
I'm reminded of the words of Christopher Wallace, the street sage and hip hop artist known to the public as the Notorious BIG. The memorable hook to his 1995 verse on Get Money is "fuck bitches, get money," a timeless refrain also preserved in the memepheme (a blend of meme and morpheme I just invented [explainabrag]) here:
I'm reminded because the DOE advertisement is so plainly saying "Fuck Energy. Get Toys." Are they unaware that the rebound effect of this suggested increased consumption would outmatch the energy conserved? Are we to take a plasma TV, constructed from minerals mined around the world, shipped together for manufacture in Asia, and sailed across the ocean to San Fransisco, as a reasonable exchange for equivalent dollar savings in turned off lightbulbs? Or should we take this as the sense of humor DOE is so well known for?
I'm reminded because the DOE advertisement is so plainly saying "Fuck Energy. Get Toys." Are they unaware that the rebound effect of this suggested increased consumption would outmatch the energy conserved? Are we to take a plasma TV, constructed from minerals mined around the world, shipped together for manufacture in Asia, and sailed across the ocean to San Fransisco, as a reasonable exchange for equivalent dollar savings in turned off lightbulbs? Or should we take this as the sense of humor DOE is so well known for?
Tuesday, April 3, 2012
Golden Corral v. Whites: Separate but Cheaper
Golden Corral would like you to believe that black people will jump out of a moving car for a buffet. Meanwhile their pretentious white "friends" are oblivious to the siren song of unlimited mash potatoes. Before you yell "das racist!" consider the following: the black people are given seats at the rear of the vehicle, not being asked to stand. They are well dressed, indicating respect for the ceremonious 10$ entree. Most affirming of all, they will brave any hardship, whether pavement or heart disease, to ensure a financially prudent date night. There's nothing racist about whites and blacks eating at separate restaurants as long as one of them is cheaper.
Wait, it's totally racist, without any commentary on that racism. And it is deliberate.
You can imagine the director asking the black male to slouch more in his seat. It's impossible to imagine this kind of advertisement being storyboarded without someone's 2012 racial consciousness piping up. Is it satire, or should we conclude that this actually fits the expectations of Golden Corral's black guests?
Thursday, March 8, 2012
Pat Robertson Says Marijuana Use Should be Legal
I couldn't help but google the signs of the apocalypse after reading Robertson's statements regarding marijuana. I wasn't fully aware how much my own morality is based on not being like people like Pat Robertson. Thankfully Robertson has never been more than a sideshow, so his endorsement does not singularly change my stance on marijuana.
The opinion of a man who explains earthquakes not with geology, but theology, specifically made up theology, is not one which carries much sway. That's why the following statement about marijuana is so problematic.
“It’s completely out of control,” Mr. Robertson said. “Prisons are being overcrowded with juvenile offenders having to do with drugs. And the penalties, the maximums, some of them could get 10 years for possession of a joint of marijuana. It makes no sense at all.”
Like me and all sensible pragmatists, Robertson has just assessed the cost-benefit of the war on drugs and found it did not pass the test. And as all sensible pragmatists would also advise, never sign a deal with the devil. That rarely works out.
Robertson even employs a facile comparison, “If people can go into a liquor store and buy a bottle of alcohol and drink it at home legally, then why do we say that the use of this other substance is somehow criminal?” This kind of reasoning is great for moral consistency, since it discourages treating one behavior as different from an identical behavior. Marijuana and alcohol are both recreational drugs the Bible does not forbid. Jesus even turned water into wine, “I don’t think he was a teetotaler. The key is moderation, Robertson believes, “When I was in college, I hit [da booze] pretty hard, but that was before Christ."
This kind of reasoning also is terrible for moral consistency, because it provides us no means to reject behaviors which are similar, in this case heroin, cocaine, and ecstasy. Those are also recreational drugs. If we use them in moderation, why should they be illegal? Along the same lines, why shouldn't homosexuals be able to marry? We let heterosexuals marry. Jesus was for love, he wasn't about keeping people apart. “If you follow the teaching of Christ, you know that Christ is a compassionate man,” Robertson said. Either these things should be legal, or alcohol-marijuana is a false moral equivalency.
This mixing and matching between pragmatism, false equivalency, and his typical black-and-white moral condemnation raises the question, is it satire? Is Robertson simply lending his imprimatur to a liberal issue in order to scare moderates like me away? I'd almost prefer to live in a world where one percent of the population is in jail for drug offenses than one where I agree with Pat Robertson. As a career pariah, he must know his opinion negatively correlates with everyone outside his insular base. Perhaps Pat Robertson's metawareness has finally reached the point in his later years that he's willing to wield his brand as a weapon. Either that, or, Pat Robertson actually thinks marijuana use should be legal.
"Something happened a long time ago in Haiti and people might not want to talk about. They were under the heel of the French, you know Napoleon the third and whatever. And they got together and swore a pact to the devil. They said 'We will serve you if you will get us free from the prince.' True story. And so the devil said, 'Ok it's a deal.' And they kicked the French out. The Haitians revolted and got something themselves free. But ever since they have been cursed by one thing after another."
The opinion of a man who explains earthquakes not with geology, but theology, specifically made up theology, is not one which carries much sway. That's why the following statement about marijuana is so problematic.
“It’s completely out of control,” Mr. Robertson said. “Prisons are being overcrowded with juvenile offenders having to do with drugs. And the penalties, the maximums, some of them could get 10 years for possession of a joint of marijuana. It makes no sense at all.”
Like me and all sensible pragmatists, Robertson has just assessed the cost-benefit of the war on drugs and found it did not pass the test. And as all sensible pragmatists would also advise, never sign a deal with the devil. That rarely works out.
Robertson even employs a facile comparison, “If people can go into a liquor store and buy a bottle of alcohol and drink it at home legally, then why do we say that the use of this other substance is somehow criminal?” This kind of reasoning is great for moral consistency, since it discourages treating one behavior as different from an identical behavior. Marijuana and alcohol are both recreational drugs the Bible does not forbid. Jesus even turned water into wine, “I don’t think he was a teetotaler. The key is moderation, Robertson believes, “When I was in college, I hit [da booze] pretty hard, but that was before Christ."
This kind of reasoning also is terrible for moral consistency, because it provides us no means to reject behaviors which are similar, in this case heroin, cocaine, and ecstasy. Those are also recreational drugs. If we use them in moderation, why should they be illegal? Along the same lines, why shouldn't homosexuals be able to marry? We let heterosexuals marry. Jesus was for love, he wasn't about keeping people apart. “If you follow the teaching of Christ, you know that Christ is a compassionate man,” Robertson said. Either these things should be legal, or alcohol-marijuana is a false moral equivalency.
This mixing and matching between pragmatism, false equivalency, and his typical black-and-white moral condemnation raises the question, is it satire? Is Robertson simply lending his imprimatur to a liberal issue in order to scare moderates like me away? I'd almost prefer to live in a world where one percent of the population is in jail for drug offenses than one where I agree with Pat Robertson. As a career pariah, he must know his opinion negatively correlates with everyone outside his insular base. Perhaps Pat Robertson's metawareness has finally reached the point in his later years that he's willing to wield his brand as a weapon. Either that, or, Pat Robertson actually thinks marijuana use should be legal.
Monday, March 5, 2012
Glitterbombing Rick Santorum
A bunch of bigoted one percenters hired some unemployed 20-somethings to glitterbomb Rick Santorum. And they threw the glitter at him, and no one much cared.
Stupid-ass embedding disabled by request.
http://youtu.be/D4eTuOJhWS8
After landing most of the glitter harmlessly on the ground near Santorum, the protesters revealed their motivation for such enormous symbolic act: they yelled "You hate gays!" at Rick Santorum, one of the less fruitful protest tactics I've seen. The only way it makes sense is if Santorum rushes to defend himself, which is 1)unlikely, since your critique does not come from a position of influence or thoughtfulness and, 2)not even damning were he to decide to. It's like they wanted to provide Santorum the opportunity to reiterate his position on family values.
If that weren't enough to raise suspicion of whether this is actually satire, as they are escorted away the protesters inexplicably begin shouting "occupy!" This fourth-wall breaking is only useful when making a comment on the art, otherwise it's just a disruption. No real occupy protester would be so dumb as to associate their cause with half-assed glitterbombing. Occupy stands for much larger, egalitarian issues and seeks to achieve a real change in democracy. Nice try bigoted one percenters, but no one with half a brain believes that was a real protest.
On the other hand, it is possible some real protesters just punked themselves by valuing zeal more than intelligence, and enthusiasm more than planning. Demonstrating solidarity as you voluntarily leave could be a means to save face at what would embarrass 99% of people. Is it satire?
Stupid-ass embedding disabled by request.
http://youtu.be/D4eTuOJhWS8
After landing most of the glitter harmlessly on the ground near Santorum, the protesters revealed their motivation for such enormous symbolic act: they yelled "You hate gays!" at Rick Santorum, one of the less fruitful protest tactics I've seen. The only way it makes sense is if Santorum rushes to defend himself, which is 1)unlikely, since your critique does not come from a position of influence or thoughtfulness and, 2)not even damning were he to decide to. It's like they wanted to provide Santorum the opportunity to reiterate his position on family values.
If that weren't enough to raise suspicion of whether this is actually satire, as they are escorted away the protesters inexplicably begin shouting "occupy!" This fourth-wall breaking is only useful when making a comment on the art, otherwise it's just a disruption. No real occupy protester would be so dumb as to associate their cause with half-assed glitterbombing. Occupy stands for much larger, egalitarian issues and seeks to achieve a real change in democracy. Nice try bigoted one percenters, but no one with half a brain believes that was a real protest.
On the other hand, it is possible some real protesters just punked themselves by valuing zeal more than intelligence, and enthusiasm more than planning. Demonstrating solidarity as you voluntarily leave could be a means to save face at what would embarrass 99% of people. Is it satire?
Sunday, January 22, 2012
Guy Garvey, lead singer of Elbow, sounds like Winnie the Pooh
In my continued attempt to find some search term niche in which this blog shows up on the first page of Google results (is it satire?), I offer you the following means to ruin the experience of listening to Elbow, a good band.
Watch this.
And with that fresh in your ears, listen to this Elbow song.
Embedding disabled by request: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iL4mywCOJXA#t=00m53s
Nevermind that he's singing "There's a hole in my neighbourhood down which of late I cannot help but fall," Guy Garvey, lead singer of Elbow, sounds like Winnie the Pooh. And once you realize this, you can't unhear it. Winnie's there in every track, albeit with a little more effort in his pronunciation. Still Winnie. You think he's singing about an Audience with the Pope, but it's just a metaphor for honey. Seldom Seen Kid? Because he's stuck.
You can't unhear it.
Watch this.
And with that fresh in your ears, listen to this Elbow song.
Embedding disabled by request: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iL4mywCOJXA#t=00m53s
Nevermind that he's singing "There's a hole in my neighbourhood down which of late I cannot help but fall," Guy Garvey, lead singer of Elbow, sounds like Winnie the Pooh. And once you realize this, you can't unhear it. Winnie's there in every track, albeit with a little more effort in his pronunciation. Still Winnie. You think he's singing about an Audience with the Pope, but it's just a metaphor for honey. Seldom Seen Kid? Because he's stuck.
You can't unhear it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)