quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: Jim, But you're just restating the "You have to respect my opinions." argument, which I think is a really poor one. I don't consider saying that you can't show how someone's statements are invalid and even laughably so because it would hurt their feelings to be a legitimate statement. I don't think it's responsible or productive to relinquish quality in order to make sure people don't feel bad.
Neither do I, Squicky, but you can do this without mocking and you can also do it with real arguments instead of making up parodies of what people are saying.
If you want to accomplish anymore than sneering, you *do* have to respect people's opinions.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by MrSquicky: It's not even attacking a belief, it's attacking a bunch of dumb, easily refutable statements. It's mocking statements that, to me, deserve to be mocked, but it doesn't mock a group of people or even a belief. I don't see the basis for making that claim. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is not mocking easily refutable statments -- it is mocking people with a certain belief by putting those dumb, easily refutable statments in their mouths.
I have to agree with MrSquicky's quote. I also agree with Porter... except I don't think mocking people who keep me and other gay folk down is a bad thing. You keep me down, prepare to be insulted. Nothing personal. Just the reaction to be expected. It was until very recently a death sentence to be out of the closet. Should I be happy at the progress? Sure thing! But I'm still angry at the remaining bigotry and how it affects the laws against me. It's not best way to keep a rational discussion going, but I like to see a joke like this every now and then. Makes me smile.
Posts: 4953 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
If anyone presented any of those 10 arguments as serious reasons why SSM should not be considered for legalisation in a secular society, then my respect for them would plummet.
I have heard arguments against SSM that have not had that effect.
If those opposed to SSM want to have any chance of success in preventing legalisation of SSM then I suggest that stay clear of all those 10 points.
Posts: 571 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Most rascist jokes are focused on culture.
When your target is an ethnic group, the situation is completely different from when your target is a group sharing an idea.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: I don't think mocking people who keep me and other gay folk down is a bad thing. You keep me down, prepare to be insulted. Nothing personal.
Baloney. Sorry, Telpy. This isn't civil disobedience. However you percieve yourself to be hurt, it doesn't justify hurting others.
That's a little dramatic. Let me put it this way: if you mock people, it makes you the kind of person who mocks people. There's no way around that.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:When your target is an ethnic group, the situation is completely different from when your target is a group sharing an idea.
Most racsist jokes are based on a culture. Many ideas are prominent in certain cultures. Mocking those who hold ideas strikes very close to mocking everyone in that culture. It isn't nearly as far apart as you'd like to think.
There's no good reason to stop respecting people because you disagree with them.
To clarify, I don't think that you personally did that.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know, Kat...personally I cannot criticize someone for thinking that being hurt is a very good reason to hurt others, or insult others.
It's natural. Were I gay, I'd probably find the list even funnier. And hope maybe it pissed off some people who opposed SSM. Even while realizing that satires like that probably set back the cause.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not saying I haven't done it - I have done it, although not usually to crowds. I don't think it's okay, but that my desire to be a lady is occaionally supplanted by fury.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just on the basis of a disagreement, I think that's no reason to stop respecting someone. That's just vanity, to disrespect someone because they disagree wtih you.
But depending on the nature of the disagreement, well, I might no longer respect them as much.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
You know, I had come to the conclusion that I would abstain if legalizing same sex marriage came up for a vote in my state. Mainly because my main arguments against it are personal judgements on sexual behavior that I don't think should be legislated. And my lesser arguments against it are fairly weak, especially in the face of the prevalence of divorce.
But to read a list like that gets my back up, and makes me want to defend a view I really am willing to let go of.
Posts: 5948 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hmm...I think I meant respect as a verb relating to how one treats people, not just what one thinks of them.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Most racsist jokes are based on a culture. Many ideas are prominent in certain cultures. Mocking those who hold ideas strikes very close to mocking everyone in that culture. It isn't nearly as far apart as you'd like to think.
I completely disagree. The mere fact that racist jokes may be based on cultural stereotypes doesn't change the fact that the target of a racist joke is an ethnic group. We have established, legally -- in both your country and mine -- that targeting ethnic groups with derisive speech is not okay. It's called "hate speech" in egregious cases. We have most certainly not established that targeting an ideological group with derisive speech (particularly one as ethnically diverse as same-sex marriage opponents) isn't okay.
I don't understand why you don't see the difference. One of these two things takes us down the road to hate crime; the other does not.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:We have established, legally -- in both your country and mine -- that targeting ethnic groups with derisive speech is not okay. It's called "hate speech" in egregious cases.
What??
I agree that it's not okay, but it is still legal.
I also despise classifying things as hate crimes: it is penalizing for supposed motives instead of actions, and it makes some victims more equal than others. It is a form of thought policing. Very 1984.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, sneering happens, we all do it (I sure do) and we all gain and lose respect for people... this is the way of things. I can name several people whose respect I have lost in just the last few years... there are almost certainly more that I don't know about.
Telpy, I think it's ok to have your fun... I don't object to people having a good laugh at other's expenses... but I do object to telling people that they have to take their medicine or be told they don't have a sense of humor.
To expect to be able to sneer and not have people react... that is, IMO, to be overly sensitive to other people's reactions.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I don't know why you're so shocked, did I sound too severe in my response? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It seemed like you were telling me to either shut up and enjoy it or go away.
I'm saying this isn't the last time you will find something that offends you. You can either continue to let these things offend you or you can learn to deal with them.
Just for the record, the list wasn't particularly funny. It lacked that oh so important ingredient to humour: subtlety.
Posts: 3564 | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Saw this on LJ several times (for some reason, my flist is very left-wing ) Didn't find it all that amusing. It's never a good idea to build your opponent's straw men for them, then knock them down.
Of course, I've never heard an argument against SSM that wasn't either unsupportable in a secular society or an end-run around religious beliefs, trying to form a supportable argument out of questionable statistics. Those arguments made without reference to religion usually come from religious people trying to work logically backwards from a preconcieved religious belief.
It's a moot point, though. There will either be legal SSM marriage in my lifetime, or the term 'marriage' will become as obsolete as the term 'quadroon.' The wheels of culture are moving that way, or so it seems to me.
In any case, I was nott terribly amused by this listt, though I was very curious what Hatrack would make of it. Thanks, Troubs!
Posts: 9293 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
sat·ire (săt'īr') n. A literary work in which human vice or folly is attacked through irony, derision, or wit. Irony, sarcasm, or caustic wit used to attack or expose folly, vice, or stupidity.
Obviously if you don't consider your opinions stupid you may be offended at a satirical version of them. And I agree that lists such as this are hardly the best way to discuss the issue with people who hold such beliefs. But satire is good at exposing fallacies to otherwise undecided people. Also, it can be hilarious.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
And yes, I know I got grumpy about one of them, but not for what was contained therein, i.e., not the joke itself, but what the example cited in the joke made me think of.
Posts: 2532 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
I'm suggesting that when you are bitterly satirical about people's deeply held opinions, you shouldn't be surprised when people get offended.
Also that it cost you support. It's no different than arguing a point on a forum-- getting snarky pisses people off and costs you points in the argument. Doesn't mean you can't or even that you shouldn't do it... just don't blame people for reacting to it.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm suggesting that when you are bitterly satirical about people's deeply held opinions, you shouldn't be surprised when people get offended.
I agree, Jim-Me, which is whyy I didn't post this here, even though I was truly curious about what people here would say about it. That, and I remember an essay of OSC's that made the dog argument (sort of) and I wouldn't want to offend him.
Posts: 9293 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges: But satire is good at exposing fallacies to otherwise undecided people.
Chris, I disagree with this point and this point only... I think, in fact, that you are fortunate if it doesn't muddle the issue.
Example-- Jay Leno joked that then VP Quayle wanted to go to Mars to explore the canals there as a possible fresh water supply or something to that effect. I know *republicans* who later thought this was Quayle's actual stated position on space exploration.
It can be very funny, but never underestimate the power of "I heard that..."
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
How about "satire can be good at exposing fallacies..."?
It can also be a way to see what other people may think of your well-reasoned arguments.
I'm not saying anyone shouldn't be offended, or that poorly done satire can't cause more harm than help. But I'm also one of the people who will make jokes about anything, even things I personally hold dear. Especially things I personally hold dear. There may be inappropriate times to make jokes about certain subjects, but I don't think there's anything that can't be, shouldn't be mocked.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think that it's an extremely rare satire that manages to do that more than it manages to turn conversations into arguments.
edit: Of course, I'm talking about satire concerning such issues, not something like a satire of a TV show.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:But satire is good at exposing fallacies to otherwise undecided people.
But this list did not actually do that. It did refer to some fallacious statements, but it used some very weak arguments to counter them, which I did not find to be very convincing.
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I don't know why you're so shocked, did I sound too severe in my response?
It seemed like you were telling me to either shut up and enjoy it or go away.
I was really confused as to why you paired my quote with the other one. If this is why, let me say I wasn't telling you to enjoy it or go away. I was basically saying that if you really feel the joke was making undue fun of a group then maybe it's a TOS violation. I, personally don't think you think is is a TOS violation, (do you?), so my statement was an albeit ineffective attempt to put the issue in perspective. Sorry if I was too callous. Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Satire also serves as a release valve for people who have been making reasoned arguments for some time and are, frankly, getting fed up with what they perceive as unreasonable responses. Satire such as this serves as an injoke, a way to laugh among themselves.
I really doubt this list was ever intended to change minds or be considered as a useful argument in the gay marriage discussion (although the writer probably wouldn't mind if that happened) any more than David Letterman's top 10 lists are intended to cause social change. I would imagine it was written for fun, and posted here for the same reason.
However, if we are now limited to only serious, meaningful statements from this point forward on all social topics I may as well bow out.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
OK, Karl, let me explain why your post bothered me:
Of course the post wasn't a violation of the TOS, and I didn't think that you thought that I thought it was.*
It seemed that you were telling me that if something didn't cross the TOS line, then I didn't have anything to complain about or critizice.
Of course, now that I know that you thought that perhaps I might think it was against the TOS, that statement no longer seems mean-spirited and shocking (coming from you).
*Therefore, I clearly cannot choose the wine in front of you.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Chris, I think part of the problem is something you identified in passing-- poorly done satire.
Good satire has a certain reverence for the thing satired... it's subtle and hard to grasp, but it's there. You have to understand it truly to make fun of it truly... in Ender parlance, you have to love the thing you mock (and I would say it's far more important to satire than to combat).
The best example I can think of is the difference between older George Carlin, which often mocked Catholicism, and newer Carlin, which simply spews vitriol at it. Somewhere along the line, he went from poking loving fun, to poking hateful jabs, or, as someone put it so well earlier, from "laughing with" to "laughing at" a group of people.
I couldn't tell you what makes the difference, but it is tangible when it's there.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Fair enough, and I recognize the distinction (and agree with the example; Carlin's one of my favorite comedians and I can't listen to a couple of his albums because of the anger). This list didn't go anywhere near that level of bile, at least not to me.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Baloney. Sorry, Telpy. This isn't civil disobedience. However you percieve yourself to be hurt, it doesn't justify hurting others.
That's a little dramatic. Let me put it this way: if you mock people, it makes you the kind of person who mocks people. There's no way around that.
Point. But, I think the joke is pointing to the sillyness of some of the arguments used against gay marriage, not at straight folk or married folk. I don't think good people should take offense at that.
quote: Telpy, I think it's ok to have your fun... I don't object to people having a good laugh at other's expenses... but I do object to telling people that they have to take their medicine or be told they don't have a sense of humor.
Not exactly fun...just slightly amusing. And like I said in response to Kat, I don't see the joke as insulting people, just the hypocrisy in some of the arguments used against gay folk.
Posts: 4953 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
What do I mean then... what I ment was that the joke was not ment to insult YOU. You are a good person.
Posts: 4953 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Telperion the Silver: What do I mean then... what I ment was that the joke was not ment to insult YOU.
I disagree with this. The message I get from the joke is "People that are against SSM sure are stupid! See?"
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Telpy, you're darling. And you don't have to say that - I know you weren't insulting me.
I think communication is a tricky thing, and is based on trust. Maybe that's why I so dislike satire as a rhetorical technique? It's giving up on communication and playing for the audience. Maybe that's why I think it's a little offensive here - it's a great, big "Talk to the hand."
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Megan: Whereas the message I see is, "These arguments against SSM are kind of stupid. See?"
To me, the reason that it isn't just saying that is that it explicitly says that these are the best arguments against SSM.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: You might be right, Karl.
So, you wouldn't mind a '10 ten reasons why Gay Marriage Should Be Legal' in the same vein as the initial post?
I for one would love to see a post like that. I really want to know the non-religious reasons (the religious ones don't apply to me since my religion believes God smiles down on gay marriages as much as straight ones) against Gay Marriage other than the (what seems to me) scare tactic "It will ruin the sanctity of marriage."
Posts: 68 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
) Didn't find it all that amusing. It's never a good idea to build your opponent's straw men for them, then knock them down.![[Smile]](smile.gif)
