Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

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