X: Stop telling me I’m fighting backwards because I critique the boobery of our
contemporaneity . You are contempo-centric to a fault.
Y: But you do fight backwards. Every single day you lament the state of things as they are against what they were and should have become but have not, you fight backwards. Now, if you said that nothing less than 300,000 fucking heads–that would be progress.
A: If a mop mops, why can’t a book book?
B: It can. You just think it can’t.
There might not be any newspaper more full of itself and shit than the New York Times, a far, far lesser paper than it has ever been, a far, far more insipid place to which it has arrived, than any other place it has been in socially in our past.
A friend of Thomas Sarebbononnato
From an Anonymous Editor’s Desk:
In our culture, where semi-literacy has paraded as literate enough for too many years, this degradation itself amounting to a few decades already extended, I question anyone’s claim that what she tweeted was intended as Satire, at least as soon as those tweets become refocussed in a broader more centrally positioned mainstream reception/conception. Satire (and do I need to say good and effective Satire?) is an especially highly literate from of expression, and not too many in our contemporaneity are accustomed to reading it, let alone writing it. Satire will always require more than 40 characters–at least I maintain this for my writing. Twitter just does not allow for the nuances and the development of the necessary irony.
In the case of Sarah, if her tweets were intended as Satire, then she exhibited a lesser understanding of the form, or a level of literacy incapable of it–an inability that all readers of the New York Times should find disturbing, for the question will then remain, what was the NY Times thinking when it hired her at the position in which she was placed? Yes, I repeat, What was it that the New York Times had seen in her writing? However, moreover, nevertheless, is this really a surprise for the New York Times. This is not the first mis-step in their hiring, and I am sure it will not be the last. But when We the People allow Print Media, as large as the Times, to masquerade as a voice for Democracy and not an organ of Oligarchic control by helping to keep Power and Money in the shadows (the Paper itself and its ownership being members of the Monied Elite, if not solely the Media elite, another estate in the Oligarchy), then we have already taken giant steps on our way to creating Pravda in our print media.
The crucial point herein that everyone needs to note well is as follows: Jeong’s inability to engage in satire successfully on Twitter is a literacy issue and not one of race, ethnicity, gender, political affiliation or anything else anyone clutching at conservative straws might wish to help keep them from drowning in their own misguided politicking. Her mis-appraisal of the medium and her complete inability to pull off satirical repartee using Twitter leaves us with several possible conclusions: 1) Ms. Jeong is not as Social Media savvy as the NY Times supposed, or, 2) the NY Times might have hired Ms. Jeong for reasons other than what they pointed to as her tech and social media savviness, or 3) Ms. J’s level of literacy is less than it should be, needs to be, and cannot be understood even by current appraisals of literacy, or 4) Ms. J. is a lot more mean spirited than we are now supposed to believe because of how the NY Times has managed the spin of her fall, or, 5) Ms. J. is easily baited by racist trolls, if we are not to think that perhaps the presented tweets indicating her victimhood were not orchestrated in a re-presentative Theater of Victimhood (and one would not need to be very cynical to think so, not when the NY Times is concerned [which is not to be understood as this author thinking the NY Times is what Trump would call fake–there is nothing more fake than Donald and his Tweets]), or, 6) all of the above, if not more or other.
Sarah’s inability to convince anyone that her tweets were intended as Satire has everything to do with her level of literacy, if not simply her practice at the actual writing of it, perhaps something to do with an arrogance that she was good enough in a culture that has been systematically under-educating even its college students as part of a design or an in-effect of oligarchic control. Maybe her tweets have something to do with her unconscious drive toward self-destruction that may have everything or something to do with herself believing she is not good enough or not qualified or not literate enough–we sometimes do manifest proof of our fears when our fears surmount and tumble down upon us.
Perhaps Sarah is a victim of Reality Social Media–the blurring of categories and boundaries of inclusion and exclusion that only lead to obfuscation, the result of which is one mis-step following another–tolerated by those in the Oligarchy because it keeps us floundering.