Is it ok to mock beliefs?

[Orias]

Exactly.

The same can be said about the design of racial slurs.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Yes, people can be cruel. I like comedy, but am not a fan of Schadenfreude. Clearly some people are. I've often wondered why. Is it because they are malevolent or simply such sorry, pitiful souls that they need to see someone more miserable than themselves in order to feel better about themselves.

Ouch! That was a low blow! Aim higher next time, and give me a tickle in the ribs when you offer a character assassination.

I think people who liked watching "Jerry Springer" were of the latter sort. It's an area of psychology of which I'd like to study more.

LOL methinks you have a very narrow view of mockery.

 

[Road Warrior]

Ouch! That was a low blow! Aim higher next time, and give me a tickle in the ribs when you offer a character assassination.

It was a general observation. It wasn't meant personally. Have a nice day.

 

[Road Warrior]

Exactly.

The same can be said about the design of racial slurs.

Agreed. Racism often seems to be designed both to harm a general group of people and to build up the racist's own group of people. Same for men who look down on women or anyone else who thinks people like themselves are better than another for arbitrary reasons.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

It was a general observation. It wasn't meant personally. Have a nice day.

You're funny. I feel like I wanna poke you in the nose and squeal, "boop."

Thanks for the well wishes! :foryou:

 

[Road Warrior]

More quotes on ridicule:

I have made a ceaseless effort not to ridicule, not to bewail, not to scorn human actions, but to understand them. -- Baruch Spinoza, 17th Century Dutch Philosopher

I'm a geophysicist and all my earth science books when I was a student, I had to give the wrong answer to get an A. We used to ridicule continental drift. It was something we laughed at. We learned of Marshall Kay's geosynclinal cycle, which is a bunch of crap. - Robert Ballard, ocean explorer and scientist

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Yes, people can be cruel. I like comedy, but am not a fan of Schadenfreude. Clearly some people are. I've often wondered why. Is it because they are malevolent or simply such sorry, pitiful souls that they need to see someone more miserable than themselves in order to feel better about themselves.

I think people who liked watching "Jerry Springer" were of the latter sort. It's an area of psychology of which I'd like to study more.

How about the Daily Show? Do you think that the people who watch Jon Stewart are "pitiful souls"?

 

[gnomon]

There's an overlap: some mockery can be bullying; some mockery isn't.

I would say that satire is a form of mockery. Do you consider all satire to be bullying?

I tried this tack before. I've posted names of many authors who have used satire, considered classic and important works today, even offering up Erasmus.

It's being ignored.

I'm now more interested in why it is that when people make absolute claims and are challenged with an alternative view questioning or even refuting that claim they ignore it and keep asserting the same absolutes.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

I tried this tack before. I've posted names of many authors who have used satire, considered classic and important works today, even offering up Erasmus.

It's being ignored.

I'm now more interested in why it is that when people make absolute claims and are challenged with an alternative view questioning or even refuting that claim they ignore it and keep asserting the same absolutes.

Pssst. I think I know why.

It's because we're not the cool kids. We're clowns, and clowns apparently suck.

But something just occurred to me....I used to be an administrator here. I think mockery is acceptable and at times ethically superior to criticism.

I think I ran this forum to the ground. If I were you, gnomon, I'd demand my money back. 9-10ths Penguin should be able to refund you.

.

.

.

I've had a long week.

 

[Straw Dog]

I tried this tack before. I've posted names of many authors who have used satire, considered classic and important works today, even offering up Erasmus.

It's being ignored.

I'm now more interested in why it is that when people make absolute claims and are challenged with an alternative view questioning or even refuting that claim they ignore it and keep asserting the same absolutes.

I've been contemplating this a bit more...

There is a lot of variation between mocking as bullying and mocking as satire, etc. Humor can be a very effective means of opening the mind while at the same time alleviating associated anxiety with endorphins. I guess the key is subtlety and style with a careful focus on the ideas themselves rather than the people that hold them.

Nevertheless, some folks who take their beliefs very serious will still become offended no matter what, but perhaps we all do take our beliefs too seriously at times anyway. I don't know. Sometimes it seems like we're all much more concerned with abstract beliefs about things beyond our comprehension rather than our direct experience of reality as it is. Perhaps various methods of deconstruction can be very positive if done with subtlety and style.

So, yeah, I've changed my mind a little on this topic.

 

[lunamoth]

Is it ever ok to mock religious beliefs? Or even non-religious beliefs?

Are there some beliefs that are just completely off the table?

If there are some beliefs that are immune to mockery, which ones? Why? How to we distinguish between beliefs that are ripe for ridicule, and those that are immune?

Mocking beliefs, as a broad category, is not a problem. It can be done skillfully, effectively, subtly; it can be done clumsily, abusively, maliciously. Nothing needs to be considered sacred, off-limits to criticism, whether by mocking or by higher means of discourse.

The problem, it seems obvious, is when mocking is done personally, face to face. If you mock someone's belief in conversation, I think it is a distinction without a difference whether you've mocked a belief vs. mocked that person. I would say that such a situation is often obnoxious and sometimes is bullying.

 

[Orias]

I think in the end though, the sum of the consequences leading to what is "beneficial" and "harmful" is ultimately both, depending on who you are.

 

[LeftishBritInPA]

Is it ever ok to mock religious beliefs? Or even non-religious beliefs?

Are there some beliefs that are just completely off the table?

If there are some beliefs that are immune to mockery, which ones? Why? How to we distinguish between beliefs that are ripe for ridicule, and those that are immune?

It's always ok to mock religious beliefs. For instance if someone believes that the moon is made of cheese, or in conspiracy theories like "Israel did 9/11" then there's only one thing to do: fire at will.

There is ultimately no objective measure of "right". While there are certainly things that can be called "wrong" (slavery for instance) there is nothing which is absolutely right just by default. We create our own reality based on internalized preconceptions. Since there is no such thing as "objective" truth we should be free to create our own truth. Someone who thinks Jesus just a crazy man is just as valid as someone who thinks that Jesus was the "son of g-d".

 

[Reverend Rick]

There's an overlap: some mockery can be bullying; some mockery isn't.

I would say that satire is a form of mockery. Do you consider all satire to be bullying?

Of course not. Honestly satire is a pretty mild form of mockery, it makes us laugh at ourselves.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

I've been contemplating this a bit more...

There is a lot of variation between mocking as bullying and mocking as satire, etc. Humor can be a very effective means of opening the mind while at the same time alleviating associated anxiety with endorphins. I guess the key is subtlety and style with a careful focus on the ideas themselves rather than the people that hold them.

Nevertheless, some folks who take their beliefs very serious will still become offended no matter what, but perhaps we all do take our beliefs too seriously at times anyway. I don't know. Sometimes it seems like we're all much more concerned with abstract beliefs about things beyond our comprehension rather than our direct experience of reality as it is. Perhaps various methods of deconstruction can be very positive if done with subtlety and style.

So, yeah, I've changed my mind a little on this topic.

Very eloquent.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Of course not. Honestly satire is a pretty mild form of mockery, it makes us laugh at ourselves.

Okay - so you agree that at least one form of mockery is acceptable in at least some cases?

 

[Road Warrior]

Of course not. Honestly satire is a pretty mild form of mockery, it makes us laugh at ourselves.

Agreed. It's one thing to laugh at ourselves, but another to laugh at someone else. Mark Twain made fun of ourselves, but someone who tells racist jokes is just being a jerk.

I tried this tack before. I've posted names of many authors who have used satire, considered classic and important works today, even offering up Erasmus.

It's being ignored.

For the obvious reason that there is a fundamental difference between making light of the foibles of humanity, such as in Stanley Kubrick's "Dr. Strangelove" and deliberately mocking and ridiculing a person for their beliefs. This dehumanizing of a fellow human being is even more wrong when the mocker and ridiculer admits they don't know for certain either.

I'm now more interested in why it is that when people make absolute claims and are challenged with an alternative view questioning or even refuting that claim they ignore it and keep asserting the same absolutes.

Agreed. Funny isn't it? What's funnier is that those who make "absolute claims" like "I know there is no God" are just guilty of this as those who say "I know there is a God".

 

[gnomon]

Agreed. It's one thing to laugh at ourselves, but another to laugh at someone else. Mark Twain made fun of ourselves, but someone who tells racist jokes is just being a jerk.


For the obvious reason that there is a fundamental difference between making light of the foibles of humanity, such as in Stanley Kubrick's "Dr. Strangelove" and deliberately mocking and ridiculing a person for their beliefs. This dehumanizing of a fellow human being is even more wrong when the mocker and ridiculer admits they don't know for certain either.


Agreed. Funny isn't it? What's funnier is that those who make "absolute claims" like "I know there is no God" are just guilty of this as those who say "I know there is a God".

See now we are just coming to disagreements on satire as a direct attack on society or an institution, such as Erasmus' most famous work or even Swift, or if it's merely making light of.

But at least we now have agreement that mocking is not absolutely wrong.

 

[Road Warrior]

It is obvious why many Dawkins apologists want to water down his emotionally-laden attacks on those with whom he disagrees. What is most amusing is that Dawkins admits he can't be certain either, yet he has no qualms about attacking those whose beliefs differ from his own. This is why I see little difference between Dawkins, Myers and other "New Atheists" and people like Rush Limbaugh, Anne Coulter and anyone else who rants and preaches hate against people with differing beliefs.

 

[gnomon]

It is obvious why many Dawkins apologists want to water down his emotionally-laden attacks on those with whom he disagrees. What is most amusing is that Dawkins admits he can't be certain either, yet he has no qualms about attacking those whose beliefs differ from his own. This is why I see little difference between Dawkins, Myers and other "New Atheists" and people like Rush Limbaugh, Anne Coulter and anyone else who rants and preaches hate against people with differing beliefs.

You are a bottomless pit of insight.