Springtime for Hitler

[Esper]

I'm hearing that there are some arguments happening on the internet machine about satire and how it gets used. So, seeing as we are using the internet machine ourselves here are some questions for y'all.

Is satire effective? Does it serve a useful purpose? How can one distinguish between satire and genuine offensive material?

Who or what are acceptable targets of satire? Or, in other words, are there unacceptable targets? More broadly, should there be limits on satire?

Title is in reference to The Producers, a movie/musical about a couple of producers who intentionally seek out the worst musical they can find.

 

[Nah]

....I have to post more than a Fire Emblem meme you say? But I'm the mod, can't I abuse my power for this? No, I can't? ;_; oh ok, here's something:

Generally the purpose of satire is, as I understand it, point out flaws in something or bring an issue to light, designed specifically for the masses since it's easier for most people to digest a funny movie or television episode than a written manifesto on something. Or at the very least, it's a different method of transmission. This is something that I think just about everyone would agree is a good thing to do. Whether or not it's an actually effective method, I don't know. How does one measure whether a satire is "effective" or not?

I would like to say that literally everything/everyone is fair for satire to target, but ehhhhhhhh there's a couple/few things I can think of that are probably not the best things to make a satirical work out of. Distinguishing between satire and straight-up offensive material probably comes down to how exactly it's done--I would think that a work with blatant misinformation and/or attempts to demonize something/someone is maybe not really a satire....although it can probably be sometimes hard to tell which it is. And then inevitably people's own biases will come into play on what they individually think is just offensive and what is satire.

but I also don't know anything and just type words sometimes

 

[Somewhere_]

I believe satire is a useful tool and methodology for spreading awareness, arguments, and information, but at the same time if its used too much, I think it loses its power.

 

[twocows]

I'm hearing that there are some arguments happening on the internet machine about satire and how it gets used. So, seeing as we are using the internet machine ourselves here are some questions for y'all.

Is satire effective? Does it serve a useful purpose? How can one distinguish between satire and genuine offensive material?

Who or what are acceptable targets of satire? Or, in other words, are there unacceptable targets? More broadly, should there be limits on satire?

Title is in reference to The Producers, a movie/musical about a couple of producers who intentionally seek out the worst musical they can find.

Satire is designed to highlight the problems in an argument or position and when it's used effectively it does exactly that. As far as distinguishing between satire and offensive material, a lot of satire is designed to be offensive and that's kind of the point. It's supposed to make those who support the satirized argument or position feel ashamed for not thoroughly considering the consequences (or potential consequences) of their ideas or actions. The capacity to offend is by design; that's exactly what it's supposed to do.

Anyone and anything is an acceptable target of satire because no one is infallible and no argument or position is perfect. People often don't like to hear the problems with their reasoning, especially when they've begun to act on that reasoning. As a result, people will very often will do whatever they can to silence their critics and "protect" their ideas and what they've built from them.

This is why we need to protect free speech. The principle of free speech is itself a recognition of human fallibility and the need for criticism, as well as a recognition of our tendency to suppress speech that we don't like. There should not be limits on satire; satire is a form of criticism and unrestricted criticism is absolutely vital to our collective ability to identify and counter (or improve) bad arguments and, more generally, is vital to our ability to improve ourselves and our society.

 

[Esper]

SAs far as distinguishing between satire and offensive material, a lot of satire is designed to be offensive and that's kind of the point. It's supposed to make those who support the satirized argument or position feel ashamed for not thoroughly considering the consequences (or potential consequences) of their ideas or actions. The capacity to offend is by design; that's exactly what it's supposed to do.

I was trying to get at the difference between something that is satirical (and, necessarily, offensive) and something that is just meant to be offensive without any satirical intent.

 

[twocows]

I was trying to get at the difference between something that is satirical (and, necessarily, offensive) and something that is just meant to be offensive without any satirical intent.

Offense isn't inherently bad, either. Satire's a subset of useful offensive content which is itself a subset of all offensive content. However, the determination of what is usefully offensive versus what isn't is subjective and I'm not comfortable giving anyone the power to make that determination for me.

 

[Kristaok]

These sort of jokes wouldn't go over too well if they were targeted towards the lgbt, the satire would not be well received but for some reason nazi jokes are considered cool, sadly it wasn't cool for the countless Jews who met their sad demise during the holocaust.

 

[donavannj]

Satire has its place, but if it's too well made it's indistinguishable from an actual viewpoint as far as the average person is concerned, so I generally tend to have a hard time appreciating it because I know someone out there thinks it's factual. :(

These sort of jokes wouldn't go over too well if they were targeted towards the lgbt, the satire would not be well received but for some reason nazi jokes are considered cool, sadly it wasn't cool for the countless Jews who met their sad demise during the holocaust.

I mean, the movie that features the fictional play used in the topic's name was written and directed by a man from a Jewish family and released just 22 years after the war. While we must never forget the Holocaust, Jewish people simply don't face the same level of persecution in modern American society that those of the LGBT community do (however, I will not be surprised if there's a significant resurgence of anti-Semitic sentiment as it's definitely been something that's been lying just under the surface for decades in certain segments of American society).

 

[Kristaok]

Sadly Jews are still the brunt of every joke.

 

[Esper]

These sort of jokes wouldn't go over too well if they were targeted towards the lgbt, the satire would not be well received but for some reason nazi jokes are considered cool, sadly it wasn't cool for the countless Jews who met their sad demise during the holocaust.

I feel I should point out, just in case, that The Producers isn't a satire on Jewish people or the Holocaust, but on Hitler and nazi pageantry. And of course producers.

It may be difficult to separate Hitler, Nazis, and the Holocaust since they are intrinsically linked together, but it's important to see the difference. Brooks wasn't targeting the victims of the Holocaust, but the perpetrators. That's also why you'd see people more upset by satire on LGBT people because they're a historically oppressed group. Satire against the oppressed seems, well, strange. Like, what is the point of using satire against a group whose argument is "Hey, we should be treated equal and not be oppressed."