Extreme sarcasm activist with an "I Love Orlando Police" sign


62 Responses to “Extreme sarcasm activist with an "I Love Orlando Police" sign”

  1. tincansongbird says:

    Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit.

    It’s also usually the female activists who are really protesting. Male activists are there in the hopes of screwing female activists.

    • Anonymous says:

      Except the gay male ones, or the trans ones who like men, or maybe the male ones already in committed relationships, or the young ones, or the very old ones, or the male ones who actually care about the issues, or the…

    • Anonymous says:

      Wait, it’s harder to tell with text, so… are you being sarcastic there, or just spouting off ignorance and sexism?

      If the former, good job. If the latter, (sarcasm)Good Job(/sarcasm).

    • MertvayaRuka says:

      “Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit.

      It’s also usually the female activists who are really protesting. Male activists are there in the hopes of screwing female activists.”

      I see what you did there. You managed to find a lower form of wit.

    • jere7my says:

      It’s also usually the female activists who are really protesting. Male activists are there in the hopes of screwing female activists.

      How do you tell the difference between someone who is really protesting and someone who is marching in a protest and carrying a sign but not really protesting? The latter is thinking about boobs?

    • MrWednesday says:

      “sarcasm is the lowest form of wit”

      and the highest form of humour

    • social_maladroit says:

      You need a license to feed the homeless in Orlando? Huh.

      Why not just require a license to be homeless in Orlando? Then you could just sic the police on the homeless. Obviously, it’s the homless who caused the problem in the first place by attracting the do-gooders.

      Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit.

      Wait, I thought puns were the lowest form of wit.

  2. pshaffer says:

    Anon #51 is spot on.

    Having the cops arbitrarily enforce laws that they like or don’t like makes them, rightfully, a target for protest.

    The problem lies with the councilmembers who passed the law, and they are skating on this issue.

    hold them up, by name, for the derision.

    • Ugly Canuck says:

      Anon #52: Nonsense.

      If the police refuse to enforce tyrannical laws, they become the agents of liberty, not tyranny.

      I want people, members of my community, as cops; not simply machines that look like men (like soldiers?) blindly following orders from above, without question, all the while rigourously enforcing whatever commands may issue from that same source of authority upon the rest of us.

      Remember the Nuremberg judgments? Simply “following orders” does not serve to clean dirty hands! Nor does such make you any less of a force aiding tyranny against society.

      And besides, the necessity for discretion in the actual enforcement of the laws is too obvious for any who have had worked a beat, to need discussion.

      But you are correct, overall: that the blame must lie with the legislators, that is, those entrusted with the command of these urban para-military forces, and not those “soldiers” charged with carrying out their orders, who must bear the greatest share of guilt and blame, if blame there is to be, for the imposition of tyrannical laws.
      But nevertheless the police following those orders are guilty and blameworthy too. It seems to me that you are willing to give them a pass, provided that they followed their orders, without question or demur.

      The discretion of the police, properly exercised, is a great benefit to our societies, and in fact essential to the functioning of any system of criminal justice; or indeed, not only for the police, but for any empowered regulation of the conduct of others by the use of rewards and punishments, whatsoever.

      Rules alone, even the best of them, won’t cut it: you still need good people in law enforcement trying to actually make things better, if you hope to build a good society, a good place, to live in.

      We (and police) are people, not rule-following machines. And that is NOT a problem, it is on the contrary, a very very good thing.

      The elimination of police discretion would be an unalloyed evil: but OTOH, and IMHO, the elimination of one or two of the laws they are called upon to enforce would be an unalloyed good.

      And it is not only us civilians who think thus:


      As to the gun, if I got it in my hands, I’d spike it as quickly as I could. Cities are no place for guns!

      • Ugly Canuck says:

        Oh damn – I got this thread confused with the thread as to the police in Seattle leaving an automatic weapon laying around, and that’s why I referenced “the gun”…it goes without saying that the cops should also follow the rules, in addition to enforcing them!

        See here:


        In Canada, at least, we have laws regarding the safe storage of firearms. We enforce those, too!

  3. taghag says:

    wow, good for this guy that he got off his ass and went out to comment on something that’s so obviously a symptom of a flawed system. that being: someone was arrested for giving food to homeless people without a permit!?

    look, i understand the rationale behind requiring a permit to feed the homeless. there is a tiny possibility that someone could misuse the act of feeding the homeless to insidious ends. but how about crafting the law to allow police to be supportive, take the name and id of whoever is handing out food and move along. if the state can’t/won’t take it upon themselves to care for people on the street, don’t try to hinder independent citizens trying to help their community.

  4. Anonymous says:

    That guy rocks!!!

  5. chgoliz says:

    Definitely: The Daily Show. Then Colbert can show clips right after and riff off of them.

  6. Anonymous says:

    I think Sarcasm Man should team up with Captain Obvious.

  7. Gulliver says:

    This is a thing of beauty!

    Humor may not always change the world, but at least is makes it a bit more bearable.

  8. ArizonaHoss says:

    I appreciate sarcasm as much as the next guy, but it’s all anyone knows how to do anymore. Can someone just say what they mean?

    • semiotix says:

      I appreciate sarcasm as much as the next guy, but it’s all anyone knows how to do anymore. Can someone just say what they mean?

      Oooh, thank you SO much for that trenchant little insight. You must be some kind of genius. Does it hurt, having all that genius-level knowledge bouncing around your head? Also, nice hair.

  9. Anonymous says:

    Wow, so many thick headed people that don’t get sarcasm. And I wonder why this country is going to hell…

    You do know that sarcasm can be viewed as an intelligence test right?

  10. Anonymous says:

    This is hilarious, and very effective, until it is edited down to “I think we have to support the police…”

  11. Anonymous says:

    This guy is a bona fide master of his mind!

  12. Zig says:

    This guy is awesome! Truly.

    His delivery was impeccable.

    He should have a segment on the Colbert show.

  13. Anonymous says:

    “The use of words to signify, something other than their literal intention, that is irony!”

    As Sung by Bender

  14. Anonymous says:

    Why aren’t more people protesting from sea to shining sea? That’s easy, they’re lazy, over fed, over privileged, and dumb as cattle. We won’t really miss our rights until they’re all gone and the Police in the USA make the KGB look like kittens.

    The 4th amendment is on the rocks, judges are allowing no knock warrants that are leading to the murder of innocent Americans. No one is held accountable when Cops murder citizens. Habeas Corpus is still suspended. Obama said he’d fix that. Republicans and Democrats pushed through a new and even more sinister Patriot Act which should have been grounds for protests from coast to coast. Police harass and attack citizens with cameras.

    The Police arrest people on any charge they like or can dream it up since the Patriot Act makes it easy to at least try. You can resisting arrest for simply asking “why?” Sure, it just gets tossed out later but it still affects the citizen. The police are using military tactics and means to do their job (a violation of the US Code of Justice). Every single American should be out on the streets in protest every day until this all changes. Until this slippery slope is stopped and we get our country back.

    Can we expect the youth of today to do something about it? Nope, too busy texting and playing MOH. They’re clueless.

    We need a nation wide overhaul on our Police, or we are screwed as a republic.

  15. jphilby says:

    What kind of a cuntry would we have if everybody went around feeding the homeless?

    If you feed people, it just endangers the unemployment figures.

    This young man is completely right; we need to bring back the American Inquisition – nobody expects that.

  16. Jupiter BFPOE says:

    Now that was a moment of Zen!

  17. Anonymous says:


    ….Your Kung Fu Is much Greater.

  18. Cowicide says:

    Well, wadaya know… Anon/Hacktivists/Protestors aren’t all just inane, unintelligent children after all. Oh, what on earth will all the detractors do know that their tiny world view has been shattered?

  19. Anonymous says:

    This guy is good.. Very good and deserves a medal!!!

  20. Anonymous says:

    Sort of reminds of silent protests now taking place in Belarus.


    Applause for the regime!

  21. Anonymous says:

    From Merrian-Webster’s site:

    : a sharp and often satirical or [b]ironic[/b] utterance designed to cut or give pain

    2a : a mode of satirical wit depending for its effect on bitter, caustic, and often ironic language that is usually directed against an individual

    b : the use or language of sarcasm

    link for irony since it’s too long http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/irony

  22. Ipo says:

    Yay! Tyranny is worth saving. I love that guy.

  23. mtnrunner2 says:

    The only difference between him and some of the actual crazies out there is the subtle smile.

    I’d use the same approach regarding border/immigration policy, i.e. I’m glad we have someone enforcing the law for the law’s sake, because we can’t have people coming here to work hard and try to better themselves.

    • Rayonic says:

      I’d use the same approach regarding border/immigration policy, i.e. I’m glad we have someone enforcing the law for the law’s sake, because we can’t have people coming here to work hard and try to better themselves.

      I’d rather have every law get enforced and let people get outraged at the bad ones. If the police pick and choose what to enforce then bad laws get hidden from public attention. Also, they can occasionally enforce those laws on people they don’t like.

      Our border/immigration policy is the same thing taken to a grander scale. Rather than create and enforce a sensible policy, we turn a blind eye and create a huge disenfranchised underclass of non-citizens.

      • CLamb says:

        You are right. The laws should be carefully crafted and the legislators should take the heat for making bad ones. The police should not be getting blamed for bad laws.

  24. Ceronomus says:

    I love this guy! My HERO!

  25. knoxblox says:

    I did a double take, because he looks so much like a friend of mine.

    This guy would be a great guest on the The Colbert Report.

  26. jaytkay says:

    Damn!! Is there an Oscar for being interviewed on local TV?

  27. Anonymous says:

    The activist in the video is holding an Ask Me Anything on reddit: http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/ikmyl/i_am_the_guy_in_the_master_troll_vs_orlando/

  28. anderalert says:

    that is some serious focus. really great. and to be able to keep it going with a news camera in his face is awesome. i hope he gets more opportunities to show his stuff soon.

  29. Deidzoeb says:


  30. Grahamers2002 says:

    I nominate him for every webby category possible. I would also like to invent a few categories for him to win as well.

  31. Anonymous says:

    needs a trollface.jpg

  32. Diziet Sma says:

    Brilliant! Get Colbert on the phone.

  33. E.Tompkins says:

    While I could easily start something like this, I probably couldn’t last more than 45 seconds before I started to lose it and began grinning like a maniac and laughing at the interviewer.

  34. Victor Drath says:

    Ya down with OPD? Who down with OPD?

    Go find a real crime, OPD.

  35. lewis stoole says:

    he reminds me of doug michels doing an ant farm bit
    nice job

  36. failix says:

    This is one of those instances in which I’d use the word “irony” instead of the word “sarcasm”.

    • Anonymous says:

      So is this ironic:
      Everybody misuses the term “ironic” on the net.
      Now, up pops a perfect example of irony (man professing beliefs he does not hold).
      Everybody on the net misuses the term “sarcasm” to describe it.


    • Ugly Canuck says:

      I hate to be pedantic
      but oft sayings called sarcastic
      are, more accurately, ironic.

  37. dbarak says:

    To good effect? Nah. In-your-face sarcasm just alienates people. It would have been more effective to play it 95% straight so it sounds like you’re really a supporter, but that last 5% is where you use subtlety to point out the farcical nature of what you’re trying to protest.

    If I hadn’t just woken up, I’d be able to make my point more clearly. Damned nighttime ibuprofen leaves me groggy.

    • benher says:

      I get your point… but then they’d just chop off the last 5%, you know?

      • dbarak says:

        Who, the TV editors? This is a little more of what I was thinking about…

        “I’m here to support the Orlando Police Department. These police officers are out here 24 hours a day, seven days a week, keeping us safe and protecting our freedoms, and this is the thanks they get? Sometimes these protesters go too far.

        The police were following the law when they made those arrests, so the protesters here are basically protesting the law. Who gave them the right to do that? THEY should be the ones being arrested because they’re basically saying ‘We don’t like that law.’

        I’m sure the council members here in Orlando had a perfectly good reason for requiring permits to feed the homeless. I’m not sure exactly why they did, but we voted them in, so we need to trust them. And think of this – I’m sure there would be fees for getting those permits, so by not getting them they’re pretty much being tax evaders. Also, the money that would be brought in by paying those permit fees could be used by Orlando to do the very thing those other people were trying to do – feed the homeless. So in that case, those people wouldn’t even have to try to feed the homeless, and they wouldn’t have had to get permits, because the city would be doing the same thing with those permit fees.

        I’ve never had a problem with the Orlando police officers, so I don’t have any reason at all to protest what they’re doing.”

        Sarah Palin could probably do a much better job that I could…

  38. nixiebunny says:

    “This country was founded on bootlicking.”


    • Ty_MY says:

      @nixiebunny I think he meant “bootlegging”.
      But your version is pretty good too!

      One of ways to define it would be to look at the *intent*.

      Noun: The use of irony to mock or convey contempt.

      Noun: The expression of one’s meaning by using language that normally signifies the opposite, typically for humorous or emphatic effect.

      • Ugly Canuck says:

        The intent: sarcasm.
        The tool: irony.

        As the intent is clearly revealed by the use of the tool, people take the “shortcut” to save time and ink, and refer to the tool by referencing its intent.

        But it has happened sometimes that people mistake an honest statement for an expression of irony, and an embarrassing faux pas in the response can be the result. It is one of the hazards of responding to ambiguous statements, I suppose.

        A bit OT, but iirc, the repetition and composition of satires were one of the 9 things for which a citizen of Rome could be legally put to death under the laws of the Roman Republic.

        So sarcasm has not always been simply a “laughing matter”. Particularly so, for the powerful.

        Kinda synecdochical, but not quite so.

  39. shutz says:

    To all of you pushing to get him on the Colbert Report, I say he’s a better fit for the Daily Show.

    To have this guy interviewed by Colbert would probably cause some kind of rift in the space-time continuum. Like standing in a room full of mirrors, and looking at infinite reflections.

    I try to watch the Colbert report as often as I can, and I don’t want to have my brain asplode unexpectedly.

  40. tomrigid says:

    Now THAT’S what I call staying on message.

  41. rsplatpc says:

    Channel 9′s microphone really needs a new sticker job

  42. Anonymous says:

    I thought it was clever but missed the point. Asking individual cops to pick which laws they want to enforce is actual tyranny. Voters who elected the city council which made the laws are the real ones to blame.

Leave a Reply