Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

6

[deleted] wrote

3

indi wrote

I think that's too simplistic. I can't see anything wrong - for example - with someone in a marginalized or oppressed group calling out something incredibly stupid and/or destructive that that group is doing, either to themselves or another group.

Yes, "punching down" is generally wrong, but that doesn't mean the only thing that is right is "punching up". Context matters, including what's being satirized, why, who's doing the satirizing, what the broader social context is, and so on.

3

selver wrote

I don't think that's true. South Park could definitely be described as satire.

2

robottroymacclure wrote

have you ever seen history of the world part one? the scene where the guy is selling apple cores is pretty funny.

1

[deleted] wrote

2

robottroymacclure wrote

i identify with how poor they are. the french revolution was so chaotic its the perfect setting for a satire.

1

[deleted] wrote

-1

robottroymacclure wrote

ok. sounds like you have something to say or a question to ask. thats fine, go ahead...

0

[deleted] wrote

-1

robottroymacclure wrote

ok. :)

1

[deleted] wrote

0

robottroymacclure wrote

idk, sounded like you were saying something without saying it directly so i just thought you might clarify your response if i offered a prompt.

1

[deleted] wrote

-1

robottroymacclure wrote

what form of satire do you enjoy?

2

[deleted] wrote

-1

robottroymacclure wrote

yeah, how about an example?

1

[deleted] wrote

-1

robottroymacclure wrote

could you please post something funny as an example?

1

marduk wrote

I'm going to push back a bit on your response here to see if maybe I can get a better understanding of where you're coming from. I intend on staying civil because it's possible you can teach me something here. So please do not take this as an attack on you. You suggest that satire is only really valid when directed at those with power and those who have privileges. This brings brings up some seriously important questions however. Who defines power? And what constitutes a person with power? The idea of one person having power over another is an exceedingly vague notion. There are infinite ways to power into hierarchies. For example: Say you're waiting for the results on an exam you took in Physics. You can't stand your Physics professor... And it's obvious to you that the feeling is mutual. So you just KNOW that he/she is going to give you a shitty grade. He is always singling you out as a lazy student and treats you like you're not good enough...

At this moment it's very clear that prof is the one with power.

You get your results and you're shocked to discover you knocked it out of the park. In-fact you did so well the professor talks glowingly with you after class, praising your work. As the semester carries on you become close with the teacher and develop a great student teacher relationship.

Now does this professor still have sort of power you allude to in your post?


Let me put it in a simpler way.

Joe is a homeless guy on your block. You are obviously sympathetic towards joe. You can't stand the way people give him weird looks and pass by without loaning him a buck or a smoke. You give Joe 10 bucks one day and he buys a lotto ticket and wins!!!!!! Joes has the resources to get back on his feet, get a job and realize he's got a gift for business. He works and works and doesn't waste a moment of this second chance he's been given. 12 years later he's the CEO of Citibank. Is it okay to make fun of him then?

Now for you... If you believe you have the power to define what is and is not satire, are you not being a tad hypocritical?

I'm just very confused.

1

raindropq wrote

is validation or truth a kind of power? so the power of a satire lies with its truth. in anarchy we know that there is no validity in a hierarchial power-structure such as with your hypothetical homes, classes, grades, blocks, bucks and banks or the "student-teacher relationship". therefore the anarchic boundary for what-is-satire has to exclude a position which leverages itself on hierarchial authority

5

Pop wrote

talking in abstractions is hard

do you have some examples?

2

surreal wrote

examples may be perceived differently from person to person and all i want is your first impulsive answer.

2

raindropq wrote

seeing some questionable satire around behavioral assessment; ad-hominems involving social-aptitude/communication defecit, autism dementia i think good satire is actually uplifting, drawing on a common, good-natured humor. it is not condescending , malicious or spiteful

1

robottroymacclure wrote

i agree! its supposed to be a contrast to drama and hardship. levity, joy, without these what is anything worth? IMHO the funniest stuff is sometimes capable of taking the darkness and bleakness of the human experience and using that as material to make people laugh so, where is the line? we make it up as we go along anf fail quite often.

4

selver wrote

Satire's just a tool. You can certainly be a bigoted asshole with it, or use it to make reactionary arguments.

3

UpTickInDowngrade wrote

Satire is a persuasive tool used to highlight moral and political issues through joking or mocking. There is always a risk in it doing more harm than good. It wouldn't be fair to a terrorist victim if they just lost a loved one and then within hours saw someone making satirical jokes about the event. It also wouldn't be fair to the comedian to say that some jokes are off limits or have a delayed start period. Know your audience and consider if you're going to alienate more people than persuade.

3

GaldraChevaliere wrote

I think there's knowing your audience, and there's being in good taste, and occasionally a satirist is going to miss one of the two eventually. Attacking people without power isn't satirical insofar as brutalizing when one is above them, but coming from or adjacent to them can be a genuine and cutting examination on a group. The poor should be able to criticize themselves and their own conditions, because the question of how they got this way must naturally follow. I do, however, think that satire and irony are grossly misapplied to things that are neither satirical or ironic, and have become excuses to kick down and mistreat others. For every Thomas Swift, there's two Trey Parkers or Seth MacFarlanes.

3

Dumai wrote (edited )

what passes for satire these days is incredibly crude and often times misses the point entirely -- see south park, family guy, the simpsons for like the last 20 years, etc.

if any satirist knows how to respectfully push the boundaries its the likes of chris morris and charlie brooker but even they can disappear up their own arses sometimes

2

Franz_trashka wrote

As far as I can see it, good satire should make the group that's being satirised laugh. The only boundary is if the group is not amused.

2

[deleted] wrote

2

surreal wrote

no laws please, yea if there is a point which you think "nope this goes too far"