I’ve only ever seen this on the internet, never in real life(probably because you’d get beat up for it).
Basically someone who clearly is an actual poster(not a one trick/hit and run troll etc) will post things that seem to be just plain offensive or cruel, or obviously inflammatory. When they eventually get a reaction they instantly back off the sentiment they showed earlier crying performance art/elaborate satire/ironic posting BUT their posts are indistinguishable from someone who honestly holds the opinions they claim they are actually mocking. And hell even knowing their posts for years it is impossible to tell whether they honestly hold those opinions or not. Sometimes there is more than one, and the whole forum appears to be fictional characters talking to each other and when someone is so so stupid as to take them at obvious face value they quickly retreat to their irony shield “you mad bro?” dissembling. But I mean what is the point of satire indistinguishable from an actual person holding that opinon?
Actual satire will make a point by exhibiting certain clues, such as inconsistencies or self-reference. If what you have is an exact replica of the intended target of the satire, then it can’t be considered good satire.
What you’re talking about here is just a kind of trolling.
If done with sincerity and clarity to get people to think about the logic of their belief or position, it’s being a Devil’s Advocate (which I don’t think has a simple verb form). If done to rile people up, it’s trolling. If it’s a joke, it’s joking.
If you can’t tell which of the above it is, it’s just bad writing.
I kinda feel bad for the satirists these days. I can think of many opinions held by actual people that are so off the wall, internal inconsistencies included, it’s all but impossible to create a parody that’s in any way an obvious fiction. (Poe’s Law.) Then, when people take it seriously and have to be told it was a joke, they get slammed for writing bad satire and lumped in with the trolls.
I think it’s called “irony: the use of words to express something other than and especially the opposite of the literal meaning.”
The problem with this style is that it requires extensive knowledge and familiarity about the person making the statement and who they are making the statement about.
For example, the intended humor in the “c-word” tweet is that it is mimicking the style of tweets one might see about an adult actress who appears nice and sweet when in character but is rumored to be an unpleasent and difficult prima-dona in real life (i.e. see the Anne Hatheway thread). It’s supposed to be ironic and humorous because Qwhateverhername is a nine year old girl in her first role and presumably far too young to have developed into such a jerk.
Of course it fails because it’s basically calling a little girl the c-word.
An effective example would be David Chapelle’s Wayne Brady bit. It’s funny because it’s a black commedian poking fun at racial stereotypes by having someone who is widely regarded as a very nice black man acting against type and going on a psychotic drug induced violent rampage, dragging poor Dave along for the ride.
It is exactly this.
Irony is often used within satire, but satire has more going on. Not every ironic statement is satire, but it’s always a matter of saying what you want to say by saying the exact opposite of what you want to say.
Intended statement: She is a sweet and adorable little girl.
Words used in order to make that statement: “She’s kind of a cunt, right?”
Irony: The word “cunt” is used to mean the exact opposite of what the word means as objectively defined.
There’s no “of course” about the joke failing. For many many people the joke successfully delivered exactly as it was intended.
and when someone is so so stupid as to take them at obvious face value they quickly retreat to their irony shield “you mad bro?” dissembling. But I mean what is the point of satire indistinguishable from an actual person holding that opinon?