Why I Won’t Be Seeing the Book of Mormon Musical

[Jeff K.]

Considering that some people don't believe that its acceptable for women to show their face in public, your criticism is meaningless.

If you are going to use the word "acceptable" you need to define the standards you are applying.

The play was written to be performed on Broadway, not at a high school theater in Utah County. By the standards of Broadway, the play is most certainly acceptable.

Sure, and Birth of a Nation was not a high school movie, by the standards of Hollywood it was a most certainly acceptable. I suppose you celebrate its achievement whenever you can. And based on your standards, entirely acceptable.

I don't find it so. Nor do African Americans when it is played, neither should you for that matter. And yet here you are suggesting something similar is entirely "acceptable".

[Jeff K.]

yes, my comment was intended to counter the "woe is us the LDS who are forever picked on", my comment was not intended to justified or suggest fairness.

I am sure the Jews, disenfranchised African Americans, and so on who are degraded with ridicule celebrate your sense propriety. They are so much better for mockery that has been heaped upon them.

[frankenstein]

I am sure the Jews, disenfranchised African Americans, and so on who are degraded with ridicule celebrate your sense propriety. They are so much better for mockery that has been heaped upon them.

it should clear and obvious that I have made no statement about what is proper. I only responded to a statement about someone insuiating they are the only victim; or as I have labeled in other place something akin to "mormon martyrdom syndrome".

That the creators of South Park have lampooned, almost weekly, Jews, and quite freaky blacks, and maybe 4 times the Mormons (though according to South Park, only Mormons make it to Heaven), the disproportionate treatment of Jews and Blacks by the creator of South Park, mostly takes away the "bite" to a statement by a LDS person about being victimized and suggesting that the LDS are the only ones victimized. Once again, I have made no statement about what is proper, I have only commented about who suffers to a greater degree at the creative hands of the South Park creators.

[Jeff K.]

it should clear and obvious that I have made no statement about what is proper. I only responded to a statement about someone insuiating they are the only victim; or as I have labeled in other place something akin to "mormon martyrdom syndrome".

That the creators of South Park have lampooned, almost weekly, Jews, and quite freaky blacks, and maybe 4 times the Mormons (though according to South Park, only Mormons make it to Heaven), the disproportionate treatment of Jews and Blacks by the creator of South Park, mostly takes away the "bite" to a statement by a LDS person about being victimized and suggesting that the LDS are the only ones victimized. Once again, I have made no statement about what is proper, I have only commented about who suffers to a greater degree at the creative hands of the South Park creators.

I agree that they do make fun of other groups. On that matter I find it no less reprehensible..

[frankenstein]

I agree that they do make fun of other groups. On that matter I find it no less reprehensible..

I agree as well

[Jaybear]

Sure, and Birth of a Nation was not a high school movie, by the standards of Hollywood it was a most certainly acceptable. I suppose you celebrate its achievement whenever you can. And based on your standards, entirely acceptable.

I don't find it so. Nor do African Americans when it is played, neither should you for that matter. And yet here you are suggesting something similar is entirely "acceptable".

I haven't seen Birth of a Nation, but from what I heard I don't think that by today's standards a similar movie would be acceptable as a main stream movie production. This means that major production studios would not produce the movie, mainstream actors would not appear the movie, and mainstream theaters would not show the film, and audiences would not attend.

If your position is the play and that movie are similarly offensive, by all means present your argument.

[Jeff K.]

Jeff K., on 10 May 2011 - 11:41 AM, said:

Sure, and Birth of a Nation was not a high school movie, by the standards of Hollywood it was a most certainly acceptable. I suppose you celebrate its achievement whenever you can. And based on your standards, entirely acceptable.

I don't find it so. Nor do African Americans when it is played, neither should you for that matter. And yet here you are suggesting something similar is entirely "acceptable".

I haven't seen Birth of a Nation, but from what I heard I don't think that by today's standards a similar movie would be acceptable as a main stream movie production. This means that major production studios would not produce the movie, mainstream actors would not appear the movie, and mainstream theaters would not show the film, and audiences would not attend.

If your position is the play and that movie are similarly offensive, by all means present your argument.

You logic is fallacious. Birth of a Nation is a racist movie, but technically very well done and in its time, people like you found it "acceptable" because it was very well done. The technical standards do not change the moral issue. It is amazing how you can ignore a "parody" of but a few years, a "parody" in which a people were laughed at. And suddenly do the same now. It is hypocrisy pure and simple.

The play and movie are similar in their charcterizations, they are similar in their degradation of a poeple. One is slightly better technically than the other, but in the end you do the same thing to a people.

It seems you are blind to your own hypocrisy.

I am sure you will be first to sign up and see Matthew Shepard's death in a well done and technically brilliant musical comedy. I wonder if they will sing gay jokes as he dies. All "parody" of course.

I wouldn't see it. But apparently for you such things are a different story.

[Daniel2]

I posted what I did, because I was interesting in responses to the specific claims that LDS believe.

I found song "Turn it off" to very at the end

Edler Price: "I do not have gay thoughts"

Companion: "See it worked"

By way of clarification: Elder Price (one of the two main LDS characters in the play) is NOT gay--his companion's comment of "See? It worked!" was a joke.

There is another missionary character (the Zone Leader) who is gay (or struggles with SSA, if you prefer... Although he does sing about the experience of being tempted by it, as a young boy, it's not mentioned whether or not he ever chooses to embrace homosexual behavior).

Darin

[Jaybear]

You logic is fallacious.

What logic?

I expressed my opinion that by today's standards, a movie like would not be acceptable as a mainstream movie.

You agree with me, don't you?

I said, as a fact, by today standards for Broadway productions, the BOM play is acceptable.

You agree, don't you?

If not, I will note that the play just received more Tony nomination that any other Broadway play this year. That strike me as conclusive evidence that the BOM musical has been accepted by Broadway standards.

So what logical assertion have I made that you find fallacious.

Birth of a Nation is a racist movie, but technically very well done and in its time, people like you found it "acceptable" because it was very well done.

People like me? What does that mean? Are you implying that "people like you" would not have found it acceptable back when it was made?

The play and movie are similar in their charcterizations, they are similar in their degradation of a poeple. One is slightly better technically than the other, but in the end you do the same thing to a people.

I haven't seen either. Can you cite some specific comparable examples?

It seems you are blind to your own hypocrisy.

My hypocracy? I am not a purveyor of Broadway musicals. I certainly haven't passed judgement, or expressed my opinion on this play, which I have not seen, or for that matter, Birth of a Nation, which I have also not seen.

Having expressed no personal opinion on either, I don't how I am a hypocrite.

I have seen quotes from Mormons who have actually attended the play and found it entertaining. Have you seen it?

I am sure you will be first to sign up and see Matthew Shepard's death in a well done and technically brilliant musical comedy. I wonder if they will sing gay jokes as he dies. All "parody" of course.

I wouldn't see it. But apparently for you such things are a different story.

You lost me at musical.

[Daniel2]

You logic is fallacious. Birth of a Nation is a racist movie, but technically very well done and in its time, people like you found it "acceptable" because it was very well done. The technical standards do not change the moral issue. It is amazing how you can ignore a "parody" of but a few years, a "parody" in which a people were laughed at. And suddenly do the same now. It is hypocrisy pure and simple.

The play and movie are similar in their charcterizations, they are similar in their degradation of a poeple. One is slightly better technically than the other, but in the end you do the same thing to a people.

It seems you are blind to your own hypocrisy.

I am sure you will be first to sign up and see Matthew Shepard's death in a well done and technically brilliant musical comedy. I wonder if they will sing gay jokes as he dies. All "parody" of course.

I wouldn't see it. But apparently for you such things are a different story.

I'm fascinated that people are taking offense at this play without having seen it, and then attempt to suggest the play's portrayal would be comparable to things like "a brilliant musical comedy about the death of Matthew Shepherd" which would "contain gay jokes as he dies."

If anything, many people who have seen the play have commented that it's message is one of admiration and support for LDS values, sincerity, etc. Mormon missionaries are the PROTAGONISTS, here... although it's understandable that non-members may feel they are also naive, these young men are none-the-less portrayed to be upstanding, well-intentioned, sincerely good-hearted young men who sincerely believe they are doing good in the world.

Yes, the play is full of foul language by the non-LDS characters that is not in keeping with Mormon standards. However, I haven't heard from any active Latter-day Saints who saw the film and are offended by it's central message or any insensitivity towards Mormonism, in general.

The musical, IMO, does a FAR greater service to Mormonism than a dis-service. As others have implied, it's a sign that the religion has arrived at the mainstream when non-members are willing to write what's ultimately a very positive portrayal of the Faith. Jews ("Springtime for Hitler," anyone...?), Catholics ("The Thorn Birds" came to mind, first... but there's a gazillion plays, films, and novels that offer portrayals of the Catholic Faith--some flattering, some not-so-much...), Muslims, Gays, and many other minority groups have long been represented by non-minority members. Sometimes those portrayals are accurate--sometimes they aren't. Mormonism hasn't endured many outsiders telling a Mormon story--as the church moves out of obscurity and gains world-wide attention, it should expect more outside attention and portrayals.

I think the church's restrained response was actually highly appropriate and brilliantly understated. In my opinion, individual members would do well to follow that understated response, rather than attempt to incite additional offense and exaggerated similarities.

My view,

Darin

[Walden]

Im not terribly concerned with the play. Nor do I expect it to do terribly well.

No, it's not doing well at all....it's only the biggest Broadway hit of the year and has been nominated for something like 14 Tony awards.

[Analytics]

From the article:

A few members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints who have seen this musical and blogged about it seem to have gone out of their way to show how they can take it. That’s their choice. There’s always room for different perspectives, and we can all decide what to do with our free time...

A couple of weeks ago a review about the musical appeared at the New York Times from a Jewish writer who simply listed himself as Levi. “As someone of Jewish faith,” he began, “I take personal offense at this show….I cannot believe that New York, MY New York, where I was born and raised, would ever do such a thing. Shame on you, New York Times, shame on Broadway, and shame on all of us who stand idly by and do nothing while the faith of others is mocked. Religious and cultural Jews need not support such bigotry.”

Levi’s point was echoed by some reviewers, but by surprisingly few.

Why is that surprising? Otterson scans all of media and finds the worst possilbe review, and assumes that it must be the most accurate one, and is then surprised that more reviews don't agree with it? Why not see the show before being surprised that so few people agree with "Levi"? Or at least, why not assume that the show is as (in)offensive as the majority of reviewers (who have seen it) say it is?

So why hasn’t there been a huge outcry from Mormons?

Maybe, just maybe, because the Mormons who actually have seen the play honestly don't agree with the review of "Levi"? Maybe because most of the other Mormons aren't as comfortable reviewing a play that they haven't seen as Otterson is?

"Prejudice" means making an unfavorable opinion beforehand or without knowledge, thought, or reason. The prejudice I see in this review is on the part of the people who haven't seen this play, yet think people should take offense at it.

[Jeff K.]

What logic?

I expressed my opinion that by today's standards, a movie like would not be acceptable as a mainstream movie.

You agree with me, don't you?

I said, as a fact, by today standards for Broadway productions, the BOM play is acceptable.

You agree, don't you?

If not, I will note that the play just received more Tony nomination that any other Broadway play this year. That strike me as conclusive evidence that the BOM musical has been accepted by Broadway standards.

So what logical assertion have I made that you find fallacious.

People like me? What does that mean? Are you implying that "people like you" would not have found it acceptable back when it was made?

I haven't seen either. Can you cite some specific comparable examples?

My hypocracy? I am not a purveyor of Broadway musicals. I certainly haven't passed judgement, or expressed my opinion on this play, which I have not seen, or for that matter, Birth of a Nation, which I have also not seen.

Having expressed no personal opinion on either, I don't how I am a hypocrite.

I have seen quotes from Mormons who have actually attended the play and found it entertaining. Have you seen it?

You lost me at musical.

As always, the disengenuous retreat.

[Jeff K.]

I'm fascinated that people are taking offense at this play without having seen it, and then attempt to suggest the play's portrayal would be comparable to things like "a brilliant musical comedy about the death of Matthew Shepherd" which would "contain gay jokes as he dies."

Yes, the play is full of foul language by the non-LDS characters that is not in keeping with Mormon standards. However, I haven't heard from any active Latter-day Saints who saw the film and are offended by it's central message or any insensitivity towards Mormonism, in general.

The musical, IMO, does a FAR greater service to Mormonism than a dis-service. As others have implied, it's a sign that the religion has arrived at the mainstream when non-members are willing to write what's ultimately a very positive portrayal of the Faith. Jews ("Springtime for Hitler," anyone...?), Catholics ("The Thorn Birds" came to mind, first... but there's a gazillion plays, films, and novels that offer portrayals of the Catholic Faith--some flattering, some not-so-much...), Muslims, Gays, and many other minority groups have long been represented by non-minority members. Sometimes those portrayals are accurate--sometimes they aren't. Mormonism hasn't endured many outsiders telling a Mormon story--as the church moves out of obscurity and gains world-wide attention, it should expect more outside attention and portrayals.

I think the church's restrained response was actually highly appropriate and brilliantly understated. In my opinion, individual members would do well to follow that understated response, rather than attempt to incite additional offense and exaggerated similarities.

My view,

Darin

Darin

One does not have view pornography to be offended by it.

One also knows the intent of the play which is degrading to what we hold sacred. Does one have to sit through it before one states they won't see it.

Lets look at the double standard you display, or perhaps your blindspots.

I'm fascinated that people are taking offense at this play without having seen it, and then attempt to suggest the play's portrayal would be comparable to things like "a brilliant musical comedy about the death of Matthew Shepherd" which would "contain gay jokes as he dies."

The story of Matthew Sheperd is a tragic one. It is also a story important to the gay community because they use it to illustrate what can be brutal homophobia. In short, it is something important to them. How suddenly should our belief system be deemed less important to us? How for instance should we laugh with those who degrade what we ourselves might hold sacred? You are amazed that someone would draw the parallel. I am amazed you can't see the paralell.

If anything, many people who have seen the play have commented that it's message is one of admiration and support for LDS values, sincerity, etc. Mormon missionaries are the PROTAGONISTS, here... although it's understandable that non-members may feel they are also naive, these young men are none-the-less portrayed to be upstanding, well-intentioned, sincerely good-hearted young men who sincerely believe they are doing good in the world.

Degrading a religion does not make it a message of admiration. Indeed it basically laughs at our beliefs and admires the general underlying humanity we all share. In other words, it does nothing admirable about the church. After evicerating the beliefs, laughing at what we hold sacred, it comes out with "oh but they're great guys". Is that what you mean about admiration and support for LDS values?

Let us again turn to Matthew Shepard. Let us say a play equally offensive and supposedly funny (to some), with a hysterical soundtrack and music regarding his beating, his death. One a technical basis, very funny stuff. With of course good reviews. Shepard is portrayed as a find upstanding person, who was naive in believing two cowboys would like to have sex with him. Hilarious isn't it? Or should we understand that there are some things that parody isn't meant for. A certain mutual respect and understanding that I won't laugh at you regarding memories and tragedies you hold important, and you won't laugh at us regarding what we hold sacred. When this mutual respect breaks down, under the guise of parody we are left with little more than a jeering and lack of respect for both sides. Free speech for example is a wonderful thing, but shouting at those attending a funeral undermine the responsibility such freedom provides. I will tell you that I will not go see a movie that demeans gay men and women because I have too much respect for my gay friends who I feel I would be betraying by doing so. One does not need to see such a movie or play to judge its lack of worthiness, anymore than one has to experience death to understand it is something we should avoid.

Yes, the play is full of foul language by the non-LDS characters that is not in keeping with Mormon standards. However, I haven't heard from any active Latter-day Saints who saw the film and are offended by it's central message or any insensitivity towards Mormonism, in general.

I haven't heard from any active Latter-day Saints who have seen the film. I am sure there will always be those who gladly hope for acceptance by speaking well of degrading movies and imagery of Mormons. Just as there were gay men and women loathed who they were and in cases actively encouraged homophobia. One has to measure what is being degraded, not by some who blithely accept any fad tossed their way.

The musical, IMO, does a FAR greater service to Mormonism than a dis-service. As others have implied, it's a sign that the religion has arrived at the mainstream when non-members are willing to write what's ultimately a very positive portrayal of the Faith. Jews ("Springtime for Hitler," anyone...?), Catholics ("The Thorn Birds" came to mind, first... but there's a gazillion plays, films, and novels that offer portrayals of the Catholic Faith--some flattering, some not-so-much...), Muslims, Gays, and many other minority groups have long been represented by non-minority members. Sometimes those portrayals are accurate--sometimes they aren't. Mormonism hasn't endured many outsiders telling a Mormon story--as the church moves out of obscurity and gains world-wide attention, it should expect more outside attention and portrayals.

If you mean a religion has arrived at mainstream and it means that it can now be ridiculed, degraded, joked about and made fun of as well as dismissed as being something that is not serious in any context. Then the mainstream is not where anyone wants to be, and the mainstream is itself a disservice to what we believe God wishes of our church.

Just so you are aware, there was no "Springtime for Hitler" musical, merely a vehicle to carry out a different type of parody. The play was never popular nor well recieved because it never existed beyond being a part of a different play.

I think the church's restrained response was actually highly appropriate and brilliantly understated. In my opinion, individual members would do well to follow that understated response, rather than attempt to incite additional offense and exaggerated similarities

What you call brilliant is normal policy when anti Mormons attack the church. Why feed the flames of degredation? And yes, we hope if we ignore it, the issue will eventually go away. Much like the brilliant and very wrong parody of Matthew Shepard and his last days before being beaten to death.

[Jeff K.]

Quote

So why hasn’t there been a huge outcry from Mormons?

Maybe, just maybe, because the Mormons who actually have seen the play honestly don't agree with the review of "Levi"? Maybe because most of the other Mormons aren't as comfortable reviewing a play that they haven't seen as Otterson is?

"Prejudice" means making an unfavorable opinion beforehand or without knowledge, thought, or reason. The prejudice I see in this review is on the part of the people who haven't seen this play, yet think people should take offense at it.

Or it might be that the standard response to anti Mormons is to ignore them, and so Mormons merely move on with the work. We cannot be bothered everytime someone puts forth a tract, book, or play that makes fun of us.

As a side note. Your argument regarding prejudice is a false. One presumes from it that until one knows death, one is prejudiced to avoid it. One cannot prejudge kiddie porn without seeing it, and of course one should not be to angry with murderers before they have tried it themselves.

You might want to rethink the approach.

[Avatar4321]

No, it's not doing well at all....it's only the biggest Broadway hit of the year and has been nominated for something like 14 Tony awards.

Then clearly I'm wrong and I underestimated the standards of New Yorkers.

[Daniel2]

Then clearly I'm wrong and I underestimated the standards of New Yorkers.

Have you seen the play, Avatar...?

Darin

[Walden]

Then clearly I'm wrong and I underestimated the standards of New Yorkers.

Yes, clearly, New Yorkers know nothing about good theater....maybe those guys who produce the movies shown at the Legacy Theater at the Joseph Smith Building in Salt lake City can teach them something

[Sky]

Actually seeing the play is not a prerequisite to form an opinion about it. All one really needs to do is read some of the many reviews and synopsis’s about it online, which I have done. Plus, I save my money, which Parker and Stone don’t really need anyway.

In a nutshell, the gist that I get is that Mormons are good, lovable, nice, well-intentioned people - but at the same time perhaps somewhat naïve, arrogant, and even moronic. Some of their beliefs are extremely absurd and laughable, but somehow those beliefs seem to make them into better people, and that’s all that really matters in the end anyway. Mormons just have a different way trying to make sense of the world and are simply trying to do their part to make it a better place.

I like that they think we are nice people, and how they recognize our common humanity and such. But that still doesn’t necessarily make it any easier to take when they are essentially laughing at you.

[Jaybear]

As always, the disengenuous retreat.

Retreat?

I have not backed down one iota from defending any factual assertion I made, any rational conclusion I have drawn, or any opinion expressed.

I am simply pointing out that you have this annoying tendency to ignore what I actually write and instead attack me for arguments that I have not expressed and for position that I have not taken.

Unlike you, I have not seen the play, so I am really not in the position to defend the play, other than to note that most people who have seen the play seem to have enjoyed it.

[Jaybear]

Actually seeing the play is not a prerequisite to form an opinion about it. All one really needs to do is read some of the many reviews and synopsis’s about it online, which I have done. Plus, I save my money, which Parker and Stone don’t really need anyway.

In a nutshell, the gist that I get is that Mormons are good, lovable, nice, well-intentioned people - but at the same time perhaps somewhat naïve, arrogant, and even moronic. Some of their beliefs are extremely absurd and laughable, but somehow those beliefs seem to make them into better people, and that’s all that really matters in the end anyway. Mormons just have a different way trying to make sense of the world and are simply trying to do their part to make it a better place.

I like that they think we are nice people, and how they recognize our common humanity and such. But that still doesn’t necessarily make it any easier to take when they are essentially laughing at you.

I think your analysis is spot on.

I think some of your fellow Mormons, and perhaps you as well, would like to live in a world where it is socially taboo to make fun of Mormon beliefs. We are not there yet, and may never get there.

Personally, I hope that doesn't happen. I prefer to live in a society where ideas and beliefs are not sacrosanct but remain open to challenge, probe, question and yes to even mock and ridicule. Societies which elevate religious ideas and beliefs above all others are closed,intellectually stagnant societies.

No one here, for example, would question whether it is "acceptable" to make fun of Donald Trump for promoting a belief that Obama was born in Kenya, or those who think he is a secret Muslim. Conservatives have relentlessly lampooned Al Gore for expressing his belief that man is contributing to global climate change. Growing up, I was mocked by my classmates for expressing my firm belief that "man evolved from Monkeys." (While that is not exactly how it happened, common ancestor, I understand that its funnier expressed that way).

[bluebell]

Why not hope for a world where mocking anyone isn't tolerated?

We spend all our time and energy trying to get kids to stop bullying each other (and mocking seems pretty similar to bullying) and then we teach them that for adults it's acceptable, and according to some people even necessary, to mock others to create a better world.

Are we as adults so mentally stunted that we can't disagree with someone unless we can mock them to do it? When are we going to require more of ourselves than we require of kindergarteners?

[Jaybear]

Why not hope for a world where mocking anyone isn't tolerated?

By "anyone" you are lumping together mocking ideas and mocking people because of how they were born.

Nothing I have said should lead you to believe that I think its acceptable to mock someone because of their race, ethnicity, sex, sexual orientation, or physical disabilities. Those are all immutable characteristics.

My point is simply that I don't believe that society should treat religious ideas as any more sacrosanct that philosophical ideas, political ideas, scientific ideas, mathematical ideas etc.

Are we as adults so mentally stunted that we can't disagree with someone unless we can mock them to do it?

Some people, not everyone, choose to express their thoughts and ideas through mocking, ie political cartoonists, satirists. Do you think the world would be a better place without them?

[Sky]

I think some of your fellow Mormons, and perhaps you as well, would like to live in a world where it is socially taboo to make fun of Mormon beliefs. We are not there yet, and may never get there.

Personally, I hope that doesn't happen. I prefer to live in a society where ideas and beliefs are not sacrosanct but remain open to challenge, probe, question and yes to even mock and ridicule. Societies which elevate religious ideas and beliefs above all others are closed,intellectually stagnant societies.

I think it is much more socially taboo to make fun of Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Muslim, and Buddhist beliefs than it is for Mormon beliefs. Yet one could argue that those religions also have many absurd beliefs. Yet somehow it has become more fashionable nowadays to make fun of Mormon beliefs, perhaps because Mormonism is a younger religion.

[bluebell]

By "anyone" you are lumping together mocking ideas and mocking people because of how they were born.

Nothing I have said should lead you to believe that I think its acceptable to mock someone because of their race, ethnicity, sex, sexual orientation, or physical disabilities. Those are all immutable characteristics.

If i gave the impression that you would ever be alright mocking things people can't help, then i'm sorry because that wasn't my intention. However, i don't think people should be mocked because of things they CAN help either and since it appears you do, that's where we disagree.

I'm a mom. I can't imagine telling any child that it's o.k. to mock someone because they are overweight, or say something dumb, but not o.k. to mock them because they have a low IQ or are black. I would be upset with any child, and try to correct any child, that mocked someone for either reason.

I get nervous around anyone who lauds the merits of mocking in certain circumstances because in my belief, it's a lazy and hurtful way to communicate.

My point is simply that I don't believe that society should treat religious ideas as any more sacrosanct that philosophical ideas, political ideas, scientific ideas, mathematical ideas etc.

I agree with you. However, your point also seemed to be the mocking was necessary in fully engaging certain ideas and that's where we really disagree.

I'm of the opinion that if you have to mock to get your point across, then you have a serious defect in character and ability to communicate that needs to be fixed before you will be able to do any lasting good in the world.

Some people, not everyone, choose to express their thoughts and ideas through mocking, ie political cartoonists, satirists. Do you think the world would be a better place without them?

Yes, i do. Mocking may be a means to an end for some people, but i think there is a price our society pays when it embraces mocking that does more lasting harm than temporary good.

Can anyone be mocked out of a bad ideology? I don't believe so. Any good parent knows that you can't mock your children into being better, but will actually do lasting harm to them in the process. I don't believe you can mock an adult into being better either.

I know there are plenty of people who disagree. If the state of the world is any indication though, i don't think the mocking that is so prevelant in the world is working in making it any better.