this post was submitted on 03 Aug 2026
21 points (70.6% liked)
The Onion and other satire w/ layers
2685 readers
62 users here now
For posting satire from The Onion and other similar sources.
redundancy, but not for its own sake
Human crafted content only please! If reporting a violation or suspicious content please provide evidence in the report or a direct message. Thank you.
Be nice. All instance rules apply.
Rules:
- Be respectful. Everyone should feel welcome here.
- No bigotry - including racism, sexism, ableism, homophobia, transphobia, or xenophobia.
- No Ads / Spamming.
- No pornography.
Règles :
- Soyez respectueux. Tout le monde doit se sentir le bienvenu ici.
- Pas de bigoterie - y compris le racisme, le sexisme, le capacitisme, l’homophobie, la transphobie ou la xénophobie.
- Pas de publicités / Pas de spam.
- Pas de pornographie.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
You can have your opinions, but…
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/satire
the use of irony, sarcasm, ridicule, or the like, to expose, denounce, or deride the folly or corruption of institutions, people, or social structures.
a work of art, literature, or entertainment in which the folly and corruption of human beings, institutions, or social structures are exposed, denounced, or ridiculed.
And how does that apply here?
After looking at this exchange and some of the other things you've posted, it seems like this guy is making some valid points. You're not actually arguing against what anyone says, you're just trying to do gotcha responses or are saying "I'm blocking you".
That’s the definition of satire. They say it’s not satire. We say this just isn’t a publication for them.
Right, I understand the exchange. I'm asking you, what part of that headline fits the definition of satire? You keep claiming that it's satire, but like 75% of what you're posting is just bluntly/clickbaity worded news, not satire.
The part where it never actually happened.
Also, if you only read the title, then you don’t get to have an opinion.
Did you read each line of the article?
I mean, it did though. They effectively said that. The article is a little satire-y, but barely.
Also, I'm a human out of your control, so fuck you, I get to have any opinion I want.
I never said you couldn’t have that opinion, but I do not value it and I don’t think anyone else should value it either.
Anyway, this is getting boring and I have a lot of stuff to do so I’m just gonna block this account as well and get on with life. I hope you have a wonderful time!!
Good luck with putting your head in the sand every time someone questions you on why you're calling your shit satire!
The title is the part we have opinions of, you bait factory. People read your headlines and aren't immediately aware it's satire, which is what makes it bad at being satire.
You don't know what constructive criticism looks like.
Case in point: this actually happened. The Chinese government blatantly said they'd punish criticism globally, as a cute little addendum to blatantly saying they'd enforce a monoculture over irrelevant minorities... like the entirety of Tibet. Their defense of this amounted to 'we're already doing it, shut the fuck up.'
Images, obviously. Text arguably. Neither of which would bother me terribly if this dingus had any consistent standards. Or I'd at least understand tossing off no-effort content and then shrugging at the lazy misses. But no - they keep up a whole-ass authorial persona, and seem genuinely offended by the simplest push to improve, despite nakedly stating that negative responses are part of their goal. It is time for boot to meet ass.
My guy, there's no irony in this headline. That's the blunt official position of the Chinese government. Is it even exaggerated? Do you think satire is merely describing bad things?
I can't help trying to fix this. "China draws new twenty-dash line around picture of globe." "China denounces western map borders for implying its authority has limits." "China renews claim to traditional imperial territory of Kansas." It's a PUNCHLINE, god dammit! There has to be a surprising contradiction, beyond the innate stupidity of the truth!
This is a problem for nine out of ten headlines, from your site. Every thread has people going 'I almost ate it!' as if that red flag is the goal. It's like isGlitch rose from its shallow grave, pun intended, to confidently whiff on easy targets week after week. The headline is the part that matters the most - to where a good one doesn't even need an article - and this is the first response where you've broken the kayfabe of laughing off criticism.
What is this site for? Is it just farming ad revenue? That's the vibe of saying 'well the thumbnail got your attention.' Clickbait is not derision, it's spam. Are you actually the isGlitch guy, still waiting to go 'ah-HA, it was an LLM all along!'? If you are genuinely trying to say something, to write comedy, to ridicule and denounce the horrors - you desperately need to focus your effort on first impressions.
I don’t think that you’re the audience for this publication.
I’m sure there are lots of books and movies that just don’t make you happy—but your opinion is limited to the space inside your own head. Lots of people are getting a kick out of our website.
Also, this makes no money. It’s just for fun. How would we make money? There are no ads.
So, in conclusion:
Clickbait, got it.
Repeated detailed efforts to help solve the objective disconnect between your stated intent and the actual text are finally dismissed with big-ass letters saying 'maybe my posts that confuse people are a problem with you.' And them. Y'know, the people confused, in every thread? The folks whose apparently-central reaction is, 'what the fuck I thought this was an editorial.' The kick people are getting is the unpleasant shock of figuring out you were trying to tell a joke.
Good to know it's not for money, but that just makes the cocksure fumbling more confusing. Engagement bait purely for its own sake is not a better use of anyone's time.
You’re weird. You’re the only confused person. So, we can fix this with a block.
Have a lovely life.
Malyca: "I'm confused, this happened no?"
Noxy: "The article never mentions the artist’s name, what the fuck?" abos: "Artists Name and Style is never mentioned." hypnicjerk: "this is bad satire (?)" Dispassionate's ratio'd dismissal: "Not all humor is for everyone. Perhaps you just didn’t get the joke?" hypnicjerk's obvious response: "perhaps you just forgot to make one?"
Korhaka: "Surely it’s someone’s job to know how to do this kind of thing." Archer: "Articles like this are insidious, because you can never be certain."
Ledivin: "it’s so believable that I didn’t even notice!"
SparroHawc: "I hate that I had to double-check what community this was in."
AeronMelon: "Ate this one, too."
humble_boatsman: "How is this satire?"
scops: "I don’t know that this is satire. There’s no wit or layers to it. Its more like dystopian misery porn?" eodur: "Isn’t this already actually happening?"
HubertManne: "oh man. this is satire. ugh." Me, in fact: "This headline sounds too much like it’s riffing on a real attempt I’d somehow missed."
Dispassionate giving the game away: "Every comment or downvote means we are doing something right." That's literally just trolling.
Nevermind the several people pointing out, it's probably all generated, which explains the first-draft vibes... and lends credibility to this being isGlitch all over again.