'A message from the gay community performed by the san francisco gay mens chorus'

[Teancum]

2 hours ago, CV75 said:

A parody would portray Boomers singing about their fears. A parody of that would be Boomers singing about their fears using gay slang. This is more of a satire, which is a device for ridicule and shaming the target to improve – but clearly this was not designed with that in mind, only to divide even more. Look at how many of the kind people are calling the ridiculed “fools” and other epithets.

Well as I mentioned before, homosexuals were so marginalized and abused, rights limited, beat up, demonized by religion, had religion target legislation to deny them rights and so on.  And the LDS Church and its members have been culpable in this.  So yea, they are being aggressive and cynical and so on.  I guess it is no fun when the table turn some is it?

[Analytics]

If a parent is teaching their children to be intolerant and unfair, should the broader community try to subvert the parent in those teachings?

[Scott Lloyd]

21 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I was not suggesting that "the injured person’s choice and determination whether his/her ability to forgive is dependent on whether the perpetrator comes seeking absolution," only that at any point along the plan of salvation timeline forgiveness is mediated by Christ. And, it is better to seek forgiveness sooner than later. A repentant perpetrator can be guided by the Holy Spirit to seek it, how to go about it, and when. This is the rule of thumb if not the doctrine, and not to seek absolution in a self-serving way at others' expense. This is the context of the concept form the "Inheritance" book I was referring to: do it right, not wrong.

OK.

Can you see where the proper, Spirit-guided course might be to have a penitent heart while at the same time holding off indefinitely on approaching the injured party, thus to avoid the further infliction of pain by dredging up hurtful memories? If the the “plan-of-salvation timeline” extends beyond the veil of mortality (and it does), some things might be best left until then. 

Edited July 8, 2021 by Scott Lloyd

[bsjkki]

3 minutes ago, Analytics said:

If a parent is teaching their children to be intolerant and unfair, should the broader community try to subvert the parent in those teachings?

Who defines what ‘intolerant’ and ‘unfair’ encompass? 

[Scott Lloyd]

9 minutes ago, Analytics said:

If a parent is teaching their children to be intolerant and unfair, should the broader community try to subvert the parent in those teachings?

This strikes me as Marxist thinking. Get the kids away from the influence of their parents so they can be indoctrinated in the state-approved ideology. 

[MiserereNobis]

3 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I don’t disagree with you about satire. Throughout my life I’ve been an aficionado of satire. Even in my youth, I was a rather devoted reader of Mad Magazine, and it taught me to recognize and appreciate satire. 
 

But I wonder what you think of Michael Knowles’s point in the video I linked to about truth being present even in a joke, and of my point about it thus coming across as malicious taunting. 
 

I have no problem recognizing the chorus video as satire. It still strikes me as mean-spirited. Can you see how I might hold that view? 

I agree that truth is often present in jokes. That's what makes humor work -- the joke and the truth are somehow incongruous. This is particularly apt with satire on social issues. I remember one satire that showed plans for a massive "abortion-plex" building. It included a nursery, "so the children the mother wants can be watched while she aborts the one she doesn't." Yikes! Yet... some truth.

I agree that satire can be malicious taunting and can be mean-spirited, especially as it veers towards Juvenalian satire, like South Park. And I can see why you would hold that view about this satire. It is clearing mocking certain people and their beliefs. I'll add the flip side to what I said before: while good satire often crosses the line of what is appropriate, all satire that crosses that line is not necessarily good.

I suppose my main point was that some of the push back against the song didn't seem to realize that it was satire and took it at face value, which actually helped the satire prove its point. A better tack would have been to attack it as satire that misconstrued the position it was satirizing, rather than to say that the gay agenda just admitted it is actually coming for your children (or the variations on that, such as this is an attack on parenting, etc.).

[CV75]

39 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

I teach a fairly robust unit on satire in my AP English Language (rhetoric) class. One part the students enjoy is when we look at satire that was taken literally by the people whom the satire was targeting. A classic example is when The Onion named Kim Jung-Un the "sexiest man alive" for 2012. The official paper of the Communist Party of China didn't realize it was satire and so quoted it alongside many pictures of the dictator. See here: "China paper carries Onion Kim Jong-un 'heart-throb' spoof"

When the targeted audience of the satire misses that it is satire, it simply reinforces the purpose behind the satire in the first place. In the Kim Jung-Un example, the satire was pointing out how communist propaganda portrays him as a perfect man and leader. Obviously he would be the sexiest man alive! Since the paper in China fell for it, it further reveals their ridiculous propaganda.

In this case, the choir was creating satire around the fear that the gays are coming for our children. People who missed the satire and took it literally then expressed outrage, believing that the choir said "the quiet part out loud." This reaction simply further reveals the beliefs and attitudes that the satire was mocking.

The right does this to the left, too, in the instances of trolling and/or "owning the libs" (though for whatever reason, the right has a harder time coming with satire that matches the quality of the left's).

Some have said that this particular satire went too far. Good satire always rides the edge of controversy and often crosses it, especially when dealing with contemporary issues. Swift seems tame to us today, but I guarantee that the British landlords in Ireland were not pleased with his modest proposal, because it called them out in a graphic way.

One example of satire I use in my class is this one: "Nation's Educators Alarmed By Poorly Written Teen Suicide Notes"

Does it push the boundary of acceptable and appropriate? Absolutely, and on a very serious topic, too. Is it just humor? Absolutely not. It very effectively satirizes how the education system is not helping prevent suicide and actually outlines some positive steps that could be taken.

I'll close with this definition of satire from Ambrose Bierce's Devil's Dictionary. I think he makes some good points about America's difficulty with satire, and in a wonderfully satirical way, too.

 

It seems that satire is a catharsis or diversion for the emotions that get tied up in controversies (not saying there is no value in that), but is not of itself an effective agent of change. It reads the pulse and delivers entertainment. To borrow a phrase (where did I hear this?): it may entertain the tribe for an evening, but it cannot unite diverging attitudes on a common point, which is what changes lives.

[CV75]

23 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Well as I mentioned before, homosexuals were so marginalized and abused, rights limited, beat up, demonized by religion, had religion target legislation to deny them rights and so on.  And the LDS Church and its members have been culpable in this.  So yea, they are being aggressive and cynical and so on.  I guess it is no fun when the table turn some is it?

I did not take the satire as aimed at me, so I cannot speak to that. But if nothing changes, no tables have been turned for anyone.

[CV75]

20 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

OK.

Can you see where the proper, Spirit-guided course might be to have a penitent heart while at the same time holding off indefinitely on approaching the injured party, thus to avoid the further infliction of pain by dredging up hurtful memories? If the the “plan-of-salvation timeline” extends beyond the veil of mortality (and it does), some things might be best left until then. 

I think that might be a principle from the 12-step programs. It seems reasonable for the Spirit to guide people according to their immediate and long-terms needs.

[Scott Lloyd]

13 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

I agree that truth is often present in jokes. That's what makes humor work -- the joke and the truth are somehow incongruous. This is particularly apt with satire on social issues. I remember one satire that showed plans for a massive "abortion-plex" building. It included a nursery, "so the children the mother wants can be watched while she aborts the one she doesn't." Yikes! Yet... some truth.

I agree that satire can be malicious taunting and can be mean-spirited, especially as it veers towards Juvenalian satire, like South Park. And I can see why you would hold that view about this satire. It is clearing mocking certain people and their beliefs. I'll add the flip side to what I said before: while good satire often crosses the line of what is appropriate, all satire that crosses that line is not necessarily good.

I suppose my main point was that some of the push back against the song didn't seem to realize that it was satire and took it at face value, which actually helped the satire prove its point. A better tack would have been to attack it as satire that misconstrued the position it was satirizing, rather than to say that the gay agenda just admitted it is actually coming for your children (or the variations on that, such as this is an attack on parenting, etc.).

I think Michael Knowles succeeded rather well in that “better tack.”

By the way, what is your favorite piece of classic satire? I’m rather partial to Jonathan Swift’s “A Modest Proposal.” And the symbolism in Orwell’s “Animal Farm” is largely satire. I’m struck by how timeless it is. 

Edited July 8, 2021 by Scott Lloyd

[JAHS]

51 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

I teach a fairly robust unit on satire in my AP English Language (rhetoric) class. One part the students enjoy is when we look at satire that was taken literally by the people whom the satire was targeting. A classic example is when The Onion named Kim Jung-Un the "sexiest man alive" for 2012. The official paper of the Communist Party of China didn't realize it was satire and so quoted it alongside many pictures of the dictator. See here: "China paper carries Onion Kim Jong-un 'heart-throb' spoof"

When the targeted audience of the satire misses that it is satire, it simply reinforces the purpose behind the satire in the first place. In the Kim Jung-Un example, the satire was pointing out how communist propaganda portrays him as a perfect man and leader. Obviously he would be the sexiest man alive! Since the paper in China fell for it, it further reveals their ridiculous propaganda.

In this case, the choir was creating satire around the fear that the gays are coming for our children. People who missed the satire and took it literally then expressed outrage, believing that the choir said "the quiet part out loud." This reaction simply further reveals the beliefs and attitudes that the satire was mocking.

The right does this to the left, too, in the instances of trolling and/or "owning the libs" (though for whatever reason, the right has a harder time coming with satire that matches the quality of the left's).

Some have said that this particular satire went too far. Good satire always rides the edge of controversy and often crosses it, especially when dealing with contemporary issues. Swift seems tame to us today, but I guarantee that the British landlords in Ireland were not pleased with his modest proposal, because it called them out in a graphic way.

One example of satire I use in my class is this one: "Nation's Educators Alarmed By Poorly Written Teen Suicide Notes"

Does it push the boundary of acceptable and appropriate? Absolutely, and on a very serious topic, too. Is it just humor? Absolutely not. It very effectively satirizes how the education system is not helping prevent suicide and actually outlines some positive steps that could be taken.

I'll close with this definition of satire from Ambrose Bierce's Devil's Dictionary. I think he makes some good points about America's difficulty with satire, and in a wonderfully satirical way, too.

 

This one didn't just cross the edge of controversy, it jumped over and beyond it to a point where most people will not recognize it as satire and will be offended by it. Others who do recognize it as satire will see it as pushing an agenda under the guise of satire. 

Edited July 8, 2021 by JAHS

[Analytics]

20 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

Who defines what ‘intolerant’ and ‘unfair’ encompass? 

That is besides the point. If you believe "right" and "wrong", are real, objective things, then it is theoretically possible for a parent to raise their kids the wrong way. 

So which right is stronger? The right of a parent to raise their kids any darn way they want to, or the right of children to be raised the right way?

[MiserereNobis]

5 minutes ago, CV75 said:

It seems that satire is a catharsis or diversion for the emotions that get tied up in controversies (not saying there is no value in that), but is not of itself an effective agent of change. It reads the pulse and delivers entertainment. To borrow a phrase (where did I hear this?): it may entertain the tribe for an evening, but it cannot unite diverging attitudes on a common point, which is what changes lives.

Satire that explicitly mocks someone certainly isn't going to change that person (or group of people). But it can make broader social change, especially with those who are on the dividing line. Someone mentioned previously in the thread that this controversy could further cement younger Americans into the pro-LGBT camp, not because of the song itself, but because of the reaction against. That is effecting social change.

But yes, satire often involves just entertaining the tribe. However, I will say that the ability to laugh at yourself and your beliefs when they are presented satirically can be a good thing. It would be great to see a left satirical comedy group and right satirical comedy group perform together and laugh with each other.

[Analytics]

20 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

This strikes me as Marxist thinking. Get the kids away from the influence of their parents so they can be indoctrinated in the state-approved ideology. 

Free education for all children is also Marxist thinking. Abolition of children from factory labor is also Marxist thinking.

[The Nehor]

12 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

This strikes me as Marxist thinking. Get the kids away from the influence of their parents so they can be indoctrinated in the state-approved ideology. 

“If all you have is a hammer everything looks like a nail.”

That is not what Marx taught. It is what Stalin and (to a lesser degree) Lenin did.

27 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

Who defines what ‘intolerant’ and ‘unfair’ encompass? 

A rough social consensus mixed with what is approved by the powerful.

34 minutes ago, Analytics said:

If a parent is teaching their children to be intolerant and unfair, should the broader community try to subvert the parent in those teachings?

Depends on who I agree with. There is no general rule.

[MiserereNobis]

4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I think Michael Knowles succeeded rather well in that “better tack.”

Agreed.

4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

By the way, what is your favorite piece of classic satire? I’m rather partial to Jonathan Swift’s “A Modest Proposal.” And the symbolism in Orwell’s “Animal Farm” is largely satire. I’m struck by how timeless it is.

I'm right with you there. I have my students write their own modest proposals about issues in the school system. Some of them are fantastic -- I send them along to the principal, ha.

I'll add "Catch-22" to your list. I'm personally a fan of "A Clockwork Orange" (both book and movie), but it is a pretty dark satire of heavy issues, so I understand those who do not like it and/or are actively opposed to it.

[JAHS]

8 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I think Michael Knowles succeeded rather well in that “better tack.”

By the way, what is your favorite piece of classic satire? I’m rather partial to Jonathan Swift’s “A Modest Proposal.” And the symbolism in Orwell’s “Animal Farm” is largely satire. I’m struck by how timeless it is. 

It took me decades before I was made aware of the political satire in The Wizard of Oz. I guess that was because it was before my time.

[bluebell]

4 hours ago, The Nehor said:

No, there are plenty of other reasons to dislike it. Some find it tasteless. Some might call it hackneyed. Some might think it was done entirely for shock value and dislike it for that reason. Some might fear it may provoke persecution (like some of the quotes from smac). I just do not buy it is a majority view and I think very few of their reasons for disliking it would parallel with those of whatever right-wing site smac pulled this from.

You might be right, but Smac isn't posting the opinion of a "right-wing site", he's posting his own feelings about it.  Do we have reason to believe he's lying?  

[MiserereNobis]

8 minutes ago, JAHS said:

This one didn't just cross the edge of controversy, it jumped over and beyond it to a point where most people will not recognize it as satire and will be offended by it. Others wo do recognize it as satire will see it as pushing an agenda under the guise of satire. 

If people don't recognize it as satire and "fall for it," that's not the fault of the satire, especially if the satire is trying to point this exact thing out -- that these people don't get it.

All satire pushes an agenda. An agenda-less satire wouldn't be funny because it wouldn't have a frame of reference from which to mock. It would be like trying to write a parody without anything to parody.

[teddyaware]

1 minute ago, Analytics said:

That is besides the point. If you believe "right" and "wrong", are real, objective things, then it is theoretically possible for a parent to raise their kids the wrong way. 

So which right is stronger? The right of a parent to raise their kids any darn way they want to, or the right of children to be raised the right way?

Based on his past behavior, I’d say Lucifer would go for the last option, with godless, totalitarian oligarchs deciding what should be the “right way” to raise a child.

[bsjkki]

13 minutes ago, Analytics said:

That is besides the point. If you believe "right" and "wrong", are real, objective things, then it is theoretically possible for a parent to raise their kids the wrong way. 

So which right is stronger? The right of a parent to raise their kids any darn way they want to, or the right of children to be raised the right way?

The right way according to who? Abuse notwithstanding, parents have the right to teach their children. Currently, in our country, what’s ‘right’ is highly disputed.

[JAHS]

2 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

If people don't recognize it as satire and "fall for it," that's not the fault of the satire, especially if the satire is trying to point this exact thing out -- that these people don't get it.

All satire pushes an agenda. An agenda-less satire wouldn't be funny because it wouldn't have a frame of reference from which to mock. It would be like trying to write a parody without anything to parody.

I pretty much agree but I think they went too far on this one and it backfired on them.

[bluebell]

48 minutes ago, Analytics said:

If a parent is teaching their children to be intolerant and unfair, should the broader community try to subvert the parent in those teachings?

I think it mostly comes down to who gets to decide what is intolerant and unfair and what definition they are using.  We all know of many many cases where people have said that it was intolerant to teach that SSM isn't condone by God.  Or intolerant and unfair for a school to prohibit same sex expressions of romantic affection. 

Should the broader community try to subvert those definition of intolerant and unfair or should parents be allowed to define those terms for themselves?  

[bluebell]

41 minutes ago, Analytics said:

That is besides the point. If you believe "right" and "wrong", are real, objective things, then it is theoretically possible for a parent to raise their kids the wrong way. 

So which right is stronger? The right of a parent to raise their kids any darn way they want to, or the right of children to be raised the right way?

You can't answer that without being able to definitely say what being raised the right way is.

For example, in the Family Proclamation it says that children have the right "to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity."   How many would be happy to have that 'right' enforced against the parents wishes, despite it being done in the name of "raising children the right way"?  

Probably not that many.

Edited July 9, 2021 by bluebell

[bluebell]

19 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

A rough social consensus mixed with what is approved by the powerful.

Given the atrocities that have been committed in the name of "social consensus mixed with what is approved by the powerful" that is a truly terrifying thought.