
person/group that had started that thread on mumsnet that was posted on here that was obviously a joke, but I concede that this loony probably isn't joking. However I still take issue with your suggestion that satire needs to be signposted. That's just not true. Sometimes the more subtle the satire, the more effective it is. Satire is primarily a method of criticism, humour is secondary, or even a by product.
( , Mon 16 Feb 2015, 11:16, Reply)

you're taking my "knowing wink" comment literally when it wasn't meant to be.
I meant "a tiny thread of information to unravel should you question its motivation"
( , Mon 16 Feb 2015, 11:21, Reply)

Now go to your room and think about what you've done.
( , Mon 16 Feb 2015, 12:24, Reply)

like in the video?
( , Mon 16 Feb 2015, 12:42, Reply)

Surely neither is secondary? Certainly not a by-product though, the by-product would be the satire.
Edit: should read 'could be the satire'.
( , Mon 16 Feb 2015, 11:24, Reply)

I crap on about satire so much on here I'm even boring myself. Satire is criticism under the veil of ridicule. How witty or humorous that attempted ridicule actually is varies enormously, and obviously is subjective. So for example, all those Charlie Hebdo cartoons were satirical, but witty? Funny? Not in my opinion, well maybe a few of them, but mainly not at all.
( , Mon 16 Feb 2015, 12:32, Reply)

Wit doesn't have to be witty and funny doesn't have to be 'ha ha'.
( , Mon 16 Feb 2015, 13:06, Reply)

it's a joke?
Do they understand what a joke is?
to me they're just doing this...
i2.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/738/025/db0.jpg
( , Mon 16 Feb 2015, 13:23, Reply)

Pretty much a large section of the internet in a nutshell.
( , Mon 16 Feb 2015, 13:25, Reply)

www.youtube.com/watch?v=YyGHsMeIjGs
( , Mon 16 Feb 2015, 12:30, Reply)