I'm religious, and I think that people should be absolutely free to satirize religion if they want to. What someone else believes isn't my affair, I definitely think my faith has lots of room for improvement from an organizational perspective, and there are plenty of religious ideas I think are toxic and wrong. Why shouldn't we have nuance and differing opinions? Why should anyone have the right to hurt others through their religious practices? We should be criticizing those things and calling them out and trying to make them stop, whether we practice religion or not. I think the treatment of women and queer people by a great deal of religious groups is wrong and should be criticized. I don't think government and religion should be intertwined at all. Just because I practice in a faith doesn't mean my faith is the authority on anything, but universally we should not be hurting others.
Ask Lemmy
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com.
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
6) No US Politics.
Please don't post about current US Politics. If you need to do this, try !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world or !askusa@discuss.online
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
It is hard to make satire now when we seem to be living in an age that satirizes itself.
Is it a sensitive topic? I mean satire is respected in any country with decent human rights / freedom of speech. It only triggers bigots that theoretically have bigger problems.
What a void attitude.
The Charlie Hebdo event has proven that the discussion is very neccessary, and that satire is not fully respected even in a modern western society.
I wouldn't say it's void, they were extremists. Not to take away from the tragedy of course. From my understanding the question is specifically about satire.
I'd say we've moved to wanna be oligarchs highjacking media companies in democracies for "fake news" and war crimes committed against journalists. Israel is too busy blowing up hospitals to attack foreign journalists for Nettenyohoo memes.
Didnt some journalist quit because he made satire of besos and besos being the owner of the media company didnt let it get published? Thats the reality satire faces today.
A more controversial topic would be discussing the satire of luigi that is being surpressed. (Any form of luigi speech really, but satire too).
Didnt some journalist quit because he made satire of besos and besos being the owner of the media company didnt let it get published? Thats the reality satire faces today.
That's because that cartoon she made was literally the truth of what's happening behind the scenes in the white house. It moved from satire into reality and that was too much for Bezos and his wealth villain buddies.
Obviously it's horrible to kill people over speech. Cartoons do not justify violence or terrorism.
But we also shouldn't pretend like speech is necessary or valuable just because it's offensive or that offending people to the point of violence is noble.
If someone was killed for saying the n word that would be a tragedy and should be condemned. But we shouldn't all go around yelling the n word just to assert our free speech or pretend like the guy saying the n word was a hero for doing it.
I agree with intentionally provocational speech hiding behind the 'free speech' disguise being stupid, but I think its also important to see a difference between racial slurs and discrimination based on things that people can't change, versus legitimate criticism of religion - which, although not always easy to get out of (I.e. cults, trapped family members, cultural norms) I see as still a fundamentally voluntary behaviour that you can to an extent opt out of as a belief system, as opposed to discrimination on race, sex, disability, nationality, etc.
Now of course that doesnt mean I will go into religious buildings and shout obscenities or try to have edgy atheist rants at inoffensive elderly worshippers - but the saying that "your freedom ends where mine begins" holds true for me, and I won't tolerate outward discrimination on religious grounds, the forcing of those belief systems inside secular systems like schools or courts or governments, and I think I'm well within my rights to criticise harmful and unacceptable behaviour undertaken for 'religious' grounds, which would otherwise be crimes or offences. (I.e. animal torture/sacrifice, child marriage, slavery etc.)
I agree with your sentiment although the n word wouldn't have been my choice for that analogy.
Honestly? That I would rather have Meta (and a bunch of Western countries, while we're at it) lift restrictions on that front first before they go against LGBT people.
I'm not on board with the idea that edgy or offensive humor is valuable in itself, but I absolutely abhor the scenario where offended conservative and traditionalist views are treated in their own terms while marginalized groups are considered needy or nagging if they ask for the same treatment.
Also not on board with comedians assuming that noting their ignorance or bigotry is the same as not having a sense of humor, incidentally. Everybody sucks, is my point.
My opinion is that satire must hurt. Otherwise it may have no impact, then it is nothing else than cheap comedy. But it is possible that it hurts too much, so that some people cannot endure it. Society has a duty to protect the weak as well as the artists. It is a narrow line.
Satire’s dead, but I’d love to see a revival of both it and serious human existence within my lifetime c:
Satire may have been instrumental in its own demise.
People see satire and are either smart enough to understand it - maybe even find it funny, or are offended by it. Those who are offended generally become more entrenched in their beliefs and those who aren't either don't see the satire for the warning it is, or do, but mostly choose not to do something about the subject.
And since people have seen what the satirised subject could be like, and they didn't take action, the subject might take the opportunity to move a little closer to the form it took in satire.
Given this and enough time, satire and reality can become indistinguishable.
And here we are.