@Damage:
Here I have some ideas regarding your question
A satire is a kind of exaggerated mirror you place in front of someone.
The aim is to show something negative and that people which see it shall think about it. Even members of the critizised parties should be able to think about the satire, they should recognize themselves in it.
It needs to be clearly understandable and it shouldn't hurt someone's feelings in an extreme way. That is the most important fact!
It has to use clear(!) signs which are possible to be identified with the topic.
Another thing is that it only should focus on some important and supporting
facts/statements, and not a whole list consisting of 1000 minor ones...
These things are important to reduce the possibility of the audience to miss it. And it should have a kind of niveau in a funny and perhaps even paradox/ironical way. For example the "frostbitten testicles" are a perfect example how it shouldn't be done...That is so bad that it seems like kid-brain-shit. At least it leaves a bitter smack and that isn't good.
A better way is to exaggerate in a much cheesier way.
An example for "extra tr00" BMers:
"I'm that evil that I have to state how evil I am - 667(for overzealous people only) forever!" Works much better.
The 101 Rules of Black Metal are an example of an in some points well done one.
The scale of them vary from "extra light" to "extra heavy", so I can't state
that they're always fit perfectly... It depends...
It definatly is an artistic way of showing someone's flaws, but it should be handled carefully
'cuz a too drastic form hurts emotions and that leads to conflicts and so the aim of thinking is missed... So it should be varied in the dimensions of attacking, according to the purpose.
They're not easy to do, but the one who masters it kicks ass (in the sense of encouraging to think and reflect)
without using physical violence. A whisper is sometimes much more frightening then a scream.
I think you noticed it - I'm a little fan of such stuff when done right
Conflicts are normal, they are one of the basics of the human and necessary and it hasn't to be destructive in a negative way.
Without conflict no evolution, but conflict isn't the point.
The way of expressing the opposition is the point.
Opposition is a result of conflict, so the scale of reaction is the key to the topic. For a conflict words can be used, it can be a fight of minds, and also a fight of weapons.
And this is the touchy thing. How to react?
Fighting with words, killing somnebody or something inbetween?
That has to be decided by everybody on their own, but that doesn't mean that another is able to understand the reasons of the person why he reacts in this way and not in another...
But what I don't like are violent conflicts between nations because this means war and people fight for shit they don't even know/want and they fight because they are expected or commanded to do so.
Perhaps even some are looking for expressing their inner violent emotions, to calm their inner war because they are not able to do so in society because of rules, live situations etc. ...
(that is a totally different topic but it touches this one)
And they they don't fight for their country, they fight for their own existence because the human has the inner instinct to survive. Of course, the brain can dominate this instinct but not in every case.
Battles between two persons are a slight different thing. Here they know why they fight and they're aware of the possible endings. Here the reasons aren't that abstract like in wars.
Battles between two people can happen in wars, but it is much more personal and they know that
someone has to die because otherwise oneself is dead and that is not acceptable in for the most...
Conflicts are't bad by nature - they become bad by deeds and purposes (wars because of resources etc).
Man...thats a very difficult topic you know.... even philosophical. And that in a foreign language...
I hope you understood my ideas and thoughts. Questions, comments are welcome
