03-02-2023, 01:10 PM
I'm guessing, like a lot of things, that 'outrage' is something that manifests itself to various degrees and we have to be careful with generalisations.
A lot of the arguments are based around the 'extreme'...right wing nut jobs, religious terrorists.
They're not really the masses.
I'm pretty sure that there would be many christian folk who would probably have regarded the joke as unfunny (I know a few who probably would have had a chuckle)...but that would be the extent of their outrage.
At the extreme end of the scale there would be some that would be incensed.
Here's the dilemma...
At the basis of a lot of comedy is the exaggeration and stereotyping of individuals, groups and situations.
We can make the argument that many groups have been the target of 'poor' jokes in the past.
Why shouldn't they get the opportunity to hit back, in a similar fashion, at what they might regard as strange, even absurd beliefs?
The thing is that those old racial and sexual barbs had a sting.
They were often hurtful to the targets.
Now what might seem to be a pretty inoffensive religious quip to us might carry a bit of extra sting to someone who regards their faith as important.
The degree of hurt may vary considerably from individual to individual....from mild dismissal to rage.
Which leaves us with a couple of ethical questions.
Is it OK that a comedic attack on a belief or way of life is justified because the followers of that belief have previously enjoyed humour at the expense of another's beliefs or way of life?
The pandora's box that flows from that is...where do you draw the line with comedy and is that line constantly moving?
Who decides which groups have to 'grin and bear it.'?
How does comedy survive the constant need to change and reinvent itself, or do we just sanitise the lot?
A lot of the arguments are based around the 'extreme'...right wing nut jobs, religious terrorists.
They're not really the masses.
I'm pretty sure that there would be many christian folk who would probably have regarded the joke as unfunny (I know a few who probably would have had a chuckle)...but that would be the extent of their outrage.
At the extreme end of the scale there would be some that would be incensed.
Here's the dilemma...
At the basis of a lot of comedy is the exaggeration and stereotyping of individuals, groups and situations.
We can make the argument that many groups have been the target of 'poor' jokes in the past.
Why shouldn't they get the opportunity to hit back, in a similar fashion, at what they might regard as strange, even absurd beliefs?
The thing is that those old racial and sexual barbs had a sting.
They were often hurtful to the targets.
Now what might seem to be a pretty inoffensive religious quip to us might carry a bit of extra sting to someone who regards their faith as important.
The degree of hurt may vary considerably from individual to individual....from mild dismissal to rage.
Which leaves us with a couple of ethical questions.
Is it OK that a comedic attack on a belief or way of life is justified because the followers of that belief have previously enjoyed humour at the expense of another's beliefs or way of life?
The pandora's box that flows from that is...where do you draw the line with comedy and is that line constantly moving?
Who decides which groups have to 'grin and bear it.'?
How does comedy survive the constant need to change and reinvent itself, or do we just sanitise the lot?