posted on Apr, 7 2012 @ 09:04 AM
Originally posted by Aleister
reply to post by No1atall
One way to "expose" secrets, or hypocrisy, or any form of interesting data that the public is not normally presented or hand-fed on news - even
cable news - is by satire. Satirical renditions of important events or topics put enough distance between the people that want them hidden and the
satirist that it's an acceptable form of communication. The "fools" in many historical Royal circles were often the only ones who could tell the
truth to the King or even to the entire court, and were thus trusted advisors and confidants of royal families.
There are a few different places that go into the power of ridicule. Much of it is related back to looking at example directly, as opposed to looking
I don't like example as a primary argument, because it leads to false result. As an example, I once saw a preacher talking to a congregation talking
about the power of prayer. He told people to raise their hands if they had prayed for something and it had come to fruition. Most of the congregation
had their hands in the air. He used this to illustrate that God listens to prayers. I later asked the same congregation if they had ever prayed for
something that hadn't come to fruition. Most of them had their hands in the air. Select examples are an easy way to bolster an argument without
looking at underlying principle.
In he Power of Ridicule: An Analysis of
the author, LeBoeuf, states:
Satire is a powerful art form which has the ability to point out the deficiencies in certain human behaviors and the social issues which result
from them in such a way that they become absurd, even hilarious, which is therefore entertaining and reaches a wide audience. Satire also has the
ability to protect its creator from culpability for criticism, because it is implied rather than overtly stated; in this way, it becomes a powerful
tool for dissenters in difficult or oppressive political and social periods.
One person cited in here is Stephen Colbert. He has been quoted (and I'm probably going to misquote slightly here) that all jokes contain some
. When used well, this can give a voice to an individual or a group who
are generally voiceless. Of course it can also do the opposite, where a voiceless group can be further vilified by a satirical group.
Westboro Baptist Church
do exactly that.
Uncyclopedia isn't perfect. It's an "anyone can edit" site after all. How many posts and viewpoints are on ATS that have universal support? But
the purpose of deleting a significant number of poor articles is creating a better core group of articles. The MLK article was mentioned before. It
has been a hotly debated article and one that was recently nominated for deletion. The main argument against it is the lack of that article would have
attracted an even more negative viewpoint. And
there are similar sites
that will publish hate speech disguised as satire.
Side-note: Richard Pryor was mentioned earlier. The amazing thing about Richard Pryor is - to me - how he turned away from his self-derogatory humor
towards the end of his career, after a spiritual awakening that lead him to realize what he had been doing. Or, in a slightly different way of looking
at it - he grew up.