HenryKissiger
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2017
I can't explain this very well, so here are some made up quotes which may sound familiar. Hopefully they provide enough of hint about what I'm getting at, but there will be more explanation after.
• "Neo Yokio isn't a bad anime, it's just pretending to be bad so it can poke fun at anime tropes. It's actually a good show because of that; you just don't get it."
• "Jim Sterling's 'Videogame Show What I've Done' is just Jim pretending to be retárded, he's not actually retárded, I promise."
• "CinemaSins aren't bad at reviewing movies, they're just pretending to be bad for entertainment purposes."
• "The Angry Video Game Nerd and Gordon Ramsey aren't angry people with potential anger problems, they're just pretending to be angry for the camera because it makes for interesting viewing."
• "This thread isn't poorly conceived or incomprehensible, it's just pretending to be those things to provoke insightful discussion."
I'm thinking 'Poe's Law' describes the things these quotes are referring to, but there must be something more fitting?
For example: a satirical cartoon done well doesn't need to be explained, and usually most people catch on that it's satire, and can appreciate its existence. If a satirical cartoon is done poorly, it's almost no different from being a bad cartoon, and so it's met with mostly criticism.
How long can something pretend to be something else, before it actually becomes that something else? When is "not getting the joke" a disingenuous attempt to criticize something you don't like, and when is it justified? When is "pretend" bad content just bad? Not saying either side is right or wrong - each individual piece of media needs to be evaluated on its own merits.
Does anyone understand what I'm talking about? It feels like I've over-complicated something very simple, but I haven't seen open discussion about this.
• "Neo Yokio isn't a bad anime, it's just pretending to be bad so it can poke fun at anime tropes. It's actually a good show because of that; you just don't get it."
• "Jim Sterling's 'Videogame Show What I've Done' is just Jim pretending to be retárded, he's not actually retárded, I promise."
• "CinemaSins aren't bad at reviewing movies, they're just pretending to be bad for entertainment purposes."
• "The Angry Video Game Nerd and Gordon Ramsey aren't angry people with potential anger problems, they're just pretending to be angry for the camera because it makes for interesting viewing."
• "This thread isn't poorly conceived or incomprehensible, it's just pretending to be those things to provoke insightful discussion."
I'm thinking 'Poe's Law' describes the things these quotes are referring to, but there must be something more fitting?
For example: a satirical cartoon done well doesn't need to be explained, and usually most people catch on that it's satire, and can appreciate its existence. If a satirical cartoon is done poorly, it's almost no different from being a bad cartoon, and so it's met with mostly criticism.
How long can something pretend to be something else, before it actually becomes that something else? When is "not getting the joke" a disingenuous attempt to criticize something you don't like, and when is it justified? When is "pretend" bad content just bad? Not saying either side is right or wrong - each individual piece of media needs to be evaluated on its own merits.
Does anyone understand what I'm talking about? It feels like I've over-complicated something very simple, but I haven't seen open discussion about this.
Last edited:
