(1) Your definition of analogy: "a comparison of relationships with 4 subjects." The dictionary definition is "inference that if two or more things agree with one another in some respects they will probably agree in others", therefore, it was I who used the correct definition.funguy2121 said:Is this thread still around? The Nazis must be keeping it going...Tim Mazzola said:(1) Nope. Keep going back, and you did no such thing. You bolded me saying that it WASN'T, but never that it was.funguy2121 said:This sort of willful disregard for rational thought could only possibly be t-rolling.Tim Mazzola said:Just looked back and uh, nope I never said it. (1)You quoted me saying that Duke Nukem was NOT satire of over-the-top adolescent-pandering violence, but never that it WAS.funguy2121 said:I quoted you saying it, then saying that you didn't say it. I bolded it in both places. Look again. It's there.Tim Mazzola said:I still have never stated that Duke was satire of over-the top adolescent-pandering violence.
As for the rest of your comments, I don't think of Duke Nukem as a deconstructionist. I don't think that Derrida would have much use for him. I explained how the Wayans brothers movies were analogous. I think you give Duke far too much credit for being sophisticated than it has warranted. A great many hacks have created material that was offensive for controversy's sake (a sure sign that one is not a member of the "art" club), then said later in its defense that it was satire. When intelligent satire is created, its author never has to say so, because others will point it out. I can run through my workplace high as a kite (mods: I don't indulge in illicit substances) playing grab-ass, and then claim that it's satire. That's a cop-out.
Also, how does aping the Ash lines from the Evil Dead movies (and not paying them for it or crediting the author) fit in with your idea that it is satire?
(2)Also, never said he was a deconstructionIST, I said he was a deconstruction. (3)I also never said it was sophisticated. Just because something is satirical does not make it sophisticated. (4)You are putting A LOT of words in my mouth, sir. (5)And yes, you explained how the Wayan's movies were analogous in a completely nonsensical and irrelevant way that completely failed to explain how they were analogous by simply having no basis in reality or actual explanation. All you've said are "they're both bad satirists." Then I went on to explain how they're different. Again, I'm just repeating myself, but: "The Wayan's movies satire by making crappy, pointless references that you're supposed to laugh at because it's a reference. Duke deconstructs and makes fun of one specific character archetype." I never said "sophistacted" and never said "deconstructionist." (6)I said "deconstruct", as in, destroys and rebuilds (to ridiculous proportions) the trope. (7)Pointless references and trope deconstruction are 2 completely different things. (8)Pointless references is when some random famous icon appears on Family Guy or a scene is copied from some movie and you're supposed to laugh because it's a direct reference to something. (9)Duke Nukem is more analogous to Archer or pretty much any Mel Brooks movie. The humor lies in the fact that it is a humorous caricature of a certain genre or archetype, not from a cheap laugh because Harry Potter just walked on frame. (10)Again, I'm not saying Duke Nukem is great or sophisticated or anything, but comparing it to Wayan's movies is unfair, insulting, and shows that you really have no idea what you're talking about (11)vis-a-vis the purpose of Duke Nukem, and honestly, on account of your closed mind in this situation, the loss is yours.
(1) I bolded both. You know this because you removed the first bolded part. But you can't edit my post, and it's still there (page 5, I believe?).
(2) It's clear you don't understand the distinction. Is he an accidental deconstruction? Also, how is he broken down?
(3) No, you didn't. Every statement I make is not a "you said this" statement. It's clear from your post that you think it's sophisticated, like all good, true satire is.
(4) I feel so sorry for you.
(5) "That doesn't make sense! You're insane!" ...is not an argument.
(6) There's a rule in comedy that's so well known that stand ups use it in their routines. If you deconstruct a joke, you ruin it. It's no longer funny. Comedians are not post-modernists. Now I wonder if you know what "destroy" and "rebuild" mean. Duke doesn't "rebuild" anything. Again, you're giving it far too much credit for being sophisticated. It's just pandering, kind of like a Wayans movie.
(7) Yes, I know.
(8) Oh, my god, are you really going to define "deconstruction" (wrongly) again? And now I get to hear the definition of "pointless reference?" Now that's a failed analogy. So duke tickling an orifice and saying "coochie coo" is a clever reference? How is it a reference at all?
(9) While we're talking to each other like the kid from Jerry MacGuire, an analogy is a comparison of relationships, and requires 4 subjects.
(10) And yet you compared it to Archer.
(11) Vis-a-vis? Really? Wow, you must have gone to school![]()
(2) Why does that even matter?
(3) I never even implied sophistication. "Satire" does not imply "sophistication" by any means. The Simpsons is satire, but I would never call it sophisticated.
(4) You feel sorry for me because I point out facts? REAL mature.
(5) Except I never implied you didn't make sense, or that you were insane.
Again, FOR THE THIRD TIME!
"The Wayan's movies satire by making crappy, pointless references that you're supposed to laugh at because it's a reference. Duke deconstructs and makes fun of one specific character archetype."
THAT is the argument. NOTHING in there says that your argument did not make sense or was insane, it simply points out that you clearly didn't read what I said before.
(6) http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Deconstruction
(7) Well, you keep saying they're the same by claiming that Duke Nukem and the Wayan's films are similar, so you clearly don't.
(8) I never said that was a "clever" reference or a reference at all.
(9) http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/analogy
(10) Again with you and things that are completely irrelevant... what do my statement and your corresponding one have to do with each other in any capacity?
(11) Making fun of my grammar. REAL mature. Next you're gonna compare to me to the nazis or some other 5-year-old crap like that.
(1)I like how your dictionary definition link backs me up
(2)Troll on, you crazy diamond, or something. And keep usin' them thar big words. One day you'll have mastery over them.
(3)Duke Nukem isn't satire.
(2) What big words?! Again, making fun of my grammar. REAL mature. You seem to make me repeat myself a lot.
(3) Which you've continuously failed to prove. I have continuously stated facts, and you've continuously gone "No, you're wrong and insane and I'm gonna make up that you said this and that means I'm right!" This is pointless. I defend art, and you attack it is all that I see here. You are trying REALLY HARD to vehemently despise something that I'm just trying to explain, not even defend or praise. Lighten up, dude.