The use of humor, irony, exaggeration, or ridicule to criticize stupidity

 

Satire: the use of humor, irony, exaggeration, or ridicule to expose and criticize people’s stupidity or vices, particularly in the context of contemporary politics and other topical issues.

Although satire is usually meant to be humorous, its greater purpose is often constructive social criticism, using wit as a weapon and as a tool to draw attention to both particular and wider issues in society.

Assignment:

For Essay 2, I would like you to select a problem in today’s world, then write an essay that poses a satirical solution (see “Let Them Eat Dog” for an example of satire in writing). You will need to clearly describe the problem itself (e.g. homeless veterans in San Francisco, texting and driving, global warming, etc.) then pose your solution in clear terms using humor and irony to develop your position.

Here’s how to begin…

First, do a little research. The best way to find problems of all sorts in our world is to read any daily newspaper. Remember: problems are situations that most would agree are un-acceptable. Solutions to problems, on the other hand, involve widely varying opinions.

Second, think of your real point of view on the problem you’ve found. What do you think we should really do about this problem? How would the problem best be solved in your opinion?

After you’ve determined your actual stance on the problem you’ve selected, then think of a satirical way to “solve” (or rather comment upon) this issue. Often in satire, your “solution” may be the exact opposite of what you really feel should be done. For example, in “Let Them Eat Dog,” Foer’s real purpose is to make us think twice about eating meat, but he does this by suggesting a satirical solution to the problems caused by factory farming: let’s simply eat all the dogs in this country that will end up euthanized anyway. Of course, Foer’s ultimate goal is to comment upon our irrational attachment to meat-eating, and he does so by suggesting that we eat something that most people would find repulsive.

For more examples of contemporary satire, try visiting the Onion’s website. A gentle warning though: the solution you pose must be your own! Stealing ideas from the Onion is considered plagiarism.

Sample Solution

thoritarian regime; holding beliefs which perhaps do not align as well with democratic governments. It could be argued, for example, that Sharia Law can foster the unequal treatment of women, while it has made space for “a violent Islamic radical movement: Boko Haram, [which] proffers religious authoritarianism as an alternative to democracy”[13].
The extent to which this is true is, of course, debatable, particularly since “Sharia movements draw popular support, especially from lower and middle class Muslims, [since the movements support] social, economic and political reforms meant to provide economic and physical security and accountability”[13]. M. Steven Fish builds on this point, arguing that the “unusual degree of subordination of women in Muslim societies”[19] is not actually caused by an oppressive nature of the religion itself; rather, the position of women has been determined by the historically “kin-based political power [in the] North African countries”[19] . Moreover, according to Freedom House, Indonesia, “the most populous Muslim country in the world, receives very high scores for both civil rights and political rights”[14]; a certain demonstration of the compatibility of Islam with democracy in a contemporary real-world scenario. It may therefore not be as great a contributing factor in the survival of non-democratic regimes as one might have expected.
A third possible explanation for the lengthy survival of a non-democratic regime could be a small winning coalition.

Defined as “the sub-set of the selectorate whose support is necessary for the leader to remain in power”[20], the winning coalition, as shown above in Figure 3, is very important in determining whether a non-democratic regime can survive; the larger it becomes as a proportion of the selectorate, the greater the likelihood of the next most popular regime being able to take power. The size itself is mainly influenced by the type of authoritarian regime, and is particularly small in the case of monarchies, which, in the case of hereditary monarchies, only require the approval of a branch of the ruling family in order to survive. As explained by Bueno de Mesquita et al., “in autocratic systems, the winning coalition is often a small group of powerful individuals. [Thus] when a challenger emerges to the sitting leader and proposes an alternative allocation of resources, [the leader thwarts the challenge since he or she] retains

This question has been answered.

Get Answer
WeCreativez WhatsApp Support
Our customer support team is here to answer your questions. Ask us anything!
👋 Hi, Welcome to Compliant Papers.