10
   

D.C. GOP Fights Bag Tax, Lose, Demonstrate No Understanding of Irony.

 
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 Jan, 2010 01:42 am
@joefromchicago,
Quote:

It's rather simplistic to suggest that, because the Republicans disagree with you on the best way to save the environment, that they therefore hate the environment. That's rather like saying that, because you love your mother and hate your enemies, it must follow that your enemies hate their mothers.


I would be interested to hear what the GOP plan to save the environment is. I had thought that the difference between the two is that the GOP did not in fact have a plan to save the environment, or denied all together that anything needed saving or that there were any problems at all.

Sometimes your enemies do hate their mothers, no matter what your opinion of the situation is.

Cycloptichorn
Robert Gentel
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 Jan, 2010 02:24 am
@Diest TKO,
Diest TKO wrote:
Joe, the irony here is that...


The irony* of the situation is that if "irony" were not the subject of such random abusage he'd have nothing to nitpick about. And when you put "No Understanding of Irony" in the title it invites, you know, the whole pointing out that you don't understand irony thing by irony purists.

*the Alanis Morrisette "it has no meaning" definition of irony where it basically means the amusing thing about the situation that is somewhat counterintuitive in some vague way. The secret when defending this kind of vague irony is to call it "cosmic irony" (it isn't really that either but these days if it's merely unexpected in some way people call it such an irony of fate).

Quote:
The irony is when you zoom out on the party that likes to think of itself as being fiscally conservative, they seem to only know how to waste money opposing good ideas and in the end using the ideas (like using a reusable bag) to combat a liberal idea (like using a reusable bag).


Ahh the ole** perverse appropriateness angle for "irony". They weren't inconsistent or actually ironic*** or anything but the irony is that "irony" means whatever you want it to. Irony is as irony does, if you will.

** and by old I mean relatively new.

*** the definition where it actually means something other than unexpected and vaguely amusing.
Diest TKO
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 Jan, 2010 05:34 am
@Robert Gentel,
Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes Rolling Eyes

Joey and Robby, I can count on you guys to take a fun thread waaaaaaaay too serious. You guys are just wound too tight... lighten up.

Quote:
Verbal irony is a disparity of expression and intention: when a speaker says one thing but means another, or when a literal meaning is contrary to its intended effect. An example of this is sarcasm.

You know, like "demostrate no understanding of irony."

Quote:
Dramatic irony is a disparity of expression and awareness: when words and actions possess a significance that the listener or audience understands, but the speaker or character does not.

You know, like protesting a bag fee by producing and selling a bunch of bags that 500 times as expensive.

Quote:
Situational irony is the disparity of intention and result: when the result of an action is contrary to the desired or expected effect. Likewise, cosmic irony is disparity between human desires and the harsh realities of the outside world (or the whims of the gods). By some definitions, situational irony and cosmic irony are not irony at all.

You know, like using the bags.

Joe, the reusable bag doesn't have to have GOP message on it for it to be a statement. Using any reusable bag is already a statement against using a retailer's disposable bags.

T
K
O

Robert Gentel
 
  2  
Reply Sun 31 Jan, 2010 12:56 am
@Diest TKO,
Diest TKO wrote:
Joey and Robby, I can count on you guys to take a fun thread waaaaaaaay too serious. You guys are just wound too tight... lighten up.


I wasn't the least bit "serious" when I was poking fun at your use of "irony". Different strokes for different folks, you want to laugh at the GOP and I want to laugh at ambiguous uses of irony. I think what you mean by "lighten up" is "don't laugh at me".

What... irony. Smile
Diest TKO
 
  1  
Reply Sun 31 Jan, 2010 01:12 am
@Robert Gentel,
What was ever ambiguous? Educate me here RG. It seems only a minority of folks find the story to be ambiguous.

I can take a joke, but I'm sincere when I say I don't get what's not to get.

T
K
O
Robert Gentel
 
  1  
Reply Sun 31 Jan, 2010 01:24 am
@Diest TKO,
Diest TKO wrote:
What was ever ambiguous? Educate me here RG. It seems only a minority of folks find the story to be ambiguous.


Whoever said the "story" was ambiguous? Colloquially, just about anything means ironic (I'm going to sprinkle it about that way here) and I was clearly talking about your (ironic) use of "irony" being ambiguous. Sozobe picked up on that earlier as well and I think that was what Joe was getting at too. I get that you find it perversely appropriate (ironic) that they spend money on the bags and all but it is a... colloquial use that needs hotly debated definitional stretches of irony.

I just found it funny (ironic) that you said they have "no understanding of irony" while, you know, showing no understanding of irony (isn't that ironic?) yourself. That is all. I'm just toying with the nebulous uses of the word "irony" here. You are aware of the transnational disputes about interpreting and defining irony right?


Here you go (bolding is mine, which is the point I had in a nutshell):

Diest TKO
 
  1  
Reply Sun 31 Jan, 2010 04:18 am
@Robert Gentel,
Diest TKO wrote:

Quote:
Dramatic irony is a disparity of expression and awareness: when words and actions possess a significance that the listener or audience understands, but the speaker or character does not.

You know, like protesting a bag fee by producing and selling a bunch of bags that 500 times as expensive.


I think this is what I'm focusing on here.

The GOP actions posses a significance (the cost of a GOP reusable bag compared to either the disposable bags or the cheap reusable bags that are already available) that the audience (in this case people outside of protest; us) understands that the actor (the GOP) does not.

Quote:
Situational irony is the disparity of intention and result: when the result of an action is contrary to the desired or expected effect.


GOP intention: Save money
GOP result: Spend money

GOP intention: Avoid a bag price of $0.05 to save money (a cheap bag)
GOP result: Produce a bag price $5.00 (an expensive bag)

etc.

I don't see how calling this ironic is in error in any technical sense. Sorry, I'm just not on page with you here. What from above is a poor understanding of irony?



Reminds me of that stand up routine: "Sorry Alanis, that's not ironic, that's unfortunate."

T
K
O
0 Replies
 
Diest TKO
 
  2  
Reply Sun 31 Jan, 2010 04:46 am
From the story...
Paul Craney wrote:
"We are offering these reusable tote bags in an effort to save our D.C. Republicans that annoying 5 cent tax."


Do you not see the irony here?

Paying a tax for bags is annoying.
Buy our bags.
Still be annoyed by the tax.


T
K
O
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Sun 31 Jan, 2010 03:12 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:
I would be interested to hear what the GOP plan to save the environment is. I had thought that the difference between the two is that the GOP did not in fact have a plan to save the environment, or denied all together that anything needed saving or that there were any problems at all.

I'm not entirely sure what the GOP plan is to save the environment, but I'm confident it has something to do with cutting taxes.

Cycloptichorn wrote:
Sometimes your enemies do hate their mothers, no matter what your opinion of the situation is.

Quite true, but that's not something we can assume just because we love our mothers and hate our enemies.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  2  
Reply Sun 31 Jan, 2010 03:17 pm
@Diest TKO,
Diest TKO wrote:
Joe, the reusable bag doesn't have to have GOP message on it for it to be a statement. Using any reusable bag is already a statement against using a retailer's disposable bags.

But it's not a statement against the tax, which is what the GOP bags are.

Look, I'm not being the "irony police" here. You created this thread because, I assume, you wanted to make the point that the Republicans were being stupid or inconsistent or something -- I'm not sure what. My point, however, is that I don't think that's the case. As I said before, I think the GOP response was actually kinda' clever -- which I guess makes it one in a row for the Republicans. There are plenty of examples of the Republicans making complete asses of themselves, but this isn't one of them.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Sun 31 Jan, 2010 03:19 pm
@Diest TKO,
Diest TKO wrote:
Do you not see the irony here?

Paying a tax for bags is annoying.
Buy our bags.
Still be annoyed by the tax.


How would they be paying the tax if they used the reusable bags? Only people who choose the disposable bags pay the tax.
Diest TKO
 
  1  
Reply Sun 31 Jan, 2010 04:06 pm
@joefromchicago,
joefromchicago wrote:

Diest TKO wrote:
Do you not see the irony here?

Paying a tax for bags is annoying.
Buy our bags.
Still be annoyed by the tax.


How would they be paying the tax if they used the reusable bags? Only people who choose the disposable bags pay the tax.


I didn't say pay, I said annoyed. No matter which bag you use, the tax still effects you. Also, if paying $0.05 for a bag in annoying, then paying $25.00 for the first bag is obnoxious. The irony is that it's still annoying or even more annoying.

You are right that this about them rejecting the tax, however rejecting taxes is built on a foundation of keeping one's money. Republicans aren't sticking to their principles here, they are doing puppet theater.

T
K
O
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Sun 31 Jan, 2010 04:19 pm
@joefromchicago,
Ouch.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  2  
Reply Sun 31 Jan, 2010 06:15 pm
@Diest TKO,
Diest TKO wrote:
I didn't say pay, I said annoyed.

You're correct: I misread that.

Diest TKO wrote:
No matter which bag you use, the tax still effects you. Also, if paying $0.05 for a bag in annoying, then paying $25.00 for the first bag is obnoxious. The irony is that it's still annoying or even more annoying.

I can't imagine why. The $0.05 tax is mandated by the state: the $25.00 spent on the bag is completely voluntary. I can easily imagine why the former is annoying and the latter is not.

Diest TKO wrote:
You are right that this about them rejecting the tax, however rejecting taxes is built on a foundation of keeping one's money. Republicans aren't sticking to their principles here, they are doing puppet theater.

Well, no, rejecting taxes is not built on a foundation of keeping one's money, except to the extent that it is a protest against sending that money to the state. I don't think an opponent of the bag tax would say: "The five cents you pay for the bag tax should instead be saved or invested in government-grade debt instruments." Protesting a tax has little to do with how the money should be spent. It's more about how the money shouldn't be collected.
Diest TKO
 
  1  
Reply Sun 31 Jan, 2010 08:24 pm
@joefromchicago,
joefromchicago wrote:

I can't imagine why. The $0.05 tax is mandated by the state: the $25.00 spent on the bag is completely voluntary. I can easily imagine why the former is annoying and the latter is not.

Buying that bag is voluntary, but spending money on a bag (no matter which one) is ultimately not voluntary.

I believe that the original annoyance is in having to spend any money on a bag (something that used to be free).

joefromchicago wrote:

Well, no, rejecting taxes is not built on a foundation of keeping one's money, except to the extent that it is a protest against sending that money to the state. I don't think an opponent of the bag tax would say: "The five cents you pay for the bag tax should instead be saved or invested in government-grade debt instruments." Protesting a tax has little to do with how the money should be spent. It's more about how the money shouldn't be collected.

I concede the point about the GOP not wanting money to go to the state being an additional reason (in this case, cleaning the Anacostia river). What I'm saying is simply that for as long as I've been alive, albeit a short time, the rationale I've always been offered for lower taxes or removing taxes is that citizens live happier and can do more if they have more money (less money taken in taxes). In my opinion, the objection to paying a bag tax is NOT because the GOP hates the environment (I was joking before. At best, they think there is a better way to clean the river. At worst they are ambivalent), it is that they object to the notion of having to spend money for something that used to be free. That's why when I read the objections to the tax, I read it as: Bags should be free. Ergo, irony.

T
K
O
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

THE THEIST OBSESSION . . . - Question by Setanta
Graffiti wall is vandalised - Discussion by Robert Gentel
According to American Scientist... - Discussion by McGentrix
"God does not play dice": - Discussion by dinogruppuso
How do online shops know ... - Discussion by Walter Hinteler
Writing websites - Question by elenipissa25
Is your window clean? - Discussion by IRFRANK
Ain't It The Truth - Question by blueveinedthrobber
Public relations firm - Discussion by raja12
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 09/22/2021 at 03:45:31