Regardless of your ideology, all decent intelligent people can agree that there are some sanctimonious idiots loitering in the comment sections of websites. Who deserves that characterization and who doesn’t is often open to debate. But, sometimes, there’s no reason to debate the issue at all.
Over at The Atlantic there’s a piece on the problems with the Martin Luther King Jr. memorial. The subject’s been much discussed, of course. But one reader thinks its biggest failing hasn’t been discussed enough. Here’s the first comment on the piece from a user named “nicholas1987″:
Or maybe because it’s at a mall? You seem to gloss right over that. The memorial is a disgusting corporate perversion of MLK’s legacy and twisting it into a ploy to draw people to a mall.
This drew a response from another commenter (Zinger1905) who showed remarkable restraint when he told Nicholas1987:
The National Mall is not a shopping mall, it’s a wide-open green space.
cf. Roseanne Roseannadanna
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHilarious. But, I would still rather be goverened by the first 2,000 commentators (on an NRO Corner post, at least) than by any cross-section of the punditocracy.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhat if I commented 2,000 times?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI still think Axelrod would only pay you once.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYou haven't?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseFirst.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseA blonde walked into a bar.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThen she said ouch.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseUnintentional humor perhaps...but it is top prize for the Roseanne Roseannadanna award. Nick might be muttering "never mind" to himself or is blissfully unaware of the ridicule headed his way.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNick's not the only idiot on the site -- he got 2 likes to his post.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseOWS trolls!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseCan we tell whether the commenter is being silly on purpose?
Because I can see myself making the same comment, tongue-in-cheek, just for fun.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSarcasm, satire, and other forms of humor rarely translate over the intertubes (or the written word) well. Ever noticed that there isn't much of a comedy genre in literature, yet comedy is and always has been an extremely popular genre in visual and audible mediums going back at least as far as the ancient Greeks. Heck, even Shakespeare's comedies suck if you only read them.
In online comments, my point is that you either have to make the joke so obvious it is not funny, or have to spoil the joke by indicating it is a joke by typing (sarcasm), (lol), or some other comedy killing qualifier.
Otherwise you will be taken seriously by the majority of readers.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse@Broccoli:
Thanks for this comment. It is very useful and added a lot to this discussion.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseOther than the part about Shakespeare's comedies. C'mon.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse@Mitch Baker
lol.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI'm tittering like a Girl Scout at how easily Mitch put paid to Broc's hypothesis.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseGot any cookies? Delete!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYou are partially right, however a good humor writer can be as funny as anybody working in audio or visual media. Few examples Mark Twain, Dave Barry, or my personal favorite Pat McManus.
It does take a particular skill however, and one liners almost never work in written word.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"you either have to make the joke so obvious it is not funny, or have to spoil the joke by indicating it is a joke by typing (sarcasm), (lol), or some other comedy killing qualifier."
True, and if you omit the qualifier, some well-meaning person will come along and add a comment that explains and belabors your joke. There's no winning.
Still, I've read novels that have made me laugh so much I've cried.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse