<?xml version="1.0"?>
<rss version="2.0">
   <channel>
      <title>Satire by Nicholas Robins</title>
      <link>https://padlet.com/frontflips95/e7ouaehgs5oi</link>
      <description>What is it?</description>
      <language>en-us</language>
      <pubDate>2018-11-19 22:02:42 UTC</pubDate>
      <lastBuildDate>2018-11-26 20:07:30 UTC</lastBuildDate>
      <webMaster>hello@padlet.com</webMaster>
      
      <item>
         <title>Particular Satirical Works and are they really satire?</title>
         <author>frontflips95</author>
         <link>https://padlet.com/frontflips95/e7ouaehgs5oi/wish/306135973</link>
         <description><![CDATA[<div>In class we watched a few examples of satire; a couple political cartoons and a video parody utilizing satire as a means of comedy. These, I found, were all forms of satire and all fit the archetype satire is known as. However, these examples varied on quality of satire. The infomercial was, by design, not very subtle because it used the tools of satire to point out ironies and call names/being funny without any of the substance satire would normally supposed to have. Having said that, it used the tools of satire in a way to entertain and the artist's intent was most likely just that. Whether or not that's an effective use of satire could be debated but personally I would rather call that comedy rather than satire. The other photos were a bit more biting and pointing out certain things the illustrator finds wrong with certain political systems. They weren't as effective forms of satire as they could've been but I found them more satire than the parody.</div>]]></description>
         <enclosure url="" />
         <pubDate>2018-11-19 22:05:01 UTC</pubDate>
         <guid>https://padlet.com/frontflips95/e7ouaehgs5oi/wish/306135973</guid>
      </item>
      <item>
         <title>Stephen Colbert</title>
         <author>frontflips95</author>
         <link>https://padlet.com/frontflips95/e7ouaehgs5oi/wish/307895102</link>
         <description><![CDATA[<div>I find Stephen Colbert to be very good at what he does. His comedy is some of the funniest out their because he is bother clever and usually what he says has a lot of valid truth which makes the jokes uncomfortably laughable. This idea, of truth in, funny, cleverly worded rhetoric is the basis of <strong><em>satire </em></strong>and is what one must conform to in order to make effective, biting and true satire. Stephen does this naturally, as his typically comedy uses some satirical archetypes, his jokes usually coming from a very truthful and absurdly true place and because this is his typical comedy style, when he does attempt satire, it seems as though it is just another one of his comedy bits. However, that's not to say that his satirical moments go unnoticed; on the contrary, it is his most notable bits and that is because he makes it notable. Stephen's typical comedy is truthful but his satirical works are a lot more poignant with these truths which set them apart from his typical routine. Rather than the humor being truthful to be relate able, it is truthful to be biting and to make an attempt at inciting a kind of change (or, at the very least making an observation of something they find wrong with society or certain groups, in an attempt to let the masses decide if/how to mitigate that issue).</div>]]></description>
         <enclosure url="" />
         <pubDate>2018-11-26 17:06:09 UTC</pubDate>
         <guid>https://padlet.com/frontflips95/e7ouaehgs5oi/wish/307895102</guid>
      </item>
   </channel>
</rss>
