test content
  • Games
  • Social
  • Arc News
  • Support
  • Zen
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc
Forums > Home› Ten Forward
Options

Satire: Should it be FFA or have restrictions?

questeriusquesterius Member Posts: 8,323 Arc User
edited June 2015 in Ten Forward
There have been a lot of discussions lately and in one discussion it was stated that certain groups should not be allowed to be targeted by satire or mockery.

The argument was that if you have no choice in your being part of X group (e.g. due to ethnicity or sexual preference) you should not be allowed to be targeted by satire?

On the other hand, if you choose to be part of a group (e.g. religion or political party) then you should not complain or be offended when targeted by satire since it is part of the choice.

While i can certainly see the inherent dangers in mocking groups based upon their ethnicity or sexual preference, is the strength of satire not that everybody can be targeted equally?

What is your opinion, should satire and mockery be free for all (anybody can be targeted) or should restrictions be put in place?
This program, though reasonably normal at times, seems to have a strong affinity to classes belonging to the Cat 2.0 program. Questerius 2.7 will break down on occasion, resulting in garbage and nonsense messages whenever it occurs. Usually a hard reboot or pulling the plug solves the problem when that happens.
Post edited by Unknown User on
«1

Comments

  • Options
    gulberatgulberat Member Posts: 5,505 Arc User
    edited June 2015
    At least in the U.S., legally satire is permitted to exist and be published, and the courts have ruled that even the worst speech is not actionable by the authorities unless it is a direct incitement to violence and criminal activity (as in, "I want you to go out there and commit X illegal act against Y!" not simply "some random nut might go crazy and commit violence out of offense.").

    Additionally, if you speak about a politician, the government cannot arrest you for doing that, no matter how flagrant it is, unless it is a threat. Reason being, political debate has to be free. Outside of a private home, office, or forum, we have to accept that free press, including offensive press, is out there.

    That's legally speaking, as it relates to what is and is not speech the government can interfere with.

    BUT In a private space, such as someone's home, the workplace, or a forum, the property owner has the right to control what speech may or may not take place on their property. So if a total restriction is enacted, people have the choice to either deal with it or leave. Additionally, many companies consider it unprofessional conduct to allow employees any form of discussion on certain subjects *at all,* but should they fail to enforce such a standard equally against all, they risk legal liability for discrimination.

    Then there is the entirely separate question from the law, of what is morally right and in good taste to do. This gets very difficult, because IMO satire *can* sometimes be motivated by hate but disguised as humor to try to get a pass. In the end unless they tell you that's what it is, you can't know and it makes the mess even worse to guess or assume. Doing so just makes the flame war worse.

    That is why I think in the professional environment and on forums (unless you are a special-interest forum specifically dedicated to the discussion of sensitive topics, and even then I might question total open season), you must go for a blanket ban on that sort of humor, whether it is political, racial, sexual, religious, or whatever it is. If the satire touches that subject, it's gone, no matter who it is aimed at, no matter what you agree with or do not. It is unacceptable in the workplace and it is unacceptable in most non-political communities.

    Does not mean authors cannot draw or publish certain things--just that if they do satire that involves taking shots at groups of people (ANY kind) and fling insults, they should expect their medium to be the Onion or the like, or the political cartoons or editorial section of the paper that people read in private and discuss at home with their families and trusted friends, but should not be surprised to be declared NSFW, or banned in a private forum.

    Christian Gaming Community Fleets--Faith, Fun, and Fellowship! See the website and PM for more. :-)
    Proudly F2P.  Signature image by gulberat. Avatar image by balsavor.deviantart.com.
  • Options
    iconiansiconians Member Posts: 6,987 Arc User
    edited June 2015
    questerius wrote: »
    What is your opinion, should satire and mockery be free for all (anybody can be targeted) or should restrictions be put in place?

    I believe it should be a free-for-all. I believe that either everything is funny, or nothing is funny.

    That being said, the obvious restrictions I care about is in regards to emergencies and death threats. No shouting "Fire!" in a crowded movie theatre and no calls for somebody to be murdered.
    ExtxpTp.jpg
  • Options
    gulberatgulberat Member Posts: 5,505 Arc User
    edited June 2015
    I think it can all be *out there,* even when I don't like it. That said, I think there's a such thing as "appropriate venue," and everything should not be taken into every place.

    Example: I post certain xkcd comics in my cube at work. But before I even think about posting one, I have to look it over very carefully to make sure not one thing about it violates corporate policy. Even in cases where I think the violation is a funny one. I can still have a good sense of humor that is work appropriate.

    I LOL every time I see this one, and the fact that no people, puppies, or kittens were harmed in the making of this cartoon doesn't stop this little warning about not reading product reviews carefully from being hilarious to me: https://xkcd.com/937/

    (That hangs in my cube at work. Working in a field that sometimes involves data analytics makes that even funnier.)

    Christian Gaming Community Fleets--Faith, Fun, and Fellowship! See the website and PM for more. :-)
    Proudly F2P.  Signature image by gulberat. Avatar image by balsavor.deviantart.com.
  • Options
    reginamala78reginamala78 Member Posts: 4,593 Arc User
    edited June 2015
    FFA. Thats its function. That said, I would hope people would stick to their integrity about their role, stand for what they are instead of calling themselves one things while doing another. Satirists that move into full propaganda, then hide behind "just kidding around" when called on it are just pathetic, or people who for one reason another are supposed to be (and claim to be) an unbiased above-the-fray moderating force then blatantly pick sides are just dishonest. Be Bill Maher or Glenn Beck, be honest and be professional about what you are and what you believe, thats all I'd want.
  • Options
    artan42artan42 Member Posts: 10,450 Bug Hunter
    edited June 2015
    It all depends, in England we dance the delicate line between Free Speech and Hate Speech, the lines between them are blurred. We also have a different libel system to the US which makes free speech a bit murker.

    On the whole I'd say mock the powerful, they can take it (that includes religions) but not the weak, that's genuinely oppressed minorities like the disabled.
    Although try remember how subjective humour is, I dislike Frankie Boyle, not because he's offensive but because he just isn't funny.
    22762792376_ac7c992b7c_o.png
    Norway and Yeager dammit... I still want my Typhoon and Jupiter though.
    JJ Trek The Kelvin Timeline is just Trek and it's fully canon... get over it. But I still prefer TAR.
    #TASforSTO


    '...I can tell you that we're not in the military and that we intend no harm to the whales.' Kirk: The Voyage Home
    'Starfleet is not a military organisation. Its purpose is exploration.' Picard: Peak Performance
    'This is clearly a military operation. Is that what we are now? Because I thought we were explorers!' Scotty: Into Darkness
    '...The Federation. Starfleet. We're not a military agency.' Scotty: Beyond
    'I'm not a soldier anymore. I'm an engineer.' Miles O'Brien: Empok Nor
    '...Starfleet could use you... It's a peacekeeping and humanitarian armada...' Admiral Pike: Star Trek

    Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
  • Options
    hipachilleshipachilles Member Posts: 195 Arc User
    edited June 2015
    Call me wishy-washy, but I fall somewhere in between. The object of satire is to point out how silly or ridiculous something is by making fun of it in an attempt to change that behavior. Political satire tried to get people to change their minds about policies, religious satire to change beliefs. If something cannot be changed (a race or orientation) then why make fun of it other than to simply be mean?

    That being said, every belief and action is open to satire since those things are modifiable. I wouldn't make fun of someone simply for being Norwegian since they can't help that. But I would certainly make fun of eating lutefisk.
  • Options
    gulberatgulberat Member Posts: 5,505 Arc User
    edited June 2015
    I think sometimes people make fun of politics and religion to be mean, too. But that goes to what I said above about why companies and forums are IMO well advised to ban all such things and not try to sort it out: trying to make guesses about people's deep inner motivations pretty much ALWAYS backfires.

    It can be out there in the media--but you can't bring just everything to work, or to someone's house when they told you not to, or into a particular forum, since property owners may control what takes place within the confines of their property.

    Christian Gaming Community Fleets--Faith, Fun, and Fellowship! See the website and PM for more. :-)
    Proudly F2P.  Signature image by gulberat. Avatar image by balsavor.deviantart.com.
  • Options
    questeriusquesterius Member Posts: 8,323 Arc User
    edited June 2015
    I am not in favour of restrictions, but just because something can be posted or drawn does not mean it should be posted or drawn.

    Satire is meant as a wakeup call, but mockery should not be needlessly hurtful.

    It's a thin line which is often blurred, but a full ban would take things too far IMO.
    This program, though reasonably normal at times, seems to have a strong affinity to classes belonging to the Cat 2.0 program. Questerius 2.7 will break down on occasion, resulting in garbage and nonsense messages whenever it occurs. Usually a hard reboot or pulling the plug solves the problem when that happens.
  • Options
    gulberatgulberat Member Posts: 5,505 Arc User
    edited June 2015
    questerius wrote: »
    I am not in favour of restrictions, but just because something can be posted or drawn does not mean it should be posted or drawn.

    Satire is meant as a wakeup call, but mockery should not be needlessly hurtful.

    It's a thin line which is often blurred, but a full ban would take things too far IMO.

    And that's why I put it to individuals and business owners what they will and will not allow in their homes and business. Content creators remain free to do what they want--content consumers have the right to decide what they will and will not purchase or allow on their private property. Letting the government make that call Is dangerous. Deciding for yourself what you will and will not be a patron of, is not. The idea is for you to have free choice and everyone else. You can place a restriction on your own habits and your property without restricting someone else.

    Christian Gaming Community Fleets--Faith, Fun, and Fellowship! See the website and PM for more. :-)
    Proudly F2P.  Signature image by gulberat. Avatar image by balsavor.deviantart.com.
  • Options
    fatman592fatman592 Member Posts: 1,207 Arc User
    edited June 2015
    questerius wrote: »
    What is your opinion, should satire and mockery be free for all (anybody can be targeted) or should restrictions be put in place?

    I think satire, or better stated as speech, should be unrestricted. Though generally, procedural situations like work (like it wouldn't be a good idea for me as a nurse to speak my mind whenever), governance, crying fire in a theater, etc. would all be good examples of restricting clearly sensitive or trollable situations.

    I'm glad that people have the freedom to say unpopular things, it gives society a chance to evaluate claims which it might not otherwise. Civil society is all about convincing others. Fail to do so and the idea loses popularity and may even become archaic, which is called progress. Like the free market, all ideas have to fight for acceptance. A society is healthiest with as much ideological diversity as possible, otherwise cultures tend to stagnate.

    However, tolerance has been conflated with being nice, it's not the same thing. Tolerance, like respect only calls for not threatening or harming another person over your ideas. If people were challenged more often on their ideas, perhaps they could divorce those ideas with their emotions. The intertwining of ideas and emotion is what has led to a lot of hurt feelings, people need to grow up.

    And often the best sources of satire is within the group in question; everyone loves self-deprecating humor. Satirizing the TRIBBLE community on television is how the LGBT community gained so much ground in just 20 years.
    startrek.44thfleet.com/
  • Options
    questeriusquesterius Member Posts: 8,323 Arc User
    edited June 2015
    fatman592 wrote: »
    I think satire, or better stated as speech, should be unrestricted. Though generally, procedural situations like work (like it wouldn't be a good idea for me as a nurse to speak my mind whenever), governance, crying fire in a theater, etc. would all be good examples of restricting clearly sensitive or trollable situations.

    I'm glad that people have the freedom to say unpopular things, it gives society a chance to evaluate claims which it might not otherwise. Civil society is all about convincing others Fail to do so and the idea loses popularity and may even become archaic, which is called progress. Like the free market, all ideas have to fight for acceptance. A society is healthiest with as much ideological diversity as possible, otherwise cultures tend to stagnate.

    However, tolerance has been conflated with being nice, it's not the same thing. Tolerance, like respect only calls for not threatening or harming another person over your ideas. If people were challenged more often on their ideas, perhaps they could divorce those ideas with their emotions. The intertwining of ideas and emotion is what has led to a lot of hurt feelings, people need to grow up.

    And often the best sources of satire is within the group in question; everyone loves self-deprecating humor. Satirizing the TRIBBLE community on television is how the LGBT community gained so much ground in just 20 years.

    I thought that was due to this gentleman
    This program, though reasonably normal at times, seems to have a strong affinity to classes belonging to the Cat 2.0 program. Questerius 2.7 will break down on occasion, resulting in garbage and nonsense messages whenever it occurs. Usually a hard reboot or pulling the plug solves the problem when that happens.
  • Options
    fatman592fatman592 Member Posts: 1,207 Arc User
    edited June 2015
    questerius wrote: »
    I thought that was due to this gentleman

    Heh, I forgot about that show, and that character. Now you got me thinking about Mrs. Bucket, the Vicar of Dibley and Absolutely Fabulous... Maybe I'll have to watch some old British comedy soon.
    startrek.44thfleet.com/
  • Options
    jam3s1701jam3s1701 Member Posts: 1,825 Arc User
    edited June 2015
    . . . walks in reads the thread backs away. . .

    Trendy your hammer is needed. . . .
    JtaDmwW.png
  • Options
    questeriusquesterius Member Posts: 8,323 Arc User
    edited June 2015
    jam3s1701 wrote: »
    . . . walks in reads the thread backs away. . .

    Trendy your hammer is needed. . . .

    Why? The LGBT community has been used as an example of self-mockery in order to gain acceptance, but the discussion is about satire and mockery and if those should be restricted. I.MO. no hammer is necessary at this point.
    This program, though reasonably normal at times, seems to have a strong affinity to classes belonging to the Cat 2.0 program. Questerius 2.7 will break down on occasion, resulting in garbage and nonsense messages whenever it occurs. Usually a hard reboot or pulling the plug solves the problem when that happens.
  • Options
    jam3s1701jam3s1701 Member Posts: 1,825 Arc User
    edited June 2015
    questerius wrote: »
    Why? The LGBT community has been used as an example of self-mockery in order to gain acceptance, but the discussion is about satire and mockery and if those should be restricted. I.MO. no hammer is necessary at this point.

    Mainly because it has been made clear via the 3+ closed threads that this type of discussion is not allowed and in the long run ends up going down the flame route regardless of the good intentions.

    We have been asked not to make threads of this nature that's all.

    So the Hammer is needed to close the thread IMHO. ;)
    JtaDmwW.png
  • Options
    jonsillsjonsills Member Posts: 10,367 Arc User
    edited June 2015
    iconians wrote: »
    That being said, the obvious restrictions I care about is in regards to emergencies and death threats. No shouting "Fire!" in a crowded movie theatre and no calls for somebody to be murdered.
    Can we call for the murder of people who shout "Fire!" in crowded theaters?
    Lorna-Wing-sig.png
  • Options
    questeriusquesterius Member Posts: 8,323 Arc User
    edited June 2015
    jam3s1701 wrote: »
    Mainly because it has been made clear via the 3+ closed threads that this type of discussion is not allowed and in the long run ends up going down the flame route regardless of the good intentions.

    We have been asked not to make threads of this nature that's all.

    So the Hammer is needed to close the thread IMHO. ;)

    The ones i saw before they vanished had become flame wars between LGBT and religion or atheist/religion.
    This is an exchange of thoughts on the boundaries of mockery and satire. An exchange which i hope will remain civil.
    This program, though reasonably normal at times, seems to have a strong affinity to classes belonging to the Cat 2.0 program. Questerius 2.7 will break down on occasion, resulting in garbage and nonsense messages whenever it occurs. Usually a hard reboot or pulling the plug solves the problem when that happens.
  • Options
    wildthyme467989wildthyme467989 Member Posts: 1,285 Arc User
    edited June 2015
    questerius wrote: »
    There have been a lot of discussions lately and in one discussion it was stated that certain groups should not be allowed to be targeted by satire or mockery.

    The argument was that if you have no choice in your being part of X group (e.g. due to ethnicity or sexual preference) you should not be allowed to be targeted by satire?

    On the other hand, if you choose to be part of a group (e.g. religion or political party) then you should not complain or be offended when targeted by satire since it is part of the choice.

    While i can certainly see the inherent dangers in mocking groups based upon their ethnicity or sexual preference, is the strength of satire not that everybody can be targeted equally?

    What is your opinion, should satire and mockery be free for all (anybody can be targeted) or should restrictions be put in place?

    There should be no limits on satire, you'd have bland comedy if that were to happen, give a bit of British satire a listen and see if you agree http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b05wj6vj
  • Options
    gulberatgulberat Member Posts: 5,505 Arc User
    edited June 2015
    I have rarely done well with British humor. Sometimes it seems funny--sometimes, with certain people (not good with celebrity names, sorry) it seems mean-spirited and I turn it off. Other people can watch...it's just not for me. Which kinda goes back to what I said: freedom for people to publish, balanced by my freedom to not pay it any attention. Others may decide differently according to their own preferences and that's OK.

    Christian Gaming Community Fleets--Faith, Fun, and Fellowship! See the website and PM for more. :-)
    Proudly F2P.  Signature image by gulberat. Avatar image by balsavor.deviantart.com.
  • Options
    wildthyme467989wildthyme467989 Member Posts: 1,285 Arc User
    edited June 2015
    gulberat wrote: »
    I have rarely done well with British humor. Sometimes it seems funny--sometimes, with certain people (not good with celebrity names, sorry) it seems mean-spirited and I turn it off. Other people can watch...it's just not for me. Which kinda goes back to what I said: freedom for people to publish, balanced by my freedom to not pay it any attention. Others may decide differently according to their own preferences and that's OK.

    If you're looking for good British satire, check out Armando Iannuci's work. Try The Friday Night/Saturday Night Armistice and The Thick of It and of course Veep
  • Options
    pigeonofclaypigeonofclay Member Posts: 142 Arc User
    edited June 2015
    jam3s1701,

    Like your sig, but the quote is:

    "Those who deny freedom to others, deserve it not for themselves; and, under a just God, can not long retain it."

    http://www.abrahamlincolnonline.org/lincoln/speeches/pierce.htm

    "Just" saying. :D
  • Options
    marcusdkanemarcusdkane Member Posts: 7,439 Arc User
    edited June 2015
    I think a line definitely needs to be defined or at least definable, between satire and intentionally antagonistic behaviour. Katie Hopkins, for example, claims to be 'just being honest', when she is actually just mean-spirited and spiteful, and will deliberately troll other celebrities via twitter to try and get a reaction. Someone like that, for example, should not be able to hide behind using 'freedom of the press' as a guise for intentional nastiness...
  • Options
    wildthyme467989wildthyme467989 Member Posts: 1,285 Arc User
    edited June 2015
    marcusdkane wrote: »
    I think a line definitely needs to be defined or at least definable, between satire and intentionally antagonistic behaviour. Katie Hopkins, for example, claims to be 'just being honest', when she is actually just mean-spirited and spiteful, and will deliberately troll other celebrities via twitter to try and get a reaction. Someone like that, for example, should not be able to hide behind using 'freedom of the press' as a guise for intentional nastiness...

    She's a spitting cobra, I'm in complete agreement with you on that score, I don't consider anything she write's to be satire though. She's got nothing on the likes of Rory Bremner or Charlie Brooker or the have I Got News For You team (which William Shatner presented once)
  • Options
    marcusdkanemarcusdkane Member Posts: 7,439 Arc User
    edited June 2015
    wildthyme467989 wrote: »
    She's a spitting cobra, I'm in complete agreement with you on that score, I don't consider anything she write's to be satire though. She's got nothing on the likes of Rory Bremner or Charlie Brooker or the have I Got News For You team (which William Shatner presented once)

    Absolutely so, just pure bile, clearly someone with very low self-esteem to behave as she does, which is a bit sad really :( And no, she's not satire, and I don't think she claims to be, but she does rather seem to rely on the "I'm just being honest..." defence a little too much. One would think that the recent reports of her postings to the police would make her wind her neck in a bit... I mean by all means, she's free to spout whatever she wants, but she should equally be held to task when she is just being intentionally offensive or bullying towards others... Totally agree with you on Armando Iannuci (I always wanted him to take over hosting Have I Got News For You) I'd also have to throw Chris Morris' hat in the ring when it comes to satirical genius :cool:
  • Options
    wildthyme467989wildthyme467989 Member Posts: 1,285 Arc User
    edited June 2015
    marcusdkane wrote: »
    Absolutely so, just pure bile, clearly someone with very low self-esteem to behave as she does, which is a bit sad really :( Totally agree with you on Armando Iannuci (I always wanted him to take over hosting Have I Got News For You) I'd also have to throw Chris Morris' hat in the ring when it comes to satirical genius :cool:

    Brass Eye. Nuff said
    Oh, almost forgot The Day Today, introduced us to Alan Partridge
  • Options
    marcusdkanemarcusdkane Member Posts: 7,439 Arc User
    edited June 2015
    wildthyme467989 wrote: »
    Brass Eye. Nuff said
    Oh, almost forgot The Day Today, introduced us to Alan Partridge

    Absolutely, comedy gold :cool:
  • Options
    questeriusquesterius Member Posts: 8,323 Arc User
    edited June 2015
    I have always felt that to understand a people you need to understand their sense of humour.
    This probably explains why nobody understands the Germans because they have no sense of humour.

    (Funnybot incoming... )
    This program, though reasonably normal at times, seems to have a strong affinity to classes belonging to the Cat 2.0 program. Questerius 2.7 will break down on occasion, resulting in garbage and nonsense messages whenever it occurs. Usually a hard reboot or pulling the plug solves the problem when that happens.
  • Options
    artan42artan42 Member Posts: 10,450 Bug Hunter
    edited June 2015
    wildthyme467989 wrote: »
    There should be no limits on satire, you'd have bland comedy if that were to happen, give a bit of British satire a listen and see if you agree http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b05wj6vj

    It's going to be a shame when Sandi leaves :(.
    22762792376_ac7c992b7c_o.png
    Norway and Yeager dammit... I still want my Typhoon and Jupiter though.
    JJ Trek The Kelvin Timeline is just Trek and it's fully canon... get over it. But I still prefer TAR.
    #TASforSTO


    '...I can tell you that we're not in the military and that we intend no harm to the whales.' Kirk: The Voyage Home
    'Starfleet is not a military organisation. Its purpose is exploration.' Picard: Peak Performance
    'This is clearly a military operation. Is that what we are now? Because I thought we were explorers!' Scotty: Into Darkness
    '...The Federation. Starfleet. We're not a military agency.' Scotty: Beyond
    'I'm not a soldier anymore. I'm an engineer.' Miles O'Brien: Empok Nor
    '...Starfleet could use you... It's a peacekeeping and humanitarian armada...' Admiral Pike: Star Trek

    Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
  • Options
    wildthyme467989wildthyme467989 Member Posts: 1,285 Arc User
    edited June 2015
    artan42 wrote: »
    It's going to be a shame when Sandi leaves :(.

    I know what you mean, she's great at the comedy one liners, will definitely miss her. I'm wondering who they'll replace her with
  • Options
    artan42artan42 Member Posts: 10,450 Bug Hunter
    edited June 2015
    wildthyme467989 wrote: »
    I know what you mean, she's great at the comedy one liners, will definitely miss her. I'm wondering who they'll replace her with

    Well both Susan and whatshisname have hosted a few recently, maybe they're trialling them out, or maybe they'll do a HIGNFY and have guest hosts.
    22762792376_ac7c992b7c_o.png
    Norway and Yeager dammit... I still want my Typhoon and Jupiter though.
    JJ Trek The Kelvin Timeline is just Trek and it's fully canon... get over it. But I still prefer TAR.
    #TASforSTO


    '...I can tell you that we're not in the military and that we intend no harm to the whales.' Kirk: The Voyage Home
    'Starfleet is not a military organisation. Its purpose is exploration.' Picard: Peak Performance
    'This is clearly a military operation. Is that what we are now? Because I thought we were explorers!' Scotty: Into Darkness
    '...The Federation. Starfleet. We're not a military agency.' Scotty: Beyond
    'I'm not a soldier anymore. I'm an engineer.' Miles O'Brien: Empok Nor
    '...Starfleet could use you... It's a peacekeeping and humanitarian armada...' Admiral Pike: Star Trek

    Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
Sign In or Register to comment.