Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="APewty" data-source="post: 4506510" data-attributes="member: 71816">So your belief in satire trumps my beliefs, whatever they may be? You say beliefs are made to be ignored or laid aside yet you firmly, wholeheartedly, unequivocally believe in satire? That makes very little sense to me. Instead it seems an attempt to be disingenuous. If your son or daughter or wife is made fun of by someone with an agenda in full public, it's not a matter of whether your family member was wrong but rather that the coward has the gall to be so hurtful and then take the tack that being on the side of right is righteous. Talk about the far right! Isn't that something you despise, those that feel their beliefs are 100% true shouting them to the world and trying to hoist them on everyone? I see satire as nothing different in it's aim. The correct and civilized thing to do is to treat others as you would be treated. I'm not worried about what satire does to my beliefs. I do not like satire's carelessness. I have common decency. I care not for the satirist's disdain for his target. The satirist is a coward, hiding behind "humor". The satirist doesn't engage in discussion, he's an assassin, attacking and running until the next attack. The satirist doesn't give a whit who is hurt with his strike, nor even who is harmed be it the target or collateral damage. The satirist is no better than the person that tells a joke aimed at, for instance, a minority or a person who is "painted" with the joke by way of their status as a minority. The satirist hides behind intellect and intent but lacks manners and common sense. The "enjoyment" of satire espoused here supposes that all satire is of the same caliber or quality. As thormagni says, there is differing levels of quality undoubtedly determined by how well the point of the satirist is made as well as how tasteful the satire is. There is little doubt in my mind that a hateful satire that targets victims would be viewed as poor satire, regardless of it's target, while more civil satire targeting an idea would be viewed as good satire. However, the people who hate or dislike the victims would likely feel the first satire to be good and probably find the second satire inconsequential, if not totally mysterious. Satire is, therefore, dependant on the target and the audience to be considered good or bad, or even to be understood at all.  I have no time not gumption to do so, but I daresay that if I flooded this site with anti-liberal, anti-intellectual or anti-anything-you-believe-in satires, both Grim and Inzeladun would be quickly upset. Do you deny this? Why would these things annoy you? Because they assault your beliefs. They don't attempt to discuss your beliefs. They assault your beliefs. As thormagni said, they are meant to sting. How can anyone take something meant to be an assault and not admit it's an attack? How can anyone that knows an attack for what it is and try to label it as an intelligent, enjoyable form of discussion? I think the only way that anyone would so, is when they are posting satire that supports their own positions.  By the way, the Hank satire I found to be a poor satire since it was not accurate to reality.</blockquote>

Verification