# The Complete Military History of France **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [March 27, 2003, 3:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-complete-military-history-of-france/164539 "2003-03-27T15:52:38Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Already\_in\_Use](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/a9adbd/32.png) [@Already\_in\_Use](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Already_in_Use)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2003, 10:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-complete-military-history-of-france/164539/81 "2003-03-31T22:45:14Z")
OK, a little ethnic humor now and then can be amusing, depending on the context. But the braindead thing about the OP is that he uses said ethnic stereotypes, backs them up with inaccurate evidence, and has the fucking nerve to call it “satire.” SATIRE IS USED TO GET A POINT ACROSS. One cannot prove a point by labeling lies and half-truths as “fact.”\* The OP may be funny as a joke (and even then, it’s a pretty lame one), but attempting to use such stupid shit as an argument for why the French should support a greedy, destabilizing, unnecessary war is just fucked up. \*At least, not the way the OP does it. Something like “A Modest Proposal” works because it illustrates a REAL, I repeat, REAL, situation with a ridiculous opinion/situation/whatever. The OP is simply passed off as fact told in a humorous manner. There’s a difference. ---
**Author:** ![Already\_in\_Use](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/a9adbd/32.png) [@Already\_in\_Use](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Already_in_Use)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2003, 10:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-complete-military-history-of-france/164539/82 "2003-03-31T22:55:20Z")
But I must admit, I did like the energy dome reference. ---
**Author:** ![DrLizardo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/5fc32e/32.png) [@DrLizardo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrLizardo)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2003, 12:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-complete-military-history-of-france/164539/83 "2003-04-01T00:31:25Z")
Gary Cumquat saith: > [@](#): > > Oh, my favourite wanker defence. Hey it’s not racism, it’s ethnic humour. Nice try at a diversion. Actually, assmuncher, my only reference to “race” was in response to your inaccuracy, not postulating a a “defence.” And I said nothing about ethnic. I said “cultural” which remains the most accurate and appropriate way to characterize the postings in question. So if you wish to continue engaging in ex-post-facto rationalizations of a sloppy and inaccurate use of language, you’re welcome to continue being wrong. Rather than letting you set up a straw man based on things I never said, I’ll just continue repeating the actual point I was making, which is that either both are acceptable, both are unacceptable, or you’re a hypocrite. Others have responded to this with some valid points, though not convincing to me. Apparently, posting a response to the actual point is beyond your ken. So have fun launching more diversionary asides if you like, I’ll not “arse” with them any longer… ---
**Author:** ![Gorsnak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gorsnak/32/7587_2.png) [@Gorsnak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gorsnak)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2003, 1:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-complete-military-history-of-france/164539/84 "2003-04-01T01:25:40Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by elf6c \* > \*\*Calling bigoted or racist statements “satire” does not remove the hateful or ignorant nature of most of them. The “just a joke” argument should never fly. If anti-French glurge is wrong, then anti-US glurge is wrong (even if under the razor thin veneer of satire). You cannot have it both ways. \*\* Of course the anti-US glurge was wrong. That was precisely the point of posting it (or so I presume - I have no priveleged insight into the mind of the poster). The point is that it will strike most defenders of the OP as offensive, and, hopefully, recognize that the OP is offensive for the same reasons. ---
**Author:** ![Gary\_Kumquat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/4491bb/32.png) [@Gary\_Kumquat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gary_Kumquat)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2003, 5:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-complete-military-history-of-france/164539/85 "2003-04-01T05:50:33Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by DrLizardo \* > **Gary Cumquat saith:** Fuck me, how tedious can you possibly get? You might not realise but actually Gary Kumquat isn’t a real name, so an insult based on it won’t really work. Try harder. > [@](#): > > **Nice try at a diversion. Actually, assmuncher, my only reference to “race” was in response to your inaccuracy, not postulating a a "defence."** Good lord, tedious and thick. Life really must be a chore for you, chap. If you could read either the definition of race, or racism I gave you’ll see that your attempt at humour falls well within both. If you disagree, please explain how the authorities cited (Merriam Webster, and a convention on racism) are “inaccurate”. > [@](#): > > **And I said nothing about ethnic. I said “cultural” which remains the most accurate and appropriate way to characterize the postings in question.** You know, I really shouldn’t be surprised at how stupid you are after your postings so far, but you still manage to give me pause each time. Perhaps you might care to find out what ethnic means, before attempting that sort of moronic argument. Hell, let me help "Main Entry: 1eth·nic of or relating to large groups of people classed according to common racial, national, tribal, religious, linguistic, or **cultural origin** or background \ " Now, any chance you could explain why all the cites I’ve given so far are wrong? ---
**Author:** ![elf6c](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/c57346/32.png) [@elf6c](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elf6c)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2003, 2:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-complete-military-history-of-france/164539/86 "2003-04-01T14:59:14Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Gorsnak \* > \*\*Of course the anti-US glurge was wrong. That was precisely the point of posting it (or so I presume - I have no priveleged insight into the mind of the poster). The point is that it will strike most defenders of the OP as offensive, and, hopefully, recognize that the OP is offensive for the same reasons. \*\* Lets see. Unable to come up with a simple cogent argument why the OP is wrong, some moron finds some equally offensive glurge to post. Sounds alot more like retaliation then explanation. Many of us were able to come with perfectly good arguments as to why the OP was a moron. Nobody else needed the “example” of offensive anti-US glurge to explain why the OP was wrong. It is hypocritical to complain about the OP for his offensive glurge but to pat BB on the back for his. For the self-proclaimed masters of “satire” or “humor”, there has been plenty of great satire in the Pit, and there has been plenty of light-hearted pokes at the foilbles of other countries-- these posts are neither. Hell they are not even close. For those twisting and turning logic into a pretzel to accommodate your favored bigot- ask yourself why? People are pissed not because they don’t understand the motives behind the OP and BB, rather they are pissed because they do. Rather then engage in semantic backflips, maybe you should acknowledge the Gordian Knot solution- the respective posters of the glurge are assholes who couldn’t wait to share their ignorance with us. Why help them spread their ignorance? ---
**Author:** ![Misery\_Loves\_Co](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7cd45c/32.png) [@Misery\_Loves\_Co](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Misery_Loves_Co)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2003, 3:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-complete-military-history-of-france/164539/87 "2003-04-01T15:57:25Z")
You are right - you are way too wrapped up in this. I’m out. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Pearse](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/richard_pearse/32/13144_2.png) [@Richard\_Pearse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Pearse)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2003, 7:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-complete-military-history-of-france/164539/88 "2003-04-02T07:43:57Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by elf6c \* > \*\*Lets see. Unable to come up with a simple cogent argument why the OP is wrong, some moron finds some equally offensive glurge to post. Sounds alot more like retaliation then explanation. Many of us were able to come with perfectly good arguments as to why the OP was a moron. Nobody else needed the “example” of offensive anti-US glurge to explain why the OP was wrong. It is hypocritical to complain about the OP for his offensive glurge but to pat BB on the back for his. > \*\* I think it may be important to check out BB’s location. New Zealanders (and I am one) are not known for their fondness of the French (what with them bombing a ship in one of our harbours and insisting, in the past, on testing nuclear weapons in our part of the world). Of course I may be wrong, but I seriously suspect that BB’s post was not meant to be in defence of the French or in “retaliation”, rather it is meant as a: “You think that french thing’s funny do you? Well how about if it’s turned around and your country is now the brunt? Still funny? No? SO WHY THE FUCK DID YOU POST THE FRENCH THING?”. See what I mean **elf6c**? This is how posting something almost identical to the OP can be considered unoffensive (in context). If, on the other hand, that anti-American glurge was posted as an OP, then that would be a diferent story and you would actually have a point. ---
**Author:** ![glee](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/b5a626/32.png) [@glee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/glee)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2003, 1:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-complete-military-history-of-france/164539/89 "2003-04-02T13:22:05Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by glee \* > You have a strange sense of humour. > Shouldn’t this have been in the Pit? > > Presumably this is because the French were prepared to vote against the Americans over Iraq. > Would you think it was funny if I mentioned Vietnam? Or Somalia? > > I find it sad that the most powerful nation on Earth is apparently using sarcasm as a justification for not getting UN backing for war. I posted the above right at the start of the thread, but I think it bears repeating. **The original was never intended to be funny**. Here in the UK, I’ve received it about 8 times so far, let alone seen it on both message boards I use. (In each case it was an American source.) Why do you think all these Americans want to insult the the French now? Why are French fries renamed by US politicians? **Because the French threatened to veto a US resolution at the UN.** If this were funny, it would no doubt inspire further ‘humour’. (If you want to see true parody, look at the ‘If LotR Had Been Written By Someone Else!?’ - already nearly 2000 contributions!) So far we have precisely one (anti-US) effort, which has been rightly been badly received, just like the original should have been. I don’t know if Obvious Guy thinks that was funny. Perhaps he and DrLizardo could tell us if they think it was (plus the effort below). Since we’re in the Pit, and some xenophobic posters still defend the original as humour, here’s another ‘side-splitter’: What was the last thing that went through the minds of the 9/11 victims? The fuselage. Ho-fucking-ho. ---
**Author:** ![elf6c](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/c57346/32.png) [@elf6c](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elf6c)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2003, 1:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-complete-military-history-of-france/164539/90 "2003-04-02T13:57:47Z")
**glee** , that makes you no better then them. You should be ashamed of yourself. Your post is a thousand times worse. Some moron did this in the CESM thread and rightly got roasted for it. You should be as well. **Skogcat** surely all New Zealanders do not think alike, any more then all Americans do (hint hint **glee** ). I would venture there are plenty of anti-US kiwis (is that what some New Zealander’s call themselves? As it seemed like it during the America’s Cup coverage, correct me if I am wrong please). Hell we know you have at least one. Also, not to flog this point yet another time, but some “jokes”, very weak attempts at “satire” or “examples” are offensive no matter what “purpose” the poster claims. See **glee’s** post for an example of that. Right general idea, horrifically wrong “example”. The ends **do not** always justify the means. You cannot employ hateful bigotry to fight it. And as pointed out previously, it seems a few posters are just itching for the chance to share their stupidity, first the OP, then BB in retaliation. **Misery Loves Co.** thanks for your well researched post, your compelling argument is a shining beacon of critical analysis of a complex issue. Or not. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![elf6c](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/c57346/32.png) [@elf6c](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elf6c)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2003, 2:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-complete-military-history-of-france/164539/91 "2003-04-02T14:10:45Z")
For the “it just satire” folks: > **[The Onion | America's Finest News Source.](https://www.theonion.com/)** > > The Onion brings you all of the latest news, stories, photos, videos and more from America's finest news source. **This** is satire. ---
**Author:** ![glee](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/b5a626/32.png) [@glee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/glee)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2003, 2:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-complete-military-history-of-france/164539/92 "2003-04-02T14:43:54Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by elf6c \* > **glee** , that makes you no better then them. You should be ashamed of yourself. Your post is a thousand times worse. Some moron did this in the CESM thread and rightly got roasted for it. You should be as well. elf6, you really need to reread my posts (and bear in mind where I’m posting them). You’re comparing me to a moron and saying I’m a thousand times worse than Obvious Guy (who I have called xenophobic), and DrLizardo (who doesn’t know what parody is). Because I posted a sick joke in the Pit? (If you want pointless numerical comparisons, my joke insults several thousand innocent American dead. The original dishonours centuries of death, including six years of occupation and genocide by Nazis. But you think mine is far worse - presumably because you are American?) Why do you think I did it? Was it because I hate the US, or support Al-Qaeda, or don’t respect the victims of a terrorist atrocity? Or was it because I despise the stupidity of Obvious Guy posting yet again a piece of French-bashing crap (and DrLizardo for calling it humour). And does my challenging them to say whether they think my joke is funny force them to reveal what their views are really like? > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by elf6c \* > Also, not to flog this point yet another time, but some “jokes”, very weak attempts at “satire” or “examples” are offensive no matter what “purpose” the poster claims. See **glee’s** post for an example of that. Right general idea, horrifically wrong “example”. The ends **do not** always justify the means. You cannot employ hateful bigotry to fight it. And as pointed out previously, it seems a few posters are just itching for the chance to share their stupidity, first the OP, then BB in retaliation. As I have tried to explain above, I posted my joke about 9/11 to shame two posters with unpleasant views. In case you still need my position spelt out: I condemn terrorism in all its forms. (I have experienced nearly 50 years of terrorism against a democracy here in the UK, and indeed narrowly missed being blown up by an IRA bomb in London.) I think it is vital to unite the World to face this menace and feel very depressed that the US has not got UN backing for the current war. I don’t think that the Bush administration understands much about the rest of the World, nor do they seem to have long-term strategies. (The US originally backed Sadam to block the Iranian theocracy - now they are going to install someone to replace him. In order to do this, they are making deals with many countries, some of which don’t respect human rights. Why does the US need to offer Turkey billions of dollars to gain a second front? Why did Turkey - not a wealthy country - refuse the bribe?) I also think that the US sometimes gives a poor (and wrong) impression of itself. Bashing the French (and renaming anything French) because they disagree with US policy can easily be interpreted as ‘do what Bush says, or you’re next.’ Being ultra-sensitive over American casualties sends the message ‘one of us is worth thousands of you.’ Detaining suspects in Cuba to deny them legal representation offers countries without legal freedoms a chance to call the US hypocritical. I like America, and I’m incredibly glad they have democracy and freedom of speech. I want them to set an example to the rest of the planet how to run a free country. ---
**Author:** ![Misery\_Loves\_Co](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7cd45c/32.png) [@Misery\_Loves\_Co](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Misery_Loves_Co)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2003, 3:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-complete-military-history-of-france/164539/93 "2003-04-02T15:59:54Z")
Well, I know that I said I was out, and I’m back, thereby skirting the edge of the “No really, I’m out, nyah” faux pas. My last post was an attempt on my part to play it cool, to rise above it, to give you the benefit of the doubt. However, you seem to wanna smack me in the back on my way out, so here ya go. First, links: the relevant part pasted here for people too sure of their own manifest righteousness to bother to educate themselves and bolding is mine. From [UVic Writer’s Guide](http://web.uvic.ca/wguide/Pages/LTSatire.html) > [@](#): > > Indirect satire uses a fictional narrative in which **characters who represent particular points of view are made ridiculous by their own behavior and thoughts** , and by the narrator’s usually ironic commentary. . From Definition of Five Literary Terms > [@](#): > > The term satire commonly refers to a specific genre or simply a style or tone in literature that employs great wit to point out in a mocking or humorous manner the human frailties or maliciousness of individuals, groups, or the whole of mankind, usually in order to prompt a correction. > [. . .] > The other type of satire is the informal, often called the Varronian (after the Latin writer, Varro) or Menippean (after the Greek cynic Mennipus). This type is not verse but prose and speaks in the third not first person. In formal verse satire the events are narrated and, sometimes, acted out on stage. **The informal type includes a wider range of styles and will, essentially, harbor any form of satire that resists classification**. From Narrators, Masks, and Speakers in Satire > [@](#): > > “Satires employ a different kinds of narrators and speakers, and the reader cannot therefore assume that the speaker or storyteller is the author or speaks (directly) for the author” Now the main points: 1.) Satire is a method of attacking a position through ridicule 2.) Satire can take many forms 3.) There is a difference between the author and the speaker. In order to work as Satire, an essay (for example) must have context – if you don’t know that Swift has England in mind when speaking of the Lilliputians, that portion of the story is merely about a giant among odd little people. Context is important. Critical even. Is the intent of BB’s post to ridicule the U.S or to ridicule the OP? Well, here’s where we disagree. I agree that the speaker (that is, the voice within the essay – a common literary term, not semantic bullshit) is _indeed_ spewing anti-America “glurge”. What is the authors intent? This is crucial – and I (and **Desmostylus** , and **yojimbo** ) choose to look a little deeper than what is stark-ravingly obvious to a 5-year old. I see the author’s intent as to ridicule the OP: with enough manipulations and enough disregard of history, you can turn the U.S. Civil War into an act of incompetence and bored war-hawking. The speaker (I’ll say it again) the **speaker** , is being ridiculed by the author as a narrow-minded, willfully ignorant putz. But **someone** doesn’t get this. I’m only going to bother quoting the first post that caught my eye: everything afterwards has been an attempt at verity through perseverance. > [@](#): > > - Originally posted by elf6c\* > Normally with satire you are making fun of the position. The article hardly seems to be mocking or ridiculing the anti-US glurge. In fact, it seems to be reveling in it. . . The first line is great: Satire _is_ intended to ridicule. But in your second sentence you show you completely missed the point. To illustrate: Swift is actually _not_ making fun of small people when Gulliver ends up in Lilliput. > [@](#): > > [line from BB’s post] is actually somehow satire making fun of the anti-US glurge which is filling as many email boxes as anti-French glurge. But I doubt it. As this thread has pointed out-- posting offensive statements and stating “its just a joke” ain’t cutting it and if you believe in the mission of this site never should. It is anti-US bigotry plain and simple… Now, I’d agree with you wholeheartedly if BB had started his own post with the article – especially if he had done so w/o linking to this thread to illustrate his intent to satirize it. You later suggest that some kind of warning should have been posted if it was intended as Satire, if it was _really_ intended as such. Admittedly, that’s the pro-forma solution on this board – _if you happen to be starting a satirical thread_. BB’s post has all the context it needs by actually being posted within the satirized thread. > [@](#): > > It is not a satirical examination of national stereotyping, it’s an exercise in it. No where is there any mocking of those who stereotype, only a joining of their ranks. The OP, the author of the glurge and the ass-monkey who posted it here are three of a kind. The only difference is the country they hate Um, wrongo – sorry pal. Start over – do some reading, acquire some depth and broaden your horizons a bit. BB’s post is NOT the same as the OP, taken in-_fucking_-context. Now. I’ve linked, I’ve discussed, I’ve made rational points with arguments, backed up by examples and analogies. > [@](#): > > thanks for your well researched post, your compelling argument is a shining beacon of critical analysis of a complex issue. You’re welcome. > [@](#): > > Or not.:rolleyes: Lets see you do better – Remember, please, we’re on the SDMB – “I’m right because I just am” doesn’t cut it – you’ll have to somehow reach deep, DEEP down and pull an argument that doesn’t rest on this premise. (on preview) You’re right - that _too_ is Satire. It literally comes in many flavors. But I’m arguing that a Honda Civic is a car, and you’re attempting to counter by showing me a VW Bug. Do better. ---
**Author:** ![elf6c](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/c57346/32.png) [@elf6c](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elf6c)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2003, 7:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-complete-military-history-of-france/164539/94 "2003-04-02T19:26:11Z")
**glee** I read your posts. That is why I thought you should know better. You’re clearly intelligent and we seem to be on the same side of the main issue. But as in the CESM thread, these “examples” (as it was clearly intended in your case) are not going persuade the other side, nor those “on the fence”. In fact, statements like that merely harden the positions of those who do not agree and make it much more likely that you will not be taken seriously, even if all of the rest of your argument should be. In these threads all to often, examples can be too close to what these posters really feel. Behind the cloak of “examples” and “it’s just satire” too much ignorance and bigotry is posted. I guess I agree with your message but completely disagree with your method of spreading it. Go after the poster instead. * * * **Misery Loves Co.** > [@](#): > > My last post was an attempt on my part to play it cool, to rise above it, to give you the benefit of the doubt. Really? I guess I was confused your snarky post: > [@](#): > > You are right - you are way too wrapped up in this. I guess your fingers didn’t get the message. Speaking of not getting the message, lets make it clear repeatedly cutting and pasting various definitions of satire is entirely unhelpful to the point at hand. While your dogmatic insistence on making this a definitional debate over what the term means (which a quick trip to [dictionary.com](http://dictionary.com) would have cleared up for the 2% of populace of Satire Central aka The Pit who didn’t understand this already) is ironic given the nature of the crap your tossing in your reply: > [@](#): > > . . .everything afterwards has been an attempt at verity through perseverance. Ah Mr Kettle, I see you have met Mr Pot. But, I digress. . . To try and make things clear for you here is exactly what I posted: > [@](#): > > For the self-proclaimed masters of “satire” or “humor”, there has been plenty of great satire in the Pit, and there has been plenty of light-hearted pokes at the foibles of other countries-- these posts are neither. Hell they are not even close. For those twisting and turning logic into a pretzel to accommodate your favored bigot- ask yourself why? > > People are pissed not because they don’t understand the motives behind the OP and BB, rather they are pissed because they do. Rather then engage in semantic back flips, maybe you should acknowledge the Gordian Knot solution- the respective posters of the glurge are assholes who couldn’t wait to share their ignorance with us. Which is an acknowledgement of the wide use of satire in the Pit, often quite effectively, and a clear explanation of my position that these posts fall far from the usual standards of satirical lampooning in the Pit, but did however IMHO did fall smack within the usual standards of asspuppetry exhibited by the typical poster of bigoted glurge. To conform to your post: bigot \Big"ot, n. [F. bigot a bigot or hypocrite, a name once given to the Normans in France. Of unknown origin; possibly akin to Sp. bigote a whisker; hombre de bigote a man of spirit and vigor; cf. It. s-bigottire to terrify, to appall. Wedgwood and others maintain that bigot is from the same source as Beguine, Beghard.] 1. A hypocrite; esp., a superstitious hypocrite. [Obs.] 1. A person who regards his own faith and views in matters of religion as unquestionably right, and any belief or opinion opposed to or differing from them as unreasonable or wicked. In an extended sense, a person who is intolerant of opinions which conflict with his own, as in politics or morals; one obstinately and blindly devoted to his own church, party, belief, or opinion. To doubt, where bigots had been content to wonder and believe. --Macaulay. Source: Webster’s Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc. > **[Definition of bigot | Dictionary.com](https://www.dictionary.com/browse/bigot)** > > Definition of bigot from Dictionary.com, the world’s leading online source for English definitions, pronunciations, word origins, idioms, Word of the Day, and more. and importantly: mo•tive ( P ) Pronunciation Key (mtv) n. An emotion, desire, physiological need, or similar impulse that acts as an incitement to action. (mtv, m-tv) A motif in art, literature, or music. adj. Causing or able to cause motion: motive power. Impelling to action: motive pleas. Of or constituting an incitement to action. tr.v. mo•tived, mo•tiv•ing, mo•tives To motivate. * * * [Middle English motif, motive, from Old French motif, from Late Latin mtvus, of motion, from Latin mtus, past participle of movre, to move. See meu- in Indo-European Roots.] > **[Definition of motive | Dictionary.com](https://www.dictionary.com/browse/motive)** > > Definition of motive from Dictionary.com, the world’s leading online source for English definitions, pronunciations, word origins, idioms, Word of the Day, and more. * * * In regards to your defense of BB, please actually look at the post. All he does it cut and paste _without_ any sort of discussion or example making attempts (c.f. **glee’s** post and those in the CESM thread). Given (a) the tenor of the material; (b) the fact that BB cut out the disclaimer (see **Dr Lizardo’s** post); (c) the lack of any explanation in or after the posting; and (d) the timing of his cut and paste job, it seems to me that given **any** of the definitions provided for “satire” that BB’s post was mindless counter-glurge and was **not** satire. Further, the excuse of “satire” does not cover all sins, even if your “heart” was good. See my ongoing discussion with **glee** on this point. Attacking the country of a poster because “he did it too and I am just seeing how he likes it” sounds more like eye for an eye retaliation rather then attempts at fighting ignorance, which is the oft stated purpose of this board. * * * With regards to your attempts at personal insults, spare me. We can discuss this rationally or throw insults at each other, but not both. To me, you started the snarky bullshit and got some back and didn’t like it. Seeing we both may be unintentionally “raising the stakes” with each subsequent post, I tried to respond only to salient points and not the snark. I am assuming you feel the same way. We will see I guess. ---
**Author:** ![Misery\_Loves\_Co](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7cd45c/32.png) [@Misery\_Loves\_Co](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Misery_Loves_Co)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2003, 9:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-complete-military-history-of-france/164539/95 "2003-04-02T21:10:15Z")
I mean this sincerely and with absolutely NO snarkiness intended: As is often the case in this type of forum, I did indeed escalate my snarkiness based on what I percieved as snarkiness on your part. We’ve apparently both seen it happen, perhaps we were both victims and perpetrators this time? I’m more than happy to bury the hatchet. I appologize if "You are right - you are way too wrapped up in this. " came across as snarky. It seemed, IM **H** O that your reply to my second post was pretty inflamatory. Given that you had appologized for “being strident”, and since I felt like you were pretty quick to paint me with a brush I didn’t feel I deserved, I thought maybe it was a subject a little too sore to discuss without escalation. I was honestly, _honestly_ trying to back out gracefully, thus your rolleyes rejoinder put me off. Your observation about rationality and insult-throwins bang on. I was miffed when I wrote my last post, and having severe editing problems (trying coordinate URLs, quotes, and imbedded boldface/italics, all with vB pulling interesting tricks. . . .ugghhh… computer 1, MLC 0) - so some 1st draft stuff appeared in the final draft, naturally after I’d posted it). Not an excuse, just an explanation . . . That said, I never claimed to be a master of satire: I would have been happy to debate why, in specific terms, the thorny post does or does not constitute satire (N.B.: I never said _good_ satire :)) - I just wanted to get into the realm of cite-\>deconstruct-\>cite, and away from generalities. Look at it this way: Indirect Satire means X. BB’s post looks like X to me, and this is why. You said “Hell, they’re not even close!” Why? I was trying to use the “author’s intent” argument to show how BB’s post could work as satire. The clarifications you have made (amongst the snarky bits that we’ll call friendly fire . . . (?)) actually served very well. Accepting that the Pit _does_ happen to be the home of many satirists, the BB rejoinder seemed pretty much normal fare; so attacking it as non-satire didn’t parse. You’ve cleared up the cognative dissonance between what I’ve seen commonly in the Pit to BB’s post, at least regarding this topic. But (looks for cover) Could you explain to me why author vs speaker doesn’t cover this E.G.? I agree that BB’s failure to add any sort of explanation says loads about his underlying intent, and agree, even, that he’s using his post in the manner which you maintain. I.E. He’s not trying to be satirical with it. However, for the sake of friendly argument, remove the bits beyond ‘the OP vs the BB’ - could it be argued as satirical? I mean, within Gulliver’s Travels, Swift doesn’t actually get down and /say/ Hey y’all - I’m satirizing the English!, and the Onion piece is **understood** to be satire given that it’s published by The Onion. Is it unrealistic to read such a post in the _pit_ and see it as such? (And I’m officially tired of the word “snarky” - it’s too bad that it’s such a good word. . .) ---
**Author:** ![glee](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/b5a626/32.png) [@glee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/glee)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2003, 9:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-complete-military-history-of-france/164539/96 "2003-04-02T21:34:38Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by elf6c \* > **glee** I read your posts. That is why I thought you should know better. You’re clearly intelligent and we seem to be on the same side of the main issue. But as in the CESM thread, these “examples” (as it was clearly intended in your case) are not going persuade the other side, nor those “on the fence”. In fact, statements like that merely harden the positions of those who do not agree and make it much more likely that you will not be taken seriously, even if all of the rest of your argument should be. I’m sorry but you’re completely missing my point. I resent obviousguy posting stupid French bashing. As this is a message board, the best I can hope for is that he will retract it, admitting that it is not humorous, just offensive. How to achieve this? Well my first choice (in the **second** post of the thread) was to post the following: - the thread belonged in the Pit (it didn’t start there) - he was being sarcastic, not witty - this was because the French had dared to challenge the US in the UN Note how I got all that correct. But no retraction. Indeed DrLizardo claimed it was humour and the rest of us didn’t know what a parody was. So now I have two posters to take on. I decided to put them in a dilemma. By posting as offensive an anti-American joke as possible, I leave them with three choices: - admit they were wrong (because they are offended when someone insults the US the same way the french were insulted) - say mine is funny (then they get a backlash from the US posters) - run away (moral victory for decency) Now do you see what I’m trying to do? ---
**Author:** ![Badtz\_Maru](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/e36b37/32.png) [@Badtz\_Maru](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Badtz_Maru)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2003, 10:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-complete-military-history-of-france/164539/97 "2003-04-02T22:30:51Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Eonwe \* > \*\*Ha ha. Ha. Ha. Try this one on for size: > > - > > Thousands of black women find out what it’s like to sleep with a winner. Sadly, widespread lynching by white men forestalls any improvement in the black bloodline.\* > > Pretty fucking funny, huh? \*\* Hmm, on one hand you have a joke about (generally assumed) consensual sex, and the use of contraceptives preventing an influx of American DNA in the French people. On the other hand you have a joke about (generallly assumed) non-consensual sex and lynching of the product of those rapes as a control on changes in the African-American bloodline. It’s not a very good analogy, doncha think? In fact, your version is more offensive for a number of reasons. ---
**Author:** ![iampunha](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/74df32/32.png) [@iampunha](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iampunha)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2003, 1:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-complete-military-history-of-france/164539/98 "2003-04-03T01:06:58Z")
Those of you who were amused by this “Complete Military History of France” will no doubt be pleased to hear that it has found its way to rural Virginia radio waves. Yesterday, on the "John-Boy and Billy “Show”, I heard the first few words of it (after a lead-in where I thought to myself “Oh goody, they’re going to do that thing I saw on the board twice”). Station was changed some seconds later. Neither B nor I was terribly enthused at the thought of it being read to us when we’ve both read it and remained fantastically unimpressed. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Pearse](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/richard_pearse/32/13144_2.png) [@Richard\_Pearse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Pearse)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2003, 7:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-complete-military-history-of-france/164539/99 "2003-04-03T07:18:15Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by elf6c \ ***Skogcat** surely all New Zealanders do not think alike, any more then all Americans do (hint hint **glee** ). I would venture there are plenty of anti-US kiwis (is that what some New Zealander’s call themselves? As it seemed like it during the America’s Cup coverage, correct me if I am wrong please). Hell we know you have at least one. Also, not to flog this point yet another time, but some “jokes”, very weak attempts at “satire” or “examples” are offensive no matter what “purpose” the poster claims. See **glee’s** post for an example of that. Right general idea, horrifically wrong “example”. The ends **do not** always justify the means. You cannot employ hateful bigotry to fight it. And as pointed out previously, it seems a few posters are just itching for the chance to share their stupidity, first the OP, then BB in retaliation. > \*\* Well no, of course we do not all think alike, I was generalising, I was also careful to state that I may be wrong on BBs position (he/she hasn’t been back to clarify). It should be noted that the French are generally much more “hated” than the US although at present hating the French is probably out of fashion and the US is a far more topical target. I must say that, living in Australia, I saw only a smidgen of the Americas Cup and the only vitriol seemed to be directed (immaturely) at the New Zealanders who crewed the winning boat. Maybe I missed the anti-america stuff. ---
**Author:** ![elf6c](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/c57346/32.png) [@elf6c](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elf6c)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2003, 4:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-complete-military-history-of-france/164539/100 "2003-04-03T16:07:44Z")
**Misery Loves Co.** consider it buried from me as well. As to the second part of your post, I think we are actually pretty close in our positions. I agree that in this situation it is entirely possible that satire could be (and most often is) found. In the Pit satire is used (possibly overused) quite often. My point was, given the facts, I did not feel that was the intent _in this situation_. Further, sometimes the satire used can be worse then the idiotic post which is being lampooned. However, I do not disagree with any of your general points regarding satire. **glee** I do get your point. I just do not agree on your **application** of it. As we have similarly low opinions of the two posters in question, I understand where you are coming from. However, my point is this- your “cure” cannot be worse then the “disease” you’re fighting. IMHO: > [@](#): > > Since we’re in the Pit, and some xenophobic posters still defend the original as humour, here’s another ‘side-splitter’: > > What was the last thing that went through the minds of the 9/11 victims? > The fuselage. > > Ho-fucking-ho. Was not, and by definition, cannot ever be an appropriate example. I understand that you may differ on that. Fine. I don’t think either of our positions will change on this. I just wanted you to understand that I do _get_ you, I just do not agree with you on this point. With that said, I would like to reiterate my second point from earlier: > [@](#): > > But as in the CESM thread, these “examples” (as it was clearly intended in your case) are not going persuade the other side, nor those “on the fence”. In fact, statements like that merely harden the positions of those who do not agree and make it much more likely that you will not be taken seriously, even if all of the rest of your argument should be. In other words, the effectiveness of an extreme “example” such as the one you posted seems to be rather low. I just think that there are better, more effective ways, of attempting to reduce their ignorance and persuade those “on the fence” of the worthiness of your argument. **Skogcat** Oops I think we had a communication breakdown. I just mentioned the America’s Cup in regards to asking if New Zealander’s minded others calling them Kiwi’s- that’s all. Although I do remember from the coverage that some of the New Zealand fans were rather bitter about the crew of Alingi. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-complete-military-history-of-france/164539.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-complete-military-history-of-france/164539.md?page=6)