Brian-M
Daydreamer
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2008
- Messages
- 8,044
So you think making false accusations or yelling "FIRE!" in a crowded theatre should be permitted as forms of free expression?
Should This Sick Filth Be Banned?
- Thread starter angrysoba
- Start date
So you think making false accusations or yelling "FIRE!" in a crowded theatre should be permitted as forms of free expression?
angrysoba
Philosophile
Yes, particularly if there is a fire as alerting the patrons to a health hazard is quite useful. I think that of course the theatre owners should have discretionary powers for removing people whose yelling disrupts the movie though.
Cavemonster
Philosopher
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2008
- Messages
- 6,701
I think there is a certain kind of risk from satire, especially bad satire.
I used to be close to some people involved in the "harsh noise" music scene. about a decade ago. A lot of artists in that genre liberally used shocking themes "ironically" in various ways.
It turned out, among the "ironic" references, there were actually a couple bands who were actual, sincere neo-nazis.
You can see the same thing in places like 4chan lots of posting about suicide, homophobia, mass murder, with a sort of unspoken understanding that it's all a weird kind of role play. Then some folks were actually serious and killed themselves or other people.
Especially when satire is bad, it can create a context where the real thing is indistinguishable.
Murder and neo-nazis are fairly rare, but treating women like crap and even rape is a lot more common. A complaint that is often made is that when people who sincerely hold these values see this kind of humor, for instance trivializing rape, they feel validated because they may think that most people hold their values. We as reasonable people (like all people who debate on the internet) can easily say "Of course this is satire, of course these behaviors depicted are crap!" But we forget that half the population is of below average intelligence and that there are a lot of ways to read satire. Satire isn't always a pure condemnation- Have you ever seen satirical skits done at summer camps and high schools mocking the institutions? The takeaway isn't "these places are awful" but more an affectionate poking and exaggeration. I don't think it's ridiculous to imagine that actual misogynists and rapists can read this satire that way, hell it's exactly the way that conservatives read The Colbert Report.
This is not to say that satire shouldn't exist just because some idiots may read it the wrong way and feel encouraged. But as consumers, it's something to balance. If something is actual valuable social commentary or critique, or is at least actually funny or entertaining, then we can dismiss the harm from misreadings. When bad satire delivers none of those positives, the smaller negative effect is all that's left on the scale.
Of course government shouldn't ban anything based on that, but I have no problem with consumers speaking out that they'd rather it didn't exist and with media venues responding by not giving that crap a platform.
I used to be close to some people involved in the "harsh noise" music scene. about a decade ago. A lot of artists in that genre liberally used shocking themes "ironically" in various ways.
It turned out, among the "ironic" references, there were actually a couple bands who were actual, sincere neo-nazis.
You can see the same thing in places like 4chan lots of posting about suicide, homophobia, mass murder, with a sort of unspoken understanding that it's all a weird kind of role play. Then some folks were actually serious and killed themselves or other people.
Especially when satire is bad, it can create a context where the real thing is indistinguishable.
Murder and neo-nazis are fairly rare, but treating women like crap and even rape is a lot more common. A complaint that is often made is that when people who sincerely hold these values see this kind of humor, for instance trivializing rape, they feel validated because they may think that most people hold their values. We as reasonable people (like all people who debate on the internet) can easily say "Of course this is satire, of course these behaviors depicted are crap!" But we forget that half the population is of below average intelligence and that there are a lot of ways to read satire. Satire isn't always a pure condemnation- Have you ever seen satirical skits done at summer camps and high schools mocking the institutions? The takeaway isn't "these places are awful" but more an affectionate poking and exaggeration. I don't think it's ridiculous to imagine that actual misogynists and rapists can read this satire that way, hell it's exactly the way that conservatives read The Colbert Report.
This is not to say that satire shouldn't exist just because some idiots may read it the wrong way and feel encouraged. But as consumers, it's something to balance. If something is actual valuable social commentary or critique, or is at least actually funny or entertaining, then we can dismiss the harm from misreadings. When bad satire delivers none of those positives, the smaller negative effect is all that's left on the scale.
Of course government shouldn't ban anything based on that, but I have no problem with consumers speaking out that they'd rather it didn't exist and with media venues responding by not giving that crap a platform.
