Is irony dead, or is it just impossible to recognize?

[urbpan]

A friend just sent me a link to a music video, in which a sparkly-eyed, chubby young man with an apprentice mustache and a pink button-down shirt sings a song called "God Hates Fags." He looks into the camera lens with a Borat-like appearance of sincerity, telling us that "to enter heaven there's no back door," "Jesus my savior is the only man for me!" and "bein' gay is nothin' but a choice!" He also speaks quite personally in the song of "fighting his urges," and so on.

It's pretty hard to take seriously, even though the video shows the address of "Love God's Way," an apparently serious anti-gay Christian site. There you can find a list (woefully incomplete) of "bands to watch out for" lest your child be swayed by their messages of gay tolerance (I assume). This list includes bands with known homosexual members: the magnetic fields, judas priest, the village people (not the village people) but also a few surprises for me, such as metallica (I must not be listening closely enough) and motorhead (leather and motorcycles are too close, I guess). Jeopardizing the illusion of seriousness is the inclusion of parenthetical explanations for some of the bands. Next to Ted Nugent is the remark "(loincloth)". Next to Elton John is the clarification "(really gay)". I'm not sure what to make of the question marks bracketing the remark next to Morrissey "(?questionable?)" or how to interpret the listing of George Michael "(Texan)".

The internet is a funny place. In a medium with bonsai kitten, a world where the technology allows Creationists an audience, how can I interpret this stuff? I have to file it in a special place in my head, in a buffer zone where information can sit beside anti-information without detonating.

Why has wikipedia permanently removed Poe's Law?

"Without the use of a winking smiley or other blatant display of humor, it is impossible to make a parody of Fundamentalist Christians that someone won't mistake for the real thing."

Comments

[droserary.livejournal.com]

I saw this about a week ago. If it is indeed meant to be a spoof, bravo.

If not, I wondered why Janis Ian, Carol Channing, Liza Minnelli, and Liberace weren't on the list of people to watch out for.



I also noticed Eminem was misspelled Eminmen (Freudian slip?) and that Cyndi Lauper, who does countless benefits for LGBT organizations, was on the "safe" list. I mean, c'mon... "Girls just want to have fun"?


Ah, and if you want to see the discussion for why Poe's Law was deleted the first time around, see the the "articles for deletion" debate. Subsequent deletions were "speedy deleted" because material was simply reposted after the AfD debate.

[urbpan.livejournal.com]

Liberace's vagina costume is fabulous.

[droserary.livejournal.com]

You know, you and cottonmanifesto aren't the first people to say that. I first saw the picture on the Janis Ian message board under this exact topic. Someone posted the picture and two posts later, someone mentioned it resembled a vagina. Having never seen one myself (and never planning to! kthx), I was perplexed.

Is this some joke I missed out on from long ago? Or did 3 people independent of each other come to the same conclusion?

[urbpan.livejournal.com]

No, man, it really looks like a big stylized vulva. He's like a living Georgia O'Keefe painting. It can't be accidental.

[cottonmanifesto.livejournal.com]

i metaquoted you.

[cottonmanifesto.livejournal.com]

that is the most vaginal thing i've seen that's not an actual vulva or a georgia o'keefe painting.