Given that he contains it primarily in three locations - the war room, the plane, and the military base - you'd think you were watching a documentary if you turned the sound off.
In my younger mind this sounded like a good idea..in practice it was often stupid, cruel, gratuitous, and mean-spirited.
The young man grew increasingly frustrated by this grilling, since the questions didn't deal with the premise directly, but there was a method to Sandy's madness: he wanted to teach his class that when you write satire, the satirical element should come last.
If you earn your authenticity with a convincing framework, achieved through research, you'll achieve your ends honestly.
If the intent was always to satirize, then they are shitty satirists, and for them to retroactively characterize their prior work as "satirical" is a disingenuous mind game that forces their readers to ask tough questions about their true intent.
, has apologized to his audience and supporters for a slew of old blog and social media posts about women that he now recognizes to be “insensitive and ignorant.” In the blog posts, Cenk stated that the “genes of women are flawed” and that they are “poorly designed creatures” who fail in their desire “to have sex as often as needed for the human race.” In another shocking blog post called “The Rules of Dating,” Uygur explained his thoughts on how the dating process should evolve for women and men and warned women to ignore his advice at their own peril.
I regret...putting my name as a co-author on a book that used cruel and misogynistic language to describe many people and women in particular."Both Uygur and Taibbi have apologized, and no women have accused them of sexual assault (at least as of this writing) - but this doesn't mean we can close the books on them just yet.
Just as a thought experiment, let's take them at their word and assume that what they wrote was intended only to be satirical.
Without the research and the framework to allow the audience to understand that what they're watching is meant to be satirical, they won't understand you're pulling their leg.
Uygur and Taibbi's work lacks such form, which is why people have called them out for its heinous content.
Uygur and Taibbi don't (or didn't) get this - they punch down and slut-shame women from their own point of view, and it becomes self-serving tripe about why they can't get laid.
It does not illuminate us or leave us with any new understanding about societal ills. So, are Uygur and Taibbi dishonest pigs, or brilliant satirists who we just didn't get?
We would be hypocrites to not act immediately and ask for their resignation.