Westboro Baptist Church to the Supreme Court

[SeanC]

My personal feeling is that satire is always okay, regardless whether it's satirizing faith, ethnicity, ideology, nationality, gender, race, sexual orientation or whathaveyou. And further, that people who are offended by it deserve to be offended. Some satire is rooted in bigotry -- or rather, the satirist's bigotry is apparent -- and I don't really give a crap about that either, provided the satire hits its mark. The main problem with my position is that not enough people feel the same way I do. I mean, it appears there are a lot of people out there who expect to be treated with sensitivity, or, if not themselves, expect certain groups to be treated with sensitivity.

 

So I guess you could say I"m interested in what these people believe the squelch level is between, say, amusing and disparaging. The underlying tools of satire are ridicule, derision, exaggeration, caricature, scorn, etc. How does one wield such tools without an intent to disparage?

[Dave McReynolds]

So I guess you could say I"m interested in what these people believe the squelch level is between, say, amusing and disparaging. The underlying tools of satire are ridicule, derision, exaggeration, caricature, scorn, etc. How does one wield such tools without an intent to disparage?

 

Most people would rather avoid offending other people, if for no other reason than the amount of discomfort likely to be reflected back on the offender. I think we think we know, innately, when we're likely to offend, although sometimes we guess wrong about that, and other times we open our mouth at the wrong time. For example, I doubt that anyone on Jerry Brown's staff really thinks Meg Whitman is a whore, in the sense of needing to supplement her income by working part-time at night, and whoever said that no doubt thought their intended audience would appreciate the humor in that remark, which they probably did, at the time. In retrospect, I'm sure they are sorry they weren't more sensitive in their choice of words, for the reason I stated above.

 

So the squelch level totally depends on how accurately one gauges receptivity of one's audience, and how thick one's skin is.

 

If one wishes to engage in all the varieties of satire that you list, and doesn't wish to sit on the hot seat, then one must choose one's audience carefully.

[SeanC]

So I guess you could say I"m interested in what these people believe the squelch level is between, say, amusing and disparaging. The underlying tools of satire are ridicule, derision, exaggeration, caricature, scorn, etc. How does one wield such tools without an intent to disparage?

 

Most people would rather avoid offending other people, if for no other reason than the amount of discomfort likely to be reflected back on the offender. I think we think we know, innately, when we're likely to offend, although sometimes we guess wrong about that, and other times we open our mouth at the wrong time. For example, I doubt that anyone on Jerry Brown's staff really thinks Meg Whitman is a whore, in the sense of needing to supplement her income by working part-time at night, and whoever said that no doubt thought their intended audience would appreciate the humor in that remark, which they probably did, at the time. In retrospect, I'm sure they are sorry they weren't more sensitive in their choice of words, for the reason I stated above.

 

So the squelch level totally depends on how accurately one gauges receptivity of one's audience, and how thick one's skin is.

 

If one wishes to engage in all the varieties of satire that you list, and doesn't wish to sit on the hot seat, then one must choose one's audience carefully.

 

Good points, Dave, but you appear to be referring to speech in general, whereas my comments were primarily about a certain type of speech -- satire. Brown's comments about Whitman, for instance, weren't intended as satire. Humorous to his staff, sure, but it wasn't satire. And if Whitman were to call Brown an "asshole" for saying it, she's not satirizing him either; she's simply uttering her opinion or expressing enmity for the man.

 

When it comes to gauging the receptivity of one's audience, or choosing the audience carefully, what does that really mean when the medium one chooses to present his satire is a web page, whose audience is, potentially at least, the entire world?

[Dave McReynolds]

As stated in Wikipedia, a goal of satire is "first make people laugh, and then make them think." When satire flops, people find it to be in poor taste, without humor, or in the worst case, feel revulsion.

 

I think all a person can do who attempts satire on a public web page is to aim for the former, knowing that he risks the later. The court of public opinion will be the judge.

[SeanC]

As stated in Wikipedia, a goal of satire is "first make people laugh, and then make them think." When satire flops, people find it to be in poor taste, without humor, or in the worst case, feel revulsion.

 

I think all a person can do who attempts satire on a public web page is to aim for the former, knowing that he risks the later. The court of public opinion will be the judge.

The wikipedia definition touches around the edges, but misses some key components. Satire need not be humorous. Laughter is not a requirement (and of course its success is often defined more by the people who dont laugh than by those who do). Satire can be sharp, biting and effective without eliciting a ha-ha moment. So in that sense, the wikipedia author was describing his preference for satire rather than its sine qua non.

 

I mentioned the web as medium, but the same holds true for just about any medium -- print, television, cinema, theater, etc. -- they're all universal in scope. In other words, there's no way for an author of satire to carefully choose his audience. He can only choose his targets. Hell, some audiences don't get it until generations have passed....

 

I stated earlier my opinion that anyone offended by satire deserves to be offended, but I'd like to add a subtle modification to that: anyone offended by satire needs to be offended.

[Bob Palin]

Satire: the use of ridicule, irony or sarcasm to expose folly or vice etc

 

OED

[Dave McReynolds]

there's no way for an author of satire to carefully choose his audience. He can only choose his targets. Hell, some audiences don't get it until generations have passed....

 

 

I've always admired artists, such as van Gogh, who believe enough in their work to do that. Never understood them, but admired them.

[beemerman2k]

My personal feeling is that satire is always okay, regardless whether it's satirizing faith, ethnicity, ideology, nationality, gender, race, sexual orientation or whathaveyou. And further, that people who are offended by it deserve to be offended. Some satire is rooted in bigotry -- or rather, the satirist's bigotry is apparent -- and I don't really give a crap about that either, provided the satire hits its mark. The main problem with my position is that not enough people feel the same way I do. I mean, it appears there are a lot of people out there who expect to be treated with sensitivity, or, if not themselves, expect certain groups to be treated with sensitivity.

 

So I guess you could say I"m interested in what these people believe the squelch level is between, say, amusing and disparaging. The underlying tools of satire are ridicule, derision, exaggeration, caricature, scorn, etc. How does one wield such tools without intent to disparage?

 

Great perspective; the greatest way to legitimize and validate a satirist is to allow yourself to be offended by the satire. If you really disagree with their humor and/or the point behind the humor, offense is the absolute last emotion you can afford to indulge in. The very presence of such offense validates the satire!

 

Allowing yourself the freedom to openly address and to investigate the satire for the truths and point behind the humor is to me the most noble and mature response to the humor. In doing so, you communicate many things: 1) I am not under the power of that satirist or the humor 2) I am not afraid of the ideas the satire addresses and 3) all ideas are equally worthy of consideration without prejudice or insecurity.

 

To me, adopting this attitude toward any potentially offensive gesture whether it was told in jest or as serious criticism is the best way of disarming the critic! Once the satire transformed into rational material for the purposes of evaluation, it can then be gleaned for any real worthwhile ideas, if any, and then left behind. Open avenues of understanding and insights usually follow. New friendships are also often formed by divergent parties when this pattern is exercised. Racial, political, ideological -- all manner of new bonds form among otherwise opposed parties.

 

Oh, so to answer the question -- throw away the squelch button! Intent matters little. The value of the satire is all that really matters.

[Ken H.]

How does one wield such tools without an intent to disparage?

Well you can’t. Or at least you can only with very limited effectiveness. Because the deliverer (of the satire) only has an extremely limited knowledge of how it will be taken by the receiver. As humor, food for thought, or down right insulting - provoking a negative, hostile reaction? Labeling of the words as one type or another (satire, humour, insults, complements, whatever) is irrelevant. It’s how they are understood by the receipt that holds everything. It’s the old business communications rule – there is no communication unless the speaker and the listener both have the same meaning for the words.

 

An attitude that some other person deserves to be offended (or needs to be (just another way of saying deserves to be)) is hopelessly mired in confrontationism which ultimately fails.

 

[Ken H.]

Allowing yourself the freedom to openly address and to investigate the satire for the truths and point behind the humor is to me the most noble and mature response to the humor...

While yours is a great attitude to have, the mistake we make is assuming others have (or even should have) the same attitude.

 

But ponder this question please – If one is never offended by attacks on one’s beliefs, what does that say about one’s commitment to those beliefs?

 

[SeanC]

Bob, that definition may be from an Oxford dictionary, but it's certainly not from the OED. Here's what my copy of the OED (2nd Ed., 1989, with the v4.0 software for Mac OS X) says:

 

satire, n.

 

(`sætaɪə®)

 

[a. F. satire (= Sp. sátira, Pg., It. satira, G. satire), or directly ad. L. satira, later form of satura, in early use a discursive composition in verse treating of a variety of subjects, in classical use a poem in which prevalent follies or vices are assailed with ridicule or with serious denunciation. The word is a specific application of satura medley; this general sense appears in the phrase per saturam in the lump, indiscriminately; according to the grammarians this is elliptical for lanx satura (lit. 'full dish': lanx dish, satura, fem. of satur full, related to satis enough), which is alleged to have been used for a dish containing various kinds of fruit, and for food composed of many different ingredients.

    Formerly often confused or associated with SATYR (see esp. sense 4), from the common notion (found already in some ancient grammarians) that L. satira was derived from the Gr. σάτυρος satyr, in allusion to the chorus of satyrs which gave its name to the Greek 'satyric' drama. The words satire and satyr were probably at one time pronounced alike, as the derivatives satiric and satyric are still; and the common use of y and i as interchangeable symbols in the 16th and 17th c. still further contributed to the confusion.]

 

I. 1. A poem, or in modern use sometimes a prose composition, in which prevailing vices or follies are held up to ridicule. Sometimes, less correctly, applied to a composition in verse or prose intended to ridicule a particular person or class of persons, a lampoon.

    Also used Hist. as the rendering of L. satura in its preclassical sense of a poetic 'medley': see the etymological note above.

 

†b. transf. A satirical utterance; a speech or saying in ridicule of some person or thing. Obs.

 

c. fig. A thing, fact, or circumstance that has the effect of making some person or thing ridiculous.

 

2. a. The species of literature constituted by satires; satirical composition.

 

b. The employment, in speaking or writing, of sarcasm, irony, ridicule, etc. in exposing, denouncing, deriding, or ridiculing vice, folly, indecorum, abuses, or evils of any kind.

 

c. fig. Effect in making ridiculous. (Cf. 1 c.)

 

d. personified.

 

3. Satirical temper, disposition to use 'satire'.

 

†II. 4. A satirical person, satirist. Obs.

    [Perh. to be regarded as a misuse of Satyr.]

 

 

I've left out the historical quotations from the OED's entry, pasting only the etymology and definitions. Anyway, from either the OED or SOOD, it's clear that humor is not a necessary requirement of satire. I think the Wikipedia author's stated goal of satire ("first make people laugh, then make them think") is a valid personal preference (and the author may well fall into the group I mentioned previously who expect a certain amount of sensitivity), but it's the exposing of ideas as something other than their face value claims that is essential, be that through mockery, ridicule or serious denunciation &c.

[SeanC]

While yours is a great attitude to have, the mistake we make is assuming others have (or even should have) the same attitude.

First let me say how much I enjoyed the way James phrased it ("Oh, so to answer the question -- throw away the squelch button! Intent matters little. The value of the satire is all that really matters.") is more than just a great attitude; it's civilized, genteel and enlightened. After all, he's not merely referring to satire directed at others, but to himself as well. It's the sensitive of the world who are the ogres, those who are quick to take offense and respond with anger and oafish heavy-handedness.

 

Assuming others are civilized and genteel may be a mistake, but it's a bigger mistake to care that much whether they're not. When creating satire, that is. In the course of normal communication, it makes good sense to consider the sophistication and sensibilities of the people with whom you're communicating.

 

But ponder this question please – If one is never offended by attacks on one's beliefs, what does that say about one's commitment to those beliefs?

Taking offense is always a choice. It's a conscious decision. It's not something that just happens over which you have no control. You can choose to be offended or you can choose not to be. Commitment, too, is a choice, a series of choices over which you have control at every step. So if you're assuming that one's inability to control his emotions is in some way indicative of his level of commitment to his beliefs, I'd say you're wrong. In fact, I would say that those who do take offense are at some level insecure in their beliefs.

[Ken H.]

First let me say how much I enjoyed the way James phrased it ("Oh, so to answer the question -- throw away the squelch button! Intent matters little. The value of the satire is all that really matters.")

Assuming others are civilized and genteel may be a mistake, but it's a bigger mistake to care that much whether they're not.

Yes, throw away the squelch button! Say whatever you think and want! No matter how hateful! It’s only satire after all. Offend anyone and everyone! It’s their problem they’re outraged by what you say, not yours! They just need to get a thicker skin!

 

Then we all stand in astonishment (and by the way – outrage) when they say what they think of us back. How DARE they say that about the USA! (And often with 'methods of speech' much different than words.) But after all, they’re just practicing the free-speech we preach, right?

 

When creating satire, that is. In the course of normal communication, it makes good sense to consider the sophistication and sensibilities of the people with whom you're communicating.

But see Sean, you’re trying to draw a distinction between satire and other forms of communication as if satire somehow has a special set of rules, is some how exempt from being unacceptably offensive. But it’s not. It’s just words. Words delivered, to quote your own quoted OED definition, “...with ridicule or with serious denunciation.”

 

The person toward whom the satire is directed doesn’t (necessarily) know/think, ‘oh (s)he is being satiric when assaulting my (for example) religion.’ (S)he only knows the satirist is assaulting his/her religion. Period. Throw in language barriers, and is it any wonder that the subtleness of something being said in jest or satire vs. an out and out insult/verbal attack is lost?

 

So if you're assuming that one's inability to control his emotions is in some way indicative of his level of commitment to his beliefs, I'd say you're wrong. In fact, I would say that those who do take offense are at some level insecure in their beliefs.

So when I get lambasted here for criticizing the USA with posters immediately jumping in indignation and offence that I’m doing so, they’re in effect insecure in their belief in America?

 

Or is what’s good for the goose not good for the gander? (Or is that saying the other way around, I can never remember!)

 

 

Words are the most powerful weapon humans have. Word can lanch a 1000 ships or start a 1000 wars. To say, ‘how people react to what I say is their problem not mine’ is the ultimate in blame the victim (for use of the weapon) think. It’s fundamentally no different than for example blaming the rape victim as having putting her(his)self in a position to be vulnerable to rape. I.e. the ‘s(he) deserved it’ axiom. The outcome of an exchange of words (even under the veil of ‘it’s only satire’) is just as much the fault of the deliverer as the recipient. Maybe more so because the deliverer started it.

 

[SeanC]

An attitude that some other person deserves to be offended (or needs to be (just another way of saying deserves to be)) is hopelessly mired in confrontationism which ultimately fails.

Satire, by its very nature, is confrontational. If it's not, if no one is offended by it, or inclined to be offended -- at least a little bit -- then it probably wasn't very good satire.

 

That's why South Park is so successful with it. Take last season's Mohammed episode. They weren't satirizing Islam or the prophet Mohammed -- that was just the set up -- they were satirizing those who believe, with great conviction, that one mustn't satirize Islam.

 

And that's where you failed to see my subtle distinction between "deserves" to be offended and "needs" to be (my fault, not yours). The former is a moral judgment, and it's not particularly relevant. The latter, however, is a gauge of the satire's success, i.e., the satirist needs them. The episode exposed some nutty aspects of Islam for sure, but it also exposed the craziness of caring too much about people who are easily offended (and prone to react violently). They nailed it at two levels, and yes, people took offense to it, which validated their point.

[Ken H.]

And that's where you failed to see my subtle distinction between "deserves" to be offended and "needs" to be (my fault, not yours).

I guess what it boils down to, and we’ll just have to agree to disagree on this one, is I can’t fathom a situation where someone, “needs to be offended.” Someone may need to be educated in the difference in our opinion/viewpoint about something vs. theirs, or show the err in their ways (from again our perspective), or within the definition of sociality acceptance, needs to be corrected.

 

But needs to be offended? Never.

[beemerman2k]

I remember when I was a kid growing up in Detroit, MI, a song that we learned in grade school (Bagley Elementary School for the record). It went something like:

 

Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never harm me

 

It is IMPOSSIBLE for you to offend me. IMPOSSIBLE! It is possible, however, to allow myself to be offended by your words. If I allow myself to be offended, that's my fault, not yours. If I am going to hand the power of my disposition over to anyone out there who cares to abuse it, then I deserve exactly what I get.

 

I do hope you see the distinction.

[beemerman2k]

One other thing, when someone makes a statement they feel strongly about, regardless of how feasible their perspective might seem to me, I feel obligated to exercise what is often attributed to St. Francis of Assisi:

 

Seek first to understand, then to be understood

 

If a person makes what I consider to be a potentially offensive comment, I want to know why that person made the statement.

 

"I think black people ought to be put in chains and put back on the plantation"

 

OK, why do you think so?

 

"Ummmm, they were designed by God for that kind of work"

 

Why would I allow myself to be offended by an obvious idiot?

 

"I think black people should quit taking white people's jobs"

 

OK, why would you think blacks are taking white people's jobs?

 

"I don't, I just wondered if I could ruffle your feathers"

 

Oh, I like your sick, warped, and twisted sense of humor. Allow me to introduce myself

[Agent_Orange]

[Rocer]

too.

 

I've enjoyed the later part of this thread. Sean, we have the same edition of the OED or to be more accurate, Kath has it and I'm waiting for the movie.

 

Again, I've enjoyed this exchange.