
The Limits of Satire (2015) - Tomte
http://www.nybooks.com/daily/2015/01/16/charlie-hebdo-limits-satire/
======
chroma
This article is in response to the Charlie Hebdo massacre, and it really irks
me.

> And again, is a culture that takes mortal offense when an image it holds
> sacred is mocked a second-rate culture that needs to be dragged kicking and
> screaming into the twenty-first century, my twenty-first-century that is? Do
> I have the moral authority to decide this?

If fundamentalist Christians were responsible for these atrocities, I am
certain the author would have no problem answering "Yes" to both of these
questions.

> However grotesque and provocative its comedy, its aim is to produce an
> enlightened perspective on events, not to start riots.

If people hate a cartoon enough to riot, then condemn the hateful people, not
the cartoon.

> Is it likely this approach will help to isolate violent extremists from
> mainstream Muslim sentiment?

Yes! We satirize fundamentalist Christians all the time, and it actually
_does_ help isolate them from mainstream Christians. Why should Islam be any
different?

The most annoying thing about this piece wasn't any particular quote. It was
the author's frequent fallback to describing the cartoons, as if their
offensiveness was in any way responsible for the massacre. It _doesn 't
matter_ whether the satire was racist or bigoted. In the words of Sam Harris:
"People have been murdered over cartoons. End of moral analysis."

~~~
rdiddly
How clear-cut and simple everything is in your world! Good thing the real
world is just like that - morally unambiguous and without complication or
subtle nuance!

~~~
chroma
Is this your reply to all straightforward moral arguments, or just the ones
you disagree with? It's not my fault that answers can sometimes be simple.

If you trawl through my comment history, you'll see I've discussed ethics on
topics such as torture[1], corporal punishment[2], whether possession of
certain information should be illegal[3], the Dallas PD's use of a robot to
kill the shooter[4], smart guns[5], and even whether we should make natural
predators extinct[6].

Sometimes, my answers to these moral questions are simple. Sometimes, they're
not. In this case, it's the former.

1\.
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10963920](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10963920)
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10531577](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10531577)
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8725500](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8725500)

2\.
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9280711](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9280711)

3\.
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11441708](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11441708)

4\.
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12059148](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12059148)

5\.
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10494398](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10494398)

6\.
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10476699](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10476699)

------
markonthewall
>Now that the whole world is my neighbor, my immediate Internet neighbor, do I
make any concessions at all, or do I uphold the ancient tradition of satire at
all costs? And again, is a culture that takes mortal offense when an image it
holds sacred is mocked a second-rate culture that needs to be dragged kicking
and screaming into the twenty-first century, my twenty-first-century that is?

The answer to this question is quite simple: France is a nation-state, if you
wish to be part of the French nation you need to fulfill its two most
fundamental clauses:

\- the desire to adopt a common history, in its glory and its shame

\- the desire to live and thrive together: "to have achieved great things and
achieve more, together"

France is an assimilationist country and the French state takes its
sovereignty from the Nation i.e the People. If you wish to come here, if you
wish to be part of it, then you need to uphold its principles and traditions.

And of course, it should be needless to say that no one is forced to come here
and that on the contrary, they are urged to leave as soon as possible if they
find out that they have a burning desire to murder journalists- cartoonists
when those draw their prophet the wrong way. That is non-negotiable.

I find it remarkable that the "multicultural crowd" fails to adjust their
views so they can be sound with their moral principles when switching their
country-wide frame of reference to a global one. If you sincerely believe that
cultural minorities have a right to govern themselves and that moral monism is
"oppressive" then how come haven't you figured that the French are an
underwhelming minority at the world-scale and that their conception of the
good life (eudaimon) - not only differs than yours - but includes protecting
their public space from religious interference.

So to reply to your question and playing to your rules, dear author:

>And again, is a culture that takes mortal offense when an image it holds
sacred is mocked a second-rate culture that needs to be dragged kicking and
screaming into the twenty-first century, my twenty-first-century that is?

Mutatis mutandis, this apply exactly to your disdain for the French tradition
of satire that you hold in perspective with your globalised view of the world.

~~~
mc32
One advantage the far east has over Europe and north America (south America
has no such problems either) is that they don't vacillate when it comes to
their culture and whether its morality is weak. For them, you either buy in,
or you're out. There is little in the form oh, but what about those whose
morals conflict with ours. No, adapt. That's not to say it's not problematic
in other ways --like Russia, there is the shadow of the strongman or
strongwoman in their psyche and the state has greater control over the
individual and there is more paternalism but also there is less social
division and had wringing over whether their culture is good or bad. They just
are. There is less of good vs bad.

~~~
mcguire
I think perhaps you should be happy that Europe and North America do not have
that particular advantage.

When Europe was operating without a bit of hand-wringing, it seems to have
overrun much of the rest of the world, taken charge, planted colonies, and run
said rest of the world for its own benefit. Likewise, we here in NA have a
certain history of transplanting people who have something we want into camps
in the stinking desert. Or into the ground, whichever is more convenient for
all involved.

~~~
mc32
Like many things, there are tradeoffs and unknowns. Would the world have been
better off without colonialism at all? Or would colonialism by Russians or
Ottomans or Chinese or Egyptians? And had it not happened, where would we be
technologically? Would we be more advanced? Would we be behind? Would we still
be suffering from infectious diseases? Where would the world pop be today?
Where would strife be today? Or totally at peace? Impossible to say. Only that
it would not be the same and most of us on the planet would be other people,
or no one at all.

------
madink
There is no limit to satire , there is only limit in the head of uneducated
people. The debate need to be shut before it's even opened. You should not
have to censure yourself (when doing satire) because you are scared of
offending people. Otherwise , any group can claim to be offended by anything ,
and you give them power on you. What if vegetarian decide it's offensive to
eat meat ? What if I decide that eggplant are offensive ? What if I decide
it's offensive to be offended ? There is no end to this. Let's limit freedom
of speech at the hate speech mark and allow the rest , legally and in
practice.

~~~
Donzo
"Let's limit freedom of speech at the hate speech mark"

Ok, but where's this limit? Who's to say what "hate speech" is? This line is
subject to all of the arguments that you just posed.

~~~
cinquemb
I wish we could be honest with each other and admit that these limits are
fucking arbitrary and only extend as far as ones means to enforce such.
Everything else is just pandering to more human status games with some games
being more optimal for certain societal outcomes over others.

~~~
Noos
They are arbitrary, and reflect the biases of those in power. This is because
effective satire demand widespread dissemination, and those in charge of the
means of dissemination are the very rich. Also, increasingly those who are in
charge of our creative culture are rich and monocultural, and satire is used
as a tool to suppress.

------
marcoperaza
So the author says France must choose between globalism and mass migration on
one hand, and freedom on the other. This is easy! France is for the French,
and the French are a free people.

Also, let's be clear eyed about what the author is actually suggesting.
Banning any type of satire necessarily means that police come to bust down
your door and throw you in jail at some point when you refuse to comply.
That's the violence lurking beneath the veneer of "tolerance".

------
hyperion2010
Funny how the original satire was about how to solve the problem of starvation
and the problem of population explosion in Ireland at the same time by eating
Irish babies. Yet somehow people are think there should be limits on satire.
The fundamental accusation is that Catholics have more children more quickly
than they can feed (implying that they are too stupid and sex crazed to
realize the consequences of their actions). Eating babies is a sideshow to the
real, deep, and uncomfortable question that SHOULD make people angry because
it is calling them out for inconsistent, immoral, unethical, or strait up bad
behavior.

~~~
pwdisswordfish
I don't think Juvenal wrote about population explosion in Ireland.

~~~
mcguire
Swift didn't invent satire; he just perfected it.

------
scotty79
There is limit of satire and it is similar to limit of pornography. It's
pretty common sense one. If it disgusts you - Don't look at it.

You shouldn't have fetish satire shoved in your face over Sunday dinner but
same would probably go for yeast infection remedy advert.

------
mcguire
The article has an interesting point about satire, although it loses the plot
towards the end.

Allegedly, Voltaire said to Rousseau, "I disagree with everything you say, but
I will fight to the death for your right to say it."

You cannot disagree with many of the _Hebdo_ comics, or defend them; there is
nothing there to disagree with or defend. The comics are just mocking attacks
from one group on another.

------
quirkot
This article seems to legitimize satire by pretending "Its raison d’ȇtre over
the long term is to bring about change"

Can we just step back and say that funny things are good as an end unto
themselves?

~~~
pwdisswordfish
"Satire" isn't "funny things"; satire indeed _is_ social criticism posing as
art. Satire may often employ humour, but neither is necessary for the other.

Unfortunately, in recent times, large sections of the English-speaking world
(or maybe just English-speaking Internet; I'm not sure) have taken the word
"satire" to mean "something that shouldn't be taken seriously". I think it can
be partly blamed on the fact that English speakers are introduced to "satire"
via Jonathan Swift's _A Modest Proposal_ ; which indeed extensively employs
exaggeration, irony and black humour and isn't meant to be taken literally.
But this is _not_ a defining characteristic of satire. There are plenty of
works that can just as rightly be called satire, and contain hardly any of
these. _Animal Farm_ is a satire of communism. _Brave New World_ is a satire
of consumerism. _Black Mirror_ is a satire of technological progress (or
rather, humanity's irresponsible use thereof). In neither of these works
humour is a major element; you may find a few gags here and there, but the
message of each work would have stayed intact if those had been cut out.

I think this semantic shift creates a situation where the average person's
natural response to something being called "satire" is to stop taking it
seriously, or thinking about it at all. Which is another way satire can fail.
It's been worrying me a lot lately.

PS. Relevant — DFW on irony:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UKdZU9Db6fk&t=2m33s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UKdZU9Db6fk&t=2m33s)

