According to a recent study conducted by students at Harvard University, it is now literally impossible to properly satirize the issues of police brutality and corruption.

The study attempted to analyze various attempts at making satire directed at the prevalence of police brutality within the United States, and tried to measure the ability of various pieces of satire to adequately fulfill a number of standards of good satire.

"Satire," said one of the Harvard researchers, Alicia Powell, "is a form of comedy in which one portrays an exaggerated version of a social or political issue, and does so in a tone which clearly suggests condemnation of one side."

She continued, “On the one hand, satirizing the issue of police brutality seems extraordinarily easy. You just need to imagine a scenario where a police officer does something cartoonishly evil, and is defended by practically all of society and gets away with it. This seemed relatively straight-forward, but as our study went on, we came across some surprising - or perhaps not so surprising - results.”

The study involved interviews with various popular satirists, as well as exhaustive analysis of real-world instances of police brutality. One aspect of the study involved showing people a mixture of real headlines and satirical headlines involving police brutality and corruption. A sample size of two thousand people, across many races, genders, and various other backgrounds, showed that literally no one was able to distinguish between the real stories and the fake ones, with an astonishing 84% insisting afterward that clearly every headline was actually satire, as there was no way scenarios so absurd could actually happen in the real world.

One writer for the popular satirical news website The Onion said, “I was going to write an article about a police officer seeing a black man holding a sandwich, saying that the sandwich was actually a gun, and then shooting him ten times. Except now that’s actually happened. Only worse, because first he tasered the teen, and shot him not ten times, but sixteen. How can I write satire when the most absurd, outlandish things I can dream up are actually happening in the real world? I might as well just become a regular journalist, it would literally be the exact same thing at this point.”

Another satirist, the author of the Tumblr news blog The Wishwashington Post, commented, “I give up. I literally give up. I could write a ridiculous article about, like, the Ferguson Police Department doing a drone strike on Ferguson and saying it was self-defense because all the black people all had guns, and then they all get applauded for being brave officers and they all get bonuses and white people shake their heads about how violent black people are and how they were just looking for an excuse to protest or riot and how if they didn’t want to be bombed they should’ve just been more civil to white people… but honestly, I could probably turn to Fox News a few weeks from now and hear that story. Verbatim.”

They went on to say, in an exasperated and hopeless voice, “I can’t do it. They are literally parodies of themselves. I give up. I’m done.”

While the study did account for the phenomenon of Poe’s Law, in which satire of extremism is often indistinguishable from the real thing, the study nevertheless concluded that true satire of police brutality is now impossible. One of the study’s closing comments read, “You can poke fun at the extremes of certain situations, but when extreme is the norm, it seems almost fruitless and redundant. You could write a satirical article about how the sky is so incredibly blue, and you can play up how absurdly blue it is, but when you look up, it really is that blue. You haven’t made anything up. You haven’t made a cartoonish parody of the real thing. You’ve documented a fact. It’s not satire, it’s just humorous, depressing journalism.”

Police Brutality Now Literally Impossible To Satirize, Study Finds

The Wishwashington Post

(via adisagestar)

Poe’s Law in action…

(via mousathe14)

(Source: thewishwashingtonpost, via supersagan)

Asked by Anonymous Anonymous

Can you explain to me why everyone hates dubs so much? I know there's a lot of dubs that aren't very well done and lots people say the Japanese voice acting is better but if you're watching subbed it's not like you can understand it anyways. I personally kinda like dubs because its nice to not have to use 100% of my focus it's easier watch but That seems to be a fairly unheard of opinion. It just seems everyone hates on dubs and I just don't get why

edwardspoonhands:

I’ll admit it…this is a hipster thing. For the first 10 years I watched anime (the 1990s) subbed was usually the only option. When dubs existed they were almost invariably bad. So I got used to it being one way…now, watching dubbed anime just feels wrong…it feels phony to me. It’s hard to articulate, but I know it’s irrational because even Avatar seems like it should have subtitles even though it’s an American show. 

So I recognize that this is irrational, but it’s not something that I think decreases my or other people’s happiness…so I shall remain firmly a lover of subtitled anime. 

I also would say that Japanese voice acting is just better. Japanese children want to be voice actors when they grow up like American children want to be screen actors, and they have schools specifically for voice acting, so you just plain get a better quality of voice acting.

Or maybe its just a hipster thing. Whatever, I will continue watching in Japanese.

princessbindi:

I used to be really embarrassed when my parents would mess up their English but as I got older I realized my parents know Malayalam, Hindi, Tamil, AND English.

They’re way smarter than I am. So I started to chill.

Somebody start talking about how immigrants are dumb because they can’t speak English properly. I’d fucking like to see you try and even remember four different languages, you elitist and racist fuckbaby.

(via tiamat100)

unwomanlythoughts:

microaggressions:

When a financial institution asks me my “mother’s maiden name” as a security question. Because it’s assumed that I have at least one and no more than one mother in my life AND that she married AND that she gave up her own name AND that that part of her identity was erased enough from my public history so as to be a password to access my private information.

Holy crap, I never realized.

(via somekindofhelicoptervalentine)

In all the Western media craze over the young Pakistani activist Malala, there is a key point ignored about her: She is not only a Muslim feminist, she is a socialist with Marxist tendencies. In her own words: “I am convinced Socialism is the only answer and I urge all comrades to take this struggle to a victorious conclusion. Only this will free us from the chains of bigotry and exploitation.”

The two most important things about Malala Yousafzai that people conveniently (and often deliberately) forget. (via mehreenkasana)

(via tiamat100)

so-boujie:

221cbakerstreet:

whatsupd0c:

toopaletofunction:

staythatswhatimeanttosay:

One nation, under Canada, above Mexico.

with liberty and justice for some 

Amen

Not all men

just the white men

(via tiamat100)

Well everyone, looks like I am officially accepted to a masters degree program, so in about a month I can start bitching about school on here like all the cool kids do.

runningmandz:

There’s a difference between wanting to change your body to improve and strengthen it and wanting to change your body because you hate it. It’s important to know the difference because one of those will destroy you from the inside out.

(via tiamat100)

pleatedjeans:

Nick Offerman, ladies and gentlemen. [x]

pleatedjeans:

Nick Offerman, ladies and gentlemen. [x]

reblog if u hate capitalism but u still want to make money because you need money to survive capitalism lmao i’m sad

(Source: maywaver, via yuoamonster)

NIGHTNIGHT by DEDDY