---

by Red
So basically, in many people's opinions, anything is open to satire? However upsetting or painful it might be for someone?

---

To be honest I think what they are saying is YES because its not effecting them. If however it was a subject that was directly to do with them and their pain and suffering I think a lot of people would chnage their opinions. I still personaly feel that some subjects should not be used in satire.

---

by Sweet-Sange
(quotes)To be honest I think what they are saying is YES because its not effecting them

---

No what's being said is that it is NOT being targeted at those who have suffered. Nor should it ever be.

---

by Spikeo
(quotes)

No what's being said is that it is NOT being targeted at those who have suffered. Nor should it ever be.

---

Agreed, but by making something so tragic into something for other peoples ammusment IMO is targeting everyone who had anything to do with it. I still feel that certain subjects should not be open to satire.

But satire isn't a cheap way of making a gag. Such topics are uncomfortable to deal with but if satire has an aim, it is to make you sit back and think, and perhaps take a moment to examine how the media shapes our perception of the world.

---

by Ethan
Sorry, but I am quite disgusted to hear a remark like that. I'm wth Red, does that give the right to make fun about the most serious of things?

---

'Making fun of things' is not a definition of satire I recognise.

Humour is a rhetorical device with as much validity as any other. Satire is the process of using that device in order to challenge preconceptions and expose human folly.

In my experience, the most serious of things are usually the ones that most require constant reflection and consideration. They are not just valid targets for satirists, they are the most worthy targets.

Without retreading old ground excessively, the articles in question where certainly not negative in any way about the victims of the disaster or those associated with them tackling instead media representations and government actions. Again, I believe both of these things to be not just valid targets for scrutiny but critical ones in a 'free' country. Historically it is no surprise that satirists have always been feared by governments (Dario Fo springs immediately to mind).

---

by Red
So basically, in many people's opinions, anything is open to satire? However upsetting or painful it might be for someone?

---

There are few things that are not capable of upsetting someone.

Doing something with the sole intention of hurting another person is of course a terrible way to behave.

That was not the intention here.

In terms of perspective: Innocent New York victims - several thousand; Innocent victims in Afghanistan - several thousand; World population - 2 billion and rising.

The ramifications of September 11th will affect the entire world. Examination of the actions of the West and of western cultures internal representations through the media is as important now as it ever was.

If some people find that process offensive, then it is a shame but the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

Strong personal opinions within. Taken from one of the articles
16th: Less than two weeks into the bombing campaign, the US admits its new range of smart weapons may be too intelligent. Sources say the $7m Supersophic missiles have a range of only 50 metres because less than a second after launch the onboard computer has worked out that violence only leads to more violence and that all war is futile. Realising there's no point any more, the weapon either deliberately crashes itself into a beautiful woman or flies back home to America to spend the rest of its days buzzing round a farm. The Pentagon orders that, from now on, missiles must be 'no more intelligent than a steelworker'.

I think this is in some ways a very fine article. Too many people have focused on the loss of, admittedly innocent, lives in the states, but there are going to be many more innocent victims in the middle east, a far poorer country than America.
This world is one of extreme riches, and extreme poverty - with the lives of the poorest counting for nothing - why shouldn't that point be made - even if it is in the name of 'comedy'.
IF it makes one person change their thinking on this ridiculous, one-sided, pointless, money wasting, blood bath that is being called a war - then good.

Thanks for posting the links Inc.

I pray for peace, an end to all war, and an equal sharing of the wealth and treasures of this planet amongst all it's inhabitants.

I have to admit that Demona's remark made me wince. Not because it isn't correct in principle, but because, practically speaking, the events of September 11th were too overwhelming, with too many serious implications, for humorists to start belittling particular aspects immediately. There was still the possiblity that GWB might actually act like this was an event which changed the way the US government percieved the Middle East. When that proved not to be so, the satire began, inevitably.

I also have to say, though, that this 'you'd think differently if it had happened to you or yours' is a morally bankrupt argument. I don't have any time for it now, and I didn't have any time for it in '88, when the US presidential candidate, Michael Dukakis, was asked, because of his progressive views on reforming the prison system, what his response would be if someone were to rape and murder his wife. Next thing you know it'll be 'Did your child have the MMR vaccine?'...

---

by Red
But then again Chris Morris is uttery pathetic at anything else[/b]

---

Hmm, you seem to know rather more about the man than I (as a fan of his work) do. I also don't believe I've ever seen him insult an individual, but hey...

Oh, you'll also note that these were co-written by Armando Ianucci. Anything nasty you want to say about him?

---

and it's been a while since he actually *did* anything, so yay for a major disaster. He has to keep his name in the spotlight somehow.

---

Of course, that's the motivation behind his work, how silly of me. Never mind the fact that if he wanted to be in the spotlight he might occasionally, say, give interviews?
From what little I do know of his feelings on all the fuss about 'Brass Eye' (from an article written by someone who knows him), he was rather upset that a)it was so misunderstood by so many people and b)that there was so much focus on him.

---

Yes, some subjects are unsuitable for satire.

---

Regardless of any notions of freedom of speech or the fact that I happen to think that these pieces are both very amusing and actually have a valid insight into the whole thing? Fair enough.

---

by In a State of Dan
(quotes)

Hmm, you seem to know rather more about the man than I (as a fan of his work) do. I also don't believe I've ever seen him insult an individual, but hey...

Oh, you'll also note that these were co-written by Armando Ianucci. Anything nasty you want to say about him?

(quotes)

Of course, that's the motivation behind his work, how silly of me. Never mind the fact that if he wanted to be in the spotlight he might occasionally, say, give interviews?
From what little I do know of his feelings on all the fuss about 'Brass Eye' (from an article written by someone who knows him), he was rather upset that a)it was so misunderstood by so many people and b)that there was so much focus on him.

(quotes)

Regardless of any notions of freedom of speech or the fact that I happen to think that these pieces are both very amusing and actually have a valid insight into the whole thing? Fair enough.

---

Dan, IMO the above post isn't quite the way I would direct a comment to a member, let a lone a staff member...

Either that or it's some shocking sarcasm.

---

by Ethan
(quotes)

Dan, IMO the above post isn't quite the way I would direct a comment to a member, let a lone a staff member...

Either that or it's some shocking sarcasm.

---

The tone reflects that of the original post. IMHO

---

by Spikeo
(quotes)

The tone reflects that of the original post. IMHO

---

Me too. The comment wasn't personally abusive in any way.

---

by In a State of Dan
(quotes)
From what little I do know of his feelings on all the fuss about 'Brass Eye' (from an article written by someone who knows him), he was rather upset that a)it was so misunderstood by so many people and b)that there was so much focus on him.

---

I think one of the things that disappointed him most was that the response from many quarters of the media was entirely predictable, and while this vindicated the entire point of the show it also proved to him the sad state of the majority of the UK media.

---

by Incandenza
Do you think that some subjects are inherently unsuitable for satire?

---

---

by Red
Yes, some subjects are unsuitable for satire.

---

---

by In a State of Dan
Regardless of any notions of freedom of speech or the fact that I happen to think that these pieces are both very amusing and actually have a valid insight into the whole thing?

---

I just answered the question that was asked

Some things are never going to be funny. Never. Ever. September 11th and all of its aspects may be one of those things that isn't, whether or not you were directly involved.

That doesn't mean that something shouldn't be talked about. Satire--and nobody hold me to a definition because I bet it's fairly precise and it's not so necessary to the point I'm making--is a means of inviting public talk and thought on issue. Humor is a provacative way of getting people's attention, and thus of making them think and talk.

I'd make a distinction whether something is funny, (or in good, bad or indifferent taste) and whether ideas about something should be presented in all possible ways, including satire.

With that distinction in mind, everything is open to satire.

One of the really great things about America is that theoretically at least, we have the least restrictions in the world on our freedom of speech. It's our first amendment in the Bill of Rights, purposely so, because it's the the only way to guarantee freedom of thought, and the freedom on which all others hang.

Americans stick up for the most appalling, tasteless, nearly valueless speech there is, and IMO, it's a darn good thing. Why?

--if you let dumb, evil, tasteless people speak, you let them blow off steam, and you don't drive them underground, where they'd be really dangerous.

--the remedy for dumb, evil tasteless speech, is intelligent, reasonable and praiseworthy speech, and a perfectly free marketplace of ideas will give you both. A corollary is that dumb, evil, tasteless speech can provoke its opposite in response.

--if all speech is free, with the worst ideas crashing up against the best ideas, then all ideas are put to the test, strengthening and refining the best ideas, and encouraging their inception.

--related point: by having a free marketplace of ideas, you encourage a wealth of ideas, so that toxic speech is diluted, and people who don't want to hear it, don't have to because there are other places to turn to in the marketplace of ideas.

--Sometimes you gotta take the good with the bad. You don't want to say that some things aren't suitable, because it can discourage beforehand the people with good ideas from speaking up, thus having a chilling effect on the worthwhile speech.

Only by reaching beyond what is reasonable, and acceptable and mainstream, do we progress as a society. People may think that this satire was tasteless, and won't contribute to society's progression. But its very existence provoked talk and made people think, didn't it? Isn't that a good thing, even if you don't like the mechanism that made you do it?

I think that's what Demona meant when she said satire is best when events are fresh in people's minds. That's the time when it's mostly likely to provoke talk and thought. Admittedly, it may not then produce the most measured talk and thought.

(Edited because I leave out words when I'm tired. Also to point out that Avenger, Watcher Girl and Opiuma said much the same thing in fewer words. Darn. Must read more carefully and not get carried away by my closeted patriotism. Sorry.)



(Edited by Diandra 28/03/2002 03:40)

Erm, well, Diandra, you've covered most of what I had to say…

However, I do want to add a few things, firstly in response to the question of how affected by the attacks on the WTCs and Pentagon people were.

I am lucky to be able to say that no one close to me died that day. I did have a pair of friends who work near the WTCs become uncontactable for about a month (or at least it seemed like it) and I didn't know if they were alive or dead for that period. Further, I do know people who were connected to those who died. I don't consider it funny in the slightest and have a vivid memory of where I was when I found out, and the sense of horror that has stayed with me since.

I still agree that the above satire is aimed at the actions following those attacks, not the attacks themselves. Many of the survivors are bitterly opposed to the actions being taken in their name. It is wrong to assume that everyone approves of the responses made. To attack the reaction is not to attack the victims, and all of the survivors I know support satire of this nature (a satirical US paper and website, theonion.com, were doing this about a month after the attacks).

I also have to disagree with the idea that satire uses tragedy for amusement. It is a tool to point out the flaws in any given political situation/theory. The point of Ianucci and Morris' work was to discredit or at least to stimulate debate, on the actions taken in response to the attacks. I personally believe the actions in Afghanistan were warranted, although I may not have approved of the methodology. I still enjoyed the articles. I still think they are valid.

I have seen satire on subjects I found distasteful, inevitably because the right use satire as well as the left, and I'm a full on lefty. I still believe they have the right to express their views that way, just as I have the right to not like it. I think Diandra pretty much covered why. The response should always be to either satirize their position, or better yet, to use it to enter into debate as to why they are wrong. These have to be preferable to 'don't like it - so don't do it'.

---

by Diandra
--if you let dumb, evil, tasteless people speak, you let them blow off steam, and you don't drive them underground, where they'd be really dangerous.

--the remedy for dumb, evil tasteless speech, is intelligent, reasonable and praiseworthy speech, and a perfectly free marketplace of ideas will give you both. A corollary is that dumb, evil, tasteless speech can provoke its opposite in response.

--if all speech is free, with the worst ideas crashing up against the best ideas, then all ideas are put to the test, strengthening and refining the best ideas, and encouraging their inception.

--related point: by having a free marketplace of ideas, you encourage a wealth of ideas, so that toxic speech is diluted, and people who don't want to hear it, don't have to because there are other places to turn to in the marketplace of ideas.

--Sometimes you gotta take the good with the bad. You don't want to say that some things aren't suitable, because it can discourage beforehand the people with good ideas from speaking up, thus having a chilling effect on the worthwhile speech.

---

Don't do yourself down Diandra, that's about the best defence of free speech I've seen. There are a lot of people out there with ideas that are mad, bad or just plain wrong. By preventing them from speaking we make them more dangerous than they really are.

Thanks Avenger! However, I should point out I didn't come up with this myself, but am repeating, in considerably more colloquial terms, about 200 years of American legal theory. Actually probably could've done better if I'd gone to class more, but many times, I chose to exercise my freedom to nap instead.