ROB32909 (the RJ Elliot writers MSN name)
this POS has no place on FR, it’s not funny and no good can come of it being here. Go spam for hits somewhere else.
Comments - from beneath this POS writing on his own blog:
#1 — October 2, 2007 @ 06:55AM — meemalee
Far from being “satire”, this article is actually incredibly offensive.
I’m not talking about the parts which are obviously meant to be “humorous” - I’m referring to the serious points which I believe you are trying to make:
“They’ve had a military dictatorship for like, what, 45 years or something? So I guess the people there must really like that form of government, to have kept it all this time”
The military junta seized power in a military coup in 1962 and have ruled as a dictatorship ever since. In 1990 in the only election allowed during this period, the opposing National League for Democracy won with a landslide 80%+ of the vote but the election was annulled and the NLD leader was put under house arrest (and has been for over a decade).
Each time the Burmese has tried to overthrow the junta since then (most notably on 8.8.88), it has responded by slaughtering unarmed civilians.
No-one “likes” the dictatorship, except the dictators themselves.
“Western values (like democracy and free speech and non-butchery of unarmed protesters)”
These are not “Western values”. These are basic human rights which are being denied to the Burmese.
Please think a little longer before you speak lightly of such issues.
#2 — October 2, 2007 @ 07:04AM — Ruvy in Jerusalem
RJ,
Sometimes even droll humor crosses the line. I know the point you are trying to get across - but it just don’t work. Massacres and rivers of blood are never funny....
#3 — October 2, 2007 @ 07:09AM — YeHtut
When some people come in to your house, shoot your brother, take his computer, and they say ‘if you make your move, you mother will be next’.
And no one knows your brother’s death. Coz, he was burnt in crematorium before no one can confirm that he is dead.
Then you will understand.
#4 — October 2, 2007 @ 07:09AM — JHK
This is not only offensive, it’s bad humour. Sorry to say..
#5 — October 2, 2007 @ 07:19AM — Simon
There is a fine line between humour and being offensive. Unfortunately for you and the rest of us, you’ve fallen very short of being funny.
Writing what you like under the label of satire may cover your backside, but it lets everyone know from the outset you are a bit of a coward.
#6 — October 2, 2007 @ 07:19AM — Iain
This is not satire.
Please remove the actual photo of a murdered monk. If you ever have to go through the horror of having a family member of friend murdered whilst standing up for freedom and justice I’m sure the last thing you would want is to see their photo on a blog like this.
Tasteless.
#7 — October 2, 2007 @ 07:19AM — panos
as low as you have fallen to post this crap!!! i don’t wish the same upon you and your loved ones .... come to think of it ...i do you fucking fascist pig... drop dead!
#8 — October 2, 2007 @ 07:21AM — Buphus
Badly-written and offensive, whatever point you were trying to make.
#9 — October 2, 2007 @ 07:26AM — Dave
Oops, looks like your phone number and address can be found by searching for your e-mail address.
I hope it doesn’t end up on the support burma group with 270,000 members!!!
#10 — October 2, 2007 @ 07:42AM — Sophie
i’d say i have a fairly healthy borderline dark sense of humour but this is sick. tasteless, insensitive and utterly ignorant. arsehole.
#11 — October 2, 2007 @ 07:47AM — Doug Hunter
I think your post brought up valid points. Nothing is so sacred as to not be subject to criticism or satire. Good job! (Now hide those personal details before some nutjob starts harassing you)
#12 — October 2, 2007 @ 08:08AM — troll
this: *Anyway, who are we to impose our own personal, subjective beliefs upon the proud people of Burma? Surely, attempting to impose Western values (like democracy and free speech and non-butchery of unarmed protesters) at the point of a gun would be nothing more than cultural imperialism. Interfering in the government affairs of a sovereign nation like Burma would require unmatched arrogance on our part. (And I suspect some of the people most loudly calling for action against Burma secretly have an eye on that country’s massive rice reserves.)*...is the core of the article and is satirical
the rest reads kinda like...well...like comparing a blown up vet to a thalidomide baby
RJ - are you in therapy for that ol’ personality disorder - ?
#13 — October 2, 2007 @ 08:39AM — Wagaung [URL]
What an obvious example of the gross injustice of this world that some subhuman specimen like this one would probably not suffer the same fate as those incredibly brave and selfless fallen monks of Burma?
#14 — October 2, 2007 @ 08:47AM — meemalee
poster #14 (troll) - you’re completely right - the part you’ve quoted is satirical when quoted in isolation, but the rest of the post is in just bad taste.
As for the photo of the monk used to “illustrate” this article, if you look at the jpeg’s properties, you’ll see that it’s been “hilariously” named by the blogger
“deadmonktryingtoswim”
#15 — October 2, 2007 @ 08:49AM — bliffle
Satire depends on a humorous exposition of some idea through exaggeration, but the author of this article seems utterly humorless. Thus, the article just ends up sounding bitter and shrill.
#16 — October 2, 2007 @ 09:16AM — Ruvy in Jerusalem
JR
I’ve read many satire magazines. I’m sorry, kid, this is the kind of thing that gets ripped up before ever seeing the printer. This is one of the real dangers of running a magazine of this kind.
I’m not writing to criticize you. I think you’ve figured out that you’ve done far better work by now. But you’ve seriously hurt people by what you have written here.
And who the hell edited this piece? Editors are there to do more than just make sure the graphics, links and spelling work! There are some rare instances when communicating with the writer and telling him/her that piece is not appropriate for publication and suggesting serious changes is also part of the job.
“i have your details cocksucker and i’m coming to get you.....”
Who knows? You might just save he writers life.
#17 — October 2, 2007 @ 10:06AM — Lumpy [URL]
beautifully swiftian. if you can piss off this many idiots you’re doiing something right. pity they aren’t bright enough to direct their rage at the right target.
#18 — October 2, 2007 @ 12:09PM — Silver Surfer
Dave: “I hope it doesn’t end up on the support burma group with 270,000 members!!!”
Facebooking for bad taste.
#19 — October 2, 2007 @ 12:50PM — Dave Nalle [URL]
People. Satire is not funny. It inspires uncomfortable laughter. This article certainly fits the definition of satire because it illustrates the outrageousness of the situation in Burma, not because it’s humorous in any way.
It troubles me that there are people out there so literal minded that they don’t see the difference between satirizing something and endorsing it.
Dave
#20 — October 2, 2007 @ 13:01PM — Silver Surfer
Maybe they do, but they just think RJ’s piece is bollocks (sorry RJ, but you know, there’s only one thing worse than having people talking about you ...)
I didn’t expect humour, didn’t find any, and didn’t think it was the kind of thing that should be satirised anyhow.
That’s just me, though.
#21 — October 2, 2007 @ 13:06PM — Ray Ellis [URL]
Your crude attempt at trying to draw an analogy between mass murders in Burma and our involvement in Iraq makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.Further, it’s utterly tasteless, and smacks of a disregard not only for Buddhists, but all people who place human rights above personal agendas.
If the regard for human rights has become so diluted that we can’t see beyond an “I’m alright, Jack” mentality, we’re in serious trouble as a dominant species on this planet.
#22 — October 2, 2007 @ 13:14PM — Dr Dreadful [URL]
Dave, I don’t think RJ’s intent was to directly comment on the situation in Burma.
I think his satire was directed at the attitude of those who defend the regimes of countries like Iran, then turn around and express outrage at the actions of the Burmese junta.
That said, there is a fine line between satire and crass insensitivity, and while I got RJ’s point, I think his aim was wide by some distance.
#23 — October 2, 2007 @ 13:31PM — REMF
“Massacres and rivers of blood are never funny....”
- Ruvy in Jeruselam
Dittos, Ruvy. Unless your concept of war is listening to the Rush Limbaugh program, or playing video X-box games...
(MCH)
#24 — October 2, 2007 @ 13:36PM — RJ [URL]
I want to thank you all for your very supportive comments. I eagerly await further death threats from followers of peaceful Buddhist monks.
#25 — October 2, 2007 @ 13:45PM — Reza Palahvi
I guess the only thing edited on this site is the comments section.....
#26 — October 2, 2007 @ 14:24PM — gotit
Actually, the more morbid the pictures and satire, the bigger the point you are trying to make these people understand. It all depends on your point of view...the same ones saying this satire is disgusting are the first ones to call our U.S. military baby killers and say the Iraqis were better off under Saddam.
They are incensed by Darfur but could give a crap about the Iraqi people. Saddam killed 6,200 of his own people a day folks.
#27 — October 2, 2007 @ 14:44PM — Dr Dreadful [URL]
Er, gotit?
Good to see you ‘got’ RJ’s point. However, I don’t know where you ‘got’ your figures of 6200 people slaughtered by Saddam per day.
The population of Iraq is 27 million, give or take. Saddam was in power from July 16, 1979 to April 9, 2003. By my quick calculation, that’s 8669 days. If you multiply that by your figure, you get a total of 53,747,800 killed.
Even allowing for the most enthusiastic copulation by the surviving Iraqis on any given day, if your figures were anything like accurate it’s hard to see how there would have been any population left for Saddam to dictate to, or for us to liberate.
#28 — October 2, 2007 @ 14:48PM — gotit
My mistake...here was the quote:
Compare with an average death toll of 6,200/month for 27 years under Saddam.
#29 — October 2, 2007 @ 14:53PM — Independent [URL]
Actually, this IS good satire. Political satire isn’t meant to create a type of humor that encourages happy feelings, its designed to expose the heartless types of thinking that cause real tragedies to happen and its designed to make the reader squirm uncomfortably. Its cynical, its brutal, and its honest about things we all wish would just go away.
Swift didn’t really want to eat Irish babies obviously...and even though his classic essay was criticized as grotesque and unconscionable, it served a purpose of promoting awareness and shining a spotlight on the real horror of the situation and the cold & calculating mentalities that make it happen.
Want comments emailed to you? No spam, promise! Address:
I respectfully disagree with you. It’s not funny and it’s not well done but that pretty accurately reflects this whole tragedy from events on the ground in Burma to world non-reaction to it. FReepers are among the few who do care and have expressed outrage. This is certainly not a reflection of us but it is certainly a reflection of the rest of the world.