Is mocking important?

[Noth]

I agree that ridicule is a very powerful and useful tool. However, used too much I feel it loses its effectiveness.

When it comes to 'mocking' religion or, more tactically phrased, 'exposing the silly for silly', I would say that in the interest of free speech something that deserves mocking should be mocked. Do I mean to point the finger at christians and say "do you realise you believe in a zombie jesus that wants you to eat his flesh and drink his blood and... etc." and more such things? No. I'm perfectly happy living aside religious people without trying to alienate them. But I do feel religion should be aided in 'growing a backbone' so to say.
Personally I live, among other things, by the principal of self-mockery, which allows me to evaluate things better and generally causes a thicker skin. I know I can't expect everyone to follow the same principles - though I feel a sense of self-mockery in most cultures and people wouldn't go amiss - yet I do try to confront people when they feel offended in instances where they should rightly just shrug the comments off. Granted, it doesn't work for everyone, but many of the people around me have gotten more used to handling comments and critique as a result of this.
Why the personal addendum? Well, because in the end even if it doesn't change their view on something, mocking people for silliness and calling them out on general bullshit can in the end make their skins tougher and sometimes does away with the whole 'victim role' scenario where religious folks feel offended because we drew Jesus on Draw Jesus Day (see what I did there? ) .

However, coming back to the point in my opening line, said tougher skin doesn't always mean they'll go in search of evidence for their initial silliness. It may be that they get used to the mockery and as a result simply don't listen to it any longer, passing it off as "an atheist mantra" or the like and never really get to the core of the issue - their faulty beliefs - because they discard the good arguments due to the mocking contest.

So I try to balance the two where I can, occasionally slipping in a jab or two at some of their beliefs while remaining overall decent and friendly enough not to have my arguments discarded on grounds of my character.

 

[Andiferous]

Mocking only works on an individual if that individual allows it to get to them. Furthermore, there is a chance that 'mocking' is nothing more than a miscommunication between the parties. Fallacy-Schmallacy, if someone responds to a rational point with obvious mockery, then chances are they do so because they feel cornered and are trying to divert the argument. Either that, or they are just lightening the discussion. That or, they are merely illustrating a practical argument with satire (although I'd suggest that this angle differs from ordinary mockery because it doesn't try to humiliate persons involved). So remember that next time someone makes an obvious attempt at 'mockery'...

If it bothers you, ignore it, and by doing so you've pretty much 'won'.

 

[lrkun]

Here, if A believes in X, and B says X is wrong. A will be forced to check what B knows about X. The result is either A figures how to make X work or leaves X.

Maybe this is what you mean.

No. A will be forced to check if what A knows about X is really true. That is the effect of someone who truly disagrees.

 

[sgrunterundt]

When Something is Claimed to be True by Someone:

                   ||||  believed true  ||       believed false           ||
------------------------------------------------------------
Actually is true   ||||    knowledge    || a lie, unintentionally correct ||
Actually is false  ||||    ignorance    ||           a lie                ||

I would add a third requirement of a lie, namely the intend of convincing the recipient that the statement is true.

I do not consider acting or joking (such as, "were you home last night", "no I was on the moon") to be lying.

 

[borrofburi]

When Something is Claimed to be True by Someone:

                   ||||  believed true  ||       believed false           ||
------------------------------------------------------------
Actually is true   ||||    knowledge    || a lie, unintentionally correct ||
Actually is false  ||||    ignorance    ||           a lie                ||

I would add a third requirement of a lie, namely the intend of convincing the recipient that the statement is true.

I do not consider acting or joking (such as, "were you home last night", "no I was on the moon") to be lying.

Yah I thought about adding a sarcasm clause... I decided that "claimed" was a key word that it could hinge upon. But it's good to make things explicit.

 

[Andiferous]

I would add a third requirement of a lie, namely the intend of convincing the recipient that the statement is true.

I do not consider acting or joking (such as, "were you home last night", "no I was on the moon") to be lying.

Yah I thought about adding a sarcasm clause... I decided that "claimed" was a key word that it could hinge upon. But it's good to make things explicit.

How does one identify lies on the internet, though? The problem is that most people are suspicious here by default. Maybe it's not a useful criterion for academic discussion - as most facts are usually verifiable - and lies about our personal lives don't seem very relevant anyway in this context. It's really very cyclic.

I use a lot of emoticons for this reason, but in all honesty, a lot of us tend to become cynical bees after a little while, and defensive behaviour a natural response.

I speak of mocking in terms of humilliation or malicious intent, and lies seem a bit irrelevant in this medium because of their very nature. We can never know anyway, and I'm not sure it's fair or productive to misjudge folks by default. I've always hated that part of the web.

Also, it seems to me that most people who are patronised by others who belittle their beliefs and seek to change them are rightly offended. It's a bit of a prickish thing to do, and it's what a lot of atheists complain about when stereotyping theists. Far worse than mockery...

 

[Prolescum]

Gagh, my cable is dead for a fortnight (thanks Virgin you swines!), but I want to wade in without having read the thread and post an absolute, categorical YES to the thread's question.

Carry on.

 

[Prolescum]

]Which all leads me to this question: does mocking have a purpose?

In my opinion, yes. I was taught during studying English literature that mocking an action or a position is the backbone of satire and that the best way to get people to change is to get them to see objectively how untenable their positions are. Ridicule is a very powerful tool.

Oh man, so very this ^^^

 

[Andiferous]

Just to be difficult, I'm going to take umbridge to the idea that mocking and ridicule are of one and the same. I find an interesting correlation between unfunny jokes and malicious intent (from my own unscientific observation). Shifting the topic to personal insults from the actual point in question (aka: the point of the satire) tends to defeat the point so to speak.

Also, humour differs from place to place and you guys have to admit that Brits (for instance) often come off as sharper and meaner than intended. I allow for this in these responses.

I tend to think that funny makes itself, and ridicule indicates weakness. There is a thin line between. We should all laugh at ourselves, but there's no humour in going out of ones' way to belittle others.

 

[Santa_Claus]

The only way to kill a god is to laugh at it. and that also means at his followers.

and if that involves being impolite, mockery, derision and contempt then why not? Not about simply defeating the argument in front of you - it's about re-defining the terms of the debate by moving society forward. Very few would treat someone "with respect" (LoL) who worships a stick (at least not without a little fella nailed to it). ....albeit plenty would nonetheless be polite. But the problem (well, one of them :lol: ) with those who worship a bloke on a stick is that they (genuinely) think that the reason others aren't openly criticial is "respect". IMO best to disabuse them of that notion. bluntly works - but it is a long term process.

FWIW way too many Atheists think that following "Reason" means they have to be "Reasonable". Hey, it's a war - for the future of humanity. And wars ain't won by cleverest arguments or by playing nice.

Muslims are of course great people

 

[Gunboat Diplomat]

Wrong. My point refers to the mocking. If you mock a person, then you employ a logical fallacy called the appeal on ridicule. If in addition to the mocking, you add evidence, then the mocking serves as a one-two combo to discredit the person first and to finish his argument with something with basis. It's an effective rhetoric.

Here, the person should have been direct and forgone the use of mocking because he already had something that will destroy the wrong argument.

I'm confused here. You admit that the use of mockery in a strong argument is "effective rhetoric" but then, in the next paragraph, you say that, in such a case, you should avoid the mockery.

Why should you universally avoid mockery? I mean, there are times when you might not want to mock someone but I'm sure there are times when you do. If it's effective rhetoric and the mocking seems appropriate, why not? Are you against good rhetoric?

 

[Gunboat Diplomat]

On topic, I'm not so sure that mockery is useful for the reasons that borrofburi thinks it might be. Sure, some people were inspired to rebut arguments made with mockery but there are others who responded the same way from arguments lacking mockery. Furthermore, there are those who respond to mockery without critically examining their arguments. One might argue that mockery angers most people beyond the ability of self reflection or careful contemplation...

While I personally believe that mockery can be effective rhetoric, I find it difficult to assert that it produces any specific effect on one's opponents. In fact, I think agree with Phil Plait's assertion that it rarely helps your opponent to reconsider his position. However, I also feel that Phil's point of view is naive in that it has great effect on an audience, as good rhetoric, and is thus a useful and powerful tool for converting people who are not your personal opponent, of which there are many more...

 

[Andiferous]

]Which all leads me to this question: does mocking have a purpose?

Yes. To be all cliche...

what I would coin "true" satire is a mirror of reality that reflects its absurdities in an exaggerated way, or metaphorically a characiture of whatever word or idea targetted. Like the political cartoons in the paper. It serves to wake people up to their own absurdities.

In my opinion, yes. I was taught during studying English literature that mocking an action or a position is the backbone of satire and that the best way to get people to change is to get them to see objectively how untenable their positions are. Ridicule is a very powerful tool.

In my opinion, this statement is right on target (although the term 'ridicule' ought to be further explained).

The funny content within satire is (in my opinion) best served when aimed at ideas and paradigms, and when the argument devolves too deeply into personal insults, it makes a poor argument by deflecting from the original topic. I believe that satire is best served with irony, simplicity, and with a level of emotional distance. Getting into an adjective huff against another person is hardly evidence of personal distance.

Low brow stuff like wanky personal insults is like bad slapstick humour and I can't say that I've got much respect for that. But c'est la vie.

Historically satire was (and still is) often a domain of comedy, which serves both to entertain people, and send them secret subliminal messages.

*twilight zone theme*

 

[lrkun]

Wrong. My point refers to the mocking. If you mock a person, then you employ a logical fallacy called the appeal on ridicule. If in addition to the mocking, you add evidence, then the mocking serves as a one-two combo to discredit the person first and to finish his argument with something with basis. It's an effective rhetoric.

Here, the person should have been direct and forgone the use of mocking because he already had something that will destroy the wrong argument.

I'm confused here. You admit that the use of mockery in a strong argument is "effective rhetoric" but then, in the next paragraph, you say that, in such a case, you should avoid the mockery.

Why should you universally avoid mockery? I mean, there are times when you might not want to mock someone but I'm sure there are times when you do. If it's effective rhetoric and the mocking seems appropriate, why not? Are you against good rhetoric?

Well, the topic asks whether mocking is important and I say it is not because another alternative, through reason/evidence, is available.

Whether I am against the use of good rhetorics. No. But, I am against mocking. The two don't necessarily mean the same thing because some rhetorics don't use mocking.

He works, he thinks, he demonstrates for example. Is a nice rhetoric.

Choose not to mock, but use evidence based arguments instead. Is a nice rhetoric.

To ask a question, then provide an answer, for example is the most widely used rhetoric.

 

[Andiferous]

Well, the topic asks whether mocking is important and I say it is not because another alternative, through reason/evidence, is available.

Whether I am against the use of good rhetorics. No. But, I am against mocking. The two don't necessarily mean the same thing because some rhetorics don't use mocking.

He works, he thinks, he demonstrates for example. Is a nice rhetoric.

Choose not to mock, but use evidence based arguments instead. Is a nice rhetoric.

To ask a question, then provide an answer, for example is the most widely used rhetoric.

1. What exactly is good rhetoric? I'm sure if any of us knew the answer we must have mastered the concept itself.
2. LRkun, we've mildly mocked each other back and forth on a friendly basis frequently for a while, so I question this sincerity (unless further defined). You've mocked me as I have mocked you.
3. That said, I've always found the exchange great fun and not at all malicious.

 

[lrkun]

Well, the topic asks whether mocking is important and I say it is not because another alternative, through reason/evidence, is available.

Whether I am against the use of good rhetorics. No. But, I am against mocking. The two don't necessarily mean the same thing because some rhetorics don't use mocking.

He works, he thinks, he demonstrates for example. Is a nice rhetoric.

Choose not to mock, but use evidence based arguments instead. Is a nice rhetoric.

To ask a question, then provide an answer, for example is the most widely used rhetoric.

1. What exactly is good rhetoric? I'm sure if any of us knew the answer we must have mastered the concept itself.
2. LRkun, we've mildly mocked each other back and forth on a friendly basis frequently for a while, so I question this sincerity (unless further defined). You've mocked me as I have mocked you.
3. That said, I've always found the exchange great fun and not at all malicious.

Andie, we chose our words to suit the mood. That's why even if you'd make fun of me or I'd do the same to you it didn't border to incite bad blood between us.

The issue related to the concept good rhetoric isn't really important because the person who asked that question implies that if I'm against mocking, then I'm against good rhetoric (whatever that is, but since he did base it on my earlier statement that mocking works, then impliedly, good rhetoric may mean to say that it works).

The point related to good rhetoric and mocking is that the two may be mutualy exclusive wherein if I argue without mocking another person and it convinces him or her to change his mind, then it's a good rhetoric because it worked. Syllogism for example, does not require mocking. Similarly, a science based argument does not require mocking. ^^

 

[Gunboat Diplomat]

Well, the topic asks whether mocking is important and I say it is not because another alternative, through reason/evidence, is available.

Whether I am against the use of good rhetorics. No. But, I am against mocking. The two don't necessarily mean the same thing because some rhetorics don't use mocking.

There are alternatives to the screw but they are still important...

I get that you're against mocking but you haven't explained why. You've admitted that it's good rhetoric so why shouldn't it be just another tool in your rhetorical toolbox?

 

[TheFlyingBastard]

Well it is a logical fallacy - appeal to ridicule. But if it works, then use it.

Note: When you use a logical fallacy to convince another, you already know that you're not being honest.

---

This is not an appeal to ridicule. An appeal to ridicule means that you ridicule something in order to make it appear invalid.
What this is, is coaxing someone into vengeful anger. The goal of the exercise is never to convince the person, it is to make that person want to take sweet revenge with some good information.

 

[Andiferous]

Andie, we chose our words to suit the mood. That's why even if you'd make fun of me or I'd do the same to you it didn't border to incite bad blood between us.

This rather models a goodly portion of my main point.

 

[lrkun]

Well, the topic asks whether mocking is important and I say it is not because another alternative, through reason/evidence, is available.

Whether I am against the use of good rhetorics. No. But, I am against mocking. The two don't necessarily mean the same thing because some rhetorics don't use mocking.

There are alternatives to the screw but they are still important...

I get that you're against mocking but you haven't explained why. You've admitted that it's good rhetoric so why shouldn't it be just another tool in your rhetorical toolbox?

It's a personal thing for me to not ridicule others; so when I argue or wish to convince another person of my point of view, I don't mock him or her, instead, I use evidence. Sure, I can use mocking, but the same, based on my experience, gave me more enemies rather than have more free thinking friends. ^^,

I admit that mocking works, but I did not say it is a good rhetoric. It is something the person to whom I replied to thought I did.

Well it is a logical fallacy - appeal to ridicule. But if it works, then use it.

Note: When you use a logical fallacy to convince another, you already know that you're not being honest.

---

This is not an appeal to ridicule. An appeal to ridicule means that you ridicule something in order to make it appear invalid.
What this is, is coaxing someone into vengeful anger. The goal of the exercise is never to convince the person, it is to make that person want to take sweet revenge with some good information.

Okay.

Andie, we chose our words to suit the mood. That's why even if you'd make fun of me or I'd do the same to you it didn't border to incite bad blood between us.

This rather models a goodly portion of my main point.

^__^ True. Of course, I try to do the same with our less intelligent brothers and sisters/ or more intelligent brothers and sisters.