Hacker News Reader

Comment by teachingassist | Hacker News Reader

Given that I've never heard of the Stanford Federalist Society, I would be unable to identify this as satire. It's presented as any other official flyer from that organisation might be.

In a way, it's defamation - a false statement (in its accreditation) that harms the organisation's reputation. For some people, this will be their first experience of that organisation, and those people have no reason to take it as satire.

View on HN

  Please join the Stanford Federalist Society as we welcome Senator Joshua Hawley and Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton to discuss violent insurrection. Violent insurrection, also known as doing a coup, is a classical system of installing a government. Although widely believed to conflict in every way with the rule of law, violent insurrection can be an effective approach to upholding the principle of limited government. Senator Hawley will argue that the ends justify the means. Attorney General Paxton will explain that when the Supreme Court refuses to exercise its Article III authority to overturn the results of a free and fair election, calling on a violent mob to storm the Capitol represents an appropriate alternative remedy.

This is dripping in satire. Pretty hard to miss.

That's the thing about well crafted satire - the really effective hard hitting kind is obvious to outsiders but will strike a chord with true believers.

Please check Poe's Law.

Given that I know nothing about the characters here, I have no reason to believe that such people don't exist. A lot worse does exist in fringe politics.

You don't need to know anything about the characters here to understand the satire.

  "Although widely believed to conflict in every way with the rule of law, violent insurrection can be an effective approach to upholding the principle of limited government."

People who believe in limited government believe in the rule of law. Violent insurrection is pointed out to be in conflict with the rule of law, and at the same time held up to be a principle of limited government. Brilliant satire.

  "when the Supreme Court refuses to exercise its Article III authority to overturn the results of a free and fair election, calling on a violent mob to storm the Capitol represents an appropriate alternative remedy."

When would a violent mob ever be an appropriate alternative remedy to a free and fair election? The people who actually believe a violent mob is an appropriate remedy would never call the election "free and fair". They believe it was "rigged and stolen". This is what makes this piece satirical; it's making the case from the opposition's point of view while simultaneously refuting itself. Poe's law does not apply. You don't need smiles and winkey faces or a /s to know this is satire.

This went over my head, I'm afraid. You're trying to explain why I should have understood this - which is fine, except that I genuinely didn't (having read the flyer in a level of depth that I normally wouldn't have given to a flyer).

"Limited government" appears to be an American phrase that I'm not familiar with.

According to my reading, the "free and fair election" quote could be sarcastic, from the point of view of someone who doesn't believe it was free or fair.

But people who are at Stanford Law School, which is where the Stanford Federalist Society exists, would have heard of it.

Whether you can identify it as satire is irrelevant because you are not the audience and you never would have seen it if not for the broader publicity.

You're clearly wrong on this, as Stanford Law School has agreed that it is protected speech in the form of satire, and they're obviously much more qualified than you to make that judgement on several levels.

> I would be unable to identify this as satire.

That's more a statement about your reading comprehension skills than about the flyer.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com