I have this idea for the power of ridicule (from satire and grotesque to plain ol' ad hominem)...
Basically my point is that ridiculing an idea, and even a person (which, again, includes insults like "you're an idiot") is an adequate way of accomplishing the following goals:
1. The other party will be discouraged from expressing their ideas in front of you
2. The other party will become ashamed from their ideas
3. You will form a stronger bond with the people who, like you, disagree with the other party
Which in turn is very likely to have the following negative side effects:
1. The other party will hate you and might retaliate or become depressed
2. The other party could feel like a martyr and grow an even stronger bond with their ideas
3. Kindhearted observers may defend the other party and through their sympathy for the person create an illusion for being sympathetic to their ideas as well
Is there any scientific work on the subject? Any papers or something?
Can we ever say that ridiculing or insulting somebody is the "right way to go"? When is it helpful to society to ridicule people? When (if ever) is it helpful for the people being ridiculed?
>>873841
Didn't read a word of this
>>873841
I don't disagree, but ridicule can lead to self-betterment.
>>873841
>Is there any scientific work on the subject? Any papers or something?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kI1wQswRVaU#t=1502
People are not persuaded by argument, emotion colors everything.
>>873841
I think this has more to do with psychology than philosophy.
If someone goes up to you and says "get the fuck out of here fuqqboi, you prat, little shite, you're so annoying you demented twat, fucking cunt fuckface, fuck", whether it has any effect depends on your emotional state.
>>873841
>When is it helpful to society to ridicule people?
>The Nobel Prize in Literature 1997 was awarded to Dario Fo "who emulates the jesters of the Middle Ages in scourging authority and upholding the dignity of the downtrodden".
http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/literature/laureates/1997/
Dario Fo on satire (my translation):
Satire is "an act of refusal and as such cannot be but burning."
Satire is "a counter-aggression that answers the letdown of the powerful with a sneer that cannot be elegant."
Satire was born "in order to pull the king's pants down." Therefore the language of satire "cannot be but virulent, brazen, insulting."
As satire and ridicule is a tool of the liberation of the downtrodden and the progress of society, it is only natural that it would become the villain in OP's regressive, authoritarian mind.
>Can we ever say that ridiculing or insulting somebody is the "right way to go"? When is it helpful to society to ridicule people? When (if ever) is it helpful for the people being ridiculed?
Morally, no. But sometimes it just works, video related:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cH0WD4XpoJ8
>>873841
A FUCKING WHITE MALE
I didn't knew I was interested in this before I read this. Nice thread.
Every argument against it comes down to "muh feels" so no.
>>873986
More Fo on satire, again my translation:
"It is a free, absolute aspect of theatre. Which means, when they say, for example: 'It is better to impose rules, forms of limitation on certain jokes, on certan situations', then I remember a sentece from a most great man of theatre who said: 'The first rule is, in satire there are no rules.' And that is what I think is fundamental. I'll tell you more, satire is an expression born precisely as a consequence of the passions, pain, abuse of power, meaning a moment of refusal of certain rules, of certain attitudes: liberating as it destroys the possibility for certain regulations to get people to conform."
"Laughter is sacred. When a children laughs for the first time, you celebrate. My father, before the rise of Nazism, understood things were going south; because, he explained, when a people knows no longer how to laugh, it's dangerous."
Is fun allowed yet?
Can the other party come up with a joke of their own yet?
>>874040
*sentence
