From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Hi! I created this but I forgot to log in. I borrowed quite heavily from The Guardian article. Any further help would be great. :) --Lucifuge Rofacale (talk) 16:18, June 28, 2013 (UTC)

This article needs more humor in it. Right now, it reads like a political rant against Salon. It also needs more content, and less lists. -- Simsilikesims(♀GUN) Talk here. 16:25, June 28, 2013 (UTC)
You asked me to comment, as I perhaps align more closely with the author, but your take on it is exactly mine too. I don't like rants even against my adversaries (except when they are clever and funny). And I famously argue that you ought not make fun of Party X by exaggerating it, because there are many people in Party Y who do so in complete seriousness, and every party has extremists, so some of the exaggeration is anecdotally true and that makes it unfunny too.
This starts with the Wildeism: that Salon, versus Conservapedia, means what it says? Hmm, author must believe that Conservapedia is a joke (which it isn't, at least to them). So author must be on the left? Ah, but this is irony, as author is on the right and is mocking Salon, which is on the left. You see? already you have me tied up over where author is coming from--as he is not coming from funny.
To pick a random line in one of the lists: Fascism--Not wanting the government to own your life and property. In other words, Salon calls an impulse fascistic when it is entirely wholesome. Now, I (maybe more than Simsie) have such non-wants, and I agree that Salon might call them fascistic. But all that list shows is that Salon uses biased terms, which one can wryly translate when one (who is the author) has opposite biases. That's unremarkable, and unfunny.
The list item on feminism is promising, as Simsie would agree: that complimenting a lady has often come to be regarded as oppressive. But its promise is that it could lead to absurd situations, not merely that it shows that the Salon authors are damned biased lefties. The latter is all this article does with it.
The list focuses on the term "liberal." That the American meaning has drifted is so well-known as to be trite (except to all our readers in the British commonwealth), it is nothing that Salon did, and it doesn't even belong in a list where the joke is the non-joke that Salon is, unsurprisingly, biased. Just above is Libertarian, a term that has not drifted at all. This list item has neither humor nor clarity.
Speaking of Libertarian, on the main page today is an article I wrote that deals with right-versus-left; and as I said in my self-nom, the previous version had a dash of Libertarians are right, and a dollop of Libertarians are wrong (they want to deliver us into the hands of ruthless corporations); I got rid of that and substituted: Libertarians are just laughably ineffective. Everyone can enjoy that., by comparison, is here not to amuse but to evangelize: to make the case that Salon is so biased as to be unreliable, and to make it with just enough humor to gain admission to Uncyclopedia. Spıke Ѧ 17:41 28-Jun-13
PS--I rarely bother anyone here with my belief that leftists are wrong. But leftism (like rightism) is also funny: It has aspects that can be portrayed as inconsistent and can lead to absurdities. A separate problem is that previous generations of left-wing and right-wing Uncyclopedians have already pursued these themes in articles such as Liberalism. Unless author wants to try to improve on one of them, the present article needs a lot more detail that is specific to Salon. About the only thing I read about Salon in the article is that it is populated by caricatures. Spıke Ѧ 17:48 28-Jun-13

Well I'm an Objectivist so I'm right-wing but not a Conservative, hence the "Conservapedia" joke at the top. And let's face it, even Conservatives are embarrassed by Conservapedia. This is still a work in progress as it rightly says at the bottom so I'm going to expand more on the jokes because I think this article has a lot of potential. Nevertheless, it's quite difficult to satirise Salon as they do such a good job of it themselves. In many cases, I think truth is stranger than fiction. Just a quick glance at Salon will probably make you laugh more than this article. --Lucifuge Rofacale (talk) 20:38, June 28, 2013 (UTC)

There are plenty of Salon readers who don't find Salon hilarious. The fact that it doesn't take much to make you laugh at it owes to your (our) bias. It will take more work to make the average reader laugh at Salon. Thus the article needs more than an expansion; it needs a refocus. Spıke Ѧ 20:45 28-Jun-13

edit A small compliment

I have never heard of but by the content of this article can guess what it is. This article is very well written and I love it. Only one small thing. The brain diagram seems to think that leftists are not very patriotic, I would beg to differ as I myself are a lefty and am very patriotic. This may be different in the USA but I think you may be getting confused between hippy anarchy and lefty (lefties in Britain are usually quite authoritarian and want strong state so not hippy). Just a thought, that's all. Sir ScottPat (talk) White Ensign Scotland Flag 1 Compassrose VFH UnS NotM WotM WotY 20:58, June 28, 2013 (UTC)

edit Spooky

Remember when I wrote "Why haven't they invented a vibrator you text with yet so I can multitask?" Well have a look at this: --Lucifuge Rofacale (talk) 14:37, June 7, 2015 (UTC)

Personal tools