Note: Before reading the following arguments, please understand that they are not what I believe. On Wednesdays, I deliberately argue for wrong ideas, challenging my listeners to call and defend the obvious right answer, which is usually far harder than one would expect. This is a summary of what Wacky Andrew will be arguing, not a representation of what real Andrew believes.
~Free speech always has limits.
~Does society have a legitimate interest in people having respect for their political leaders?
~If God selects leaders, then jesting at them is jesting at God.
~The message of a politician joke is not that this feature of Jones is laughable but that Jones is laughable, and, by extension, all politicians are laughable.
~Those whose candidates lose elections need to still believe in the leaders they did not elect.
~Jokes are fundamentally subversive of respect.
~The easiest jokes are going to be unfair in addition to being satirical. Jokes, therefore, almost always lie with just enough truth to not be real slander.
~Jokes can’t be argued with, especially when they are unfair.
~We live in a culture of dishonor, and I do not mean this as a compliment.
~Joking is the equivalent of political terrorism, at least in the sense that it primarily produces anger and makes it harder to reconcile with the other side.
~Joking implies that the person is so wrong that they are actually laughable. Thus most jokes are a kind of straw man fallacy rather than honest criticism.
~“Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” How does it feel when someone makes a joke at your expense and is not your friend?
~Joking is more powerful than mere criticism yet usually far less logically sound, therefore it is a kind of cultural assault weapon that deserves to be regulated.
~Which political team do you think will win an election, the one with the better policies or the one with the better satirists? That means that we the public are not well served by the ongoing culture of ridicule.
~Joking at someone’s expense has rarely been confused with being “a peacemaker.”
~Free speech always has limits.
~Does society have a legitimate interest in people having respect for their political leaders?
~If God selects leaders, then jesting at them is jesting at God.
~The message of a politician joke is not that this feature of Jones is laughable but that Jones is laughable, and, by extension, all politicians are laughable.
~Those whose candidates lose elections need to still believe in the leaders they did not elect.
~Jokes are fundamentally subversive of respect.
~The easiest jokes are going to be unfair in addition to being satirical. Jokes, therefore, almost always lie with just enough truth to not be real slander.
~Jokes can’t be argued with, especially when they are unfair.
~We live in a culture of dishonor, and I do not mean this as a compliment.
~Joking is the equivalent of political terrorism, at least in the sense that it primarily produces anger and makes it harder to reconcile with the other side.
~Joking implies that the person is so wrong that they are actually laughable. Thus most jokes are a kind of straw man fallacy rather than honest criticism.
~“Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” How does it feel when someone makes a joke at your expense and is not your friend?
~Joking is more powerful than mere criticism yet usually far less logically sound, therefore it is a kind of cultural assault weapon that deserves to be regulated.
~Which political team do you think will win an election, the one with the better policies or the one with the better satirists? That means that we the public are not well served by the ongoing culture of ridicule.
~Joking at someone’s expense has rarely been confused with being “a peacemaker.”
~Satire always comes from a place of contempt and arrogance, forgetting our own foibles and flaws.
No comments:
Post a Comment