…if one, just ONE person had said, “You know, Ari, I don’t like it when Keith Olbermann exaggerates and calls a person who’s not a murderous terrorist the ‘worst person in the world.’ Now, don’t you start in on that.”
That seems to me to be a respectable criticism.
Seeing as how nobody has said that, I detect a bit of a double standard. It’s not okay for me to say that overly litigious people are contemptible to people who like the cause in which they litigate. But somehow, SOMEHOW, it is okay for Keith Olbermann to say things like THIS:
I don’t watch Keith Olbermann, thus, I am not up to date on his show.
Now. he does put a (not really) in front of his graphics, thus acknowledging that it’s parody. You didn’t do that I had to ask for clarification.
Also, those are all people/situations that seem pretty fair game for spoof. Which isn’t to say your overly litigious lesbians aren’t, but Olbermann’s also not comparing his targets to terrorists specifically, thus your problem. I think if you had gone without that allusion, you’d have gotten less criticism, and there’s plenty of evidence that litigation happy people are terrible people wihout going into more-terrible-then-a-terrorist-not-really-but-in-this-specific-way-that-I’ll-only-explain-in-the-comments.
Is Bristol Palin the worst person in the world? No. (Is she the worst abstinence spokesperson? Probably) Is this a clearly stated parody? Yeah.
NG,
I have an upside down goat on the cover of my book. I have a big “Endorsement” from my buddy Michael Moore (not THAT Michael Moore.) I’d say it’s pretty clear that parody gets done here.
But I wasn’t exaggerating much. Lawsuits can ruin lives. You want to make a political statement? Fine. Sue Walmart. Suing some mom-and-pop joint because of a political disagreement is wrong. I know of a guy who is paralyzed. He goes around with rulers and measuring devices to local businesses to make sure they’re in complete compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act. In EVERY. LITTLE. DETAIL. The regulations are so fine, that violations are inevitable. I would include him among the most loathsome people in the world. He’s bullying without courage.
Bullying is wrong.
You might do parody, but not every article you post is parody. Hence the issue. It wasn’t clear that you were attempting to be satirical when you compared them to terrorists in that article. Either you should have gone bigger or more ridiculous, (say, more loathsome then a clown at a NAMBLA conference) or smaller (say more loathsome then reality tv stars.) Using terrorists as the example just comes across as either crazy or lacking perspective.
You did see my recent post about how jihadis use the Canadian Human Rights Tribunals as places to cleanse the thoughts of those that disagree with them, right? You did notice how there’s a certain, ahem, other group of activists that also seems pretty fond of that procedure?
Maybe the comparison isn’t that far out?
And please note that I did make it pretty clear that terrorists are more evil.
You also said they had courage. Those who kill in the name of God are not brave, they are deluded.
I’m sorry Ari, your tone was muddled, and unclear.