好的文章,劳拉。这里有很多值得思考的东西。
我觉得讽刺作品的明智使用其实和你精致的扯淡理论相差不远。对于那些不熟悉的人来说，被定义为“扯淡”的想法肯定在某种程度上是不合理的。一项行动(被归类为制定的扯淡，如为不公平的工资而长时间工作)或声明(被称为胡说八道，如书面诽谤、诽谤或其他谎言)是扯淡，如果没有充分的理由使其整体或部分成为现在的样子，或存在一个明确的、更可取的替代方案，但不存在。
I think the same applies with satire. Good satire is not only very much not-bullshit, it seems to exist because of it. If bullshit exists, or is at least perceived to, then satire is an effective tool to highlight and subsequently mock it. Take any episode of SNL or the Daily Show as they lampoon some politico's buffoonery. The very fact that the people we elect to lead, supposedly on their merit, often screw up while in office is considered unjustified to the public. It's bullshit when Christie backs up a bridge like it's his own arteries, or when Weiner sends a lascivious photo in a moment of obvious foreshadowing fulfillment.

If not, it isn't really satire, it's bullying. From any general consensus, satirizing any undeserved recipient will feel mean-spirited and brutish.

你提到特权是讽刺作品中最突出的目标，我认为这是完全恰当的。特权，无论是否合理(这进入了主观哲学，尽管它倾向于社会的最大公分母)，往往看起来是不合理的。我们很容易去讽刺那些有钱有势的人，因为他们拥有一种被大众认为是过度的权力(或者至少是大多数人无法获得的权力)，因此当这种权力被滥用时，即以不正当的方式使用时，这种权力就成了扯淡。
Please let me know if any of this is sophomoric or facile, I'm trying to get better at philosophical debate.
Cheers!

If there is any satire so offensive it must be prohibited it is murdering the satirist. That is, the question of bad taste is very much aside from the kind of criminal lashing-out it might provoke. The point of satire is to prove that unity is not the basis for community and to prove the productive truth of the fact that memory does not serve. It shows us that the most perfect remembrance or most revered arguments for unity or faith are ridiculous in some way. But in its most effective form we are so close to this memory or sense of union that the proof of its incompetence to unite us, by fiat as it were, binds us closer than that assumed unity could ever in reality do. This is why when applied to the alien it falls a little flat, and enrages the target of it. In such a context it divides only and unites not at all. It becomes something monstrous rather than merely domestic mischief. But we in America are so homogeneous, at least compared to Europe, that we are jarred by the cultural contrasts that are taken for granted there. The extremity of sarcasm there derives from the diversity of cultures that nurtures excessive and exaggerated expressions , and the violent history there sustains a cynicism that many Americans find shocking. But, all in all, bad manners is not a justification for murder. And the discussion needs to be very clear that the Hebdo murder does not imply the issue of outrageous satire somehow occasions such a scale of crime. Satire has always been used by elites to sustain unjust social divisions and to drum up support for wars on or deportations of aliens. But it's not so much a question of bad manners or unfair assaults on those weaker than us. It's a question of denaturing the social function of satire as a uniting force through iconoclasm. The trick, of course, is that they have to be our own icons that get smashed and our own oxen that get gored. Targetting the weak or the alien rather misses the point, and attempts to turn iconoclasm into an iconic ritual. It is oxymoronic to do so. But I hope censorship is not being suggested here.

YAHOO
在探索一切真相的过程中，我发现了一些关于教育的想法来与大家分享。我看到两次提到乔纳森·斯威夫特?格列佛年代故事吗? ?旅行。?所以，像任何一个真正的探索者一样，我找到了这部电影，租了它，并观看了它。我给它的评价是?G，?太好了。这个故事是一种讽刺，意味着它消极地滥用了人类的基本制度。这个故事是关于一个叫格列佛的人，他去旅行，发现了令人难以置信的真相，并回来分享他的发现。不幸的是，人们认为他疯了，把他关了起来。历史上其他伟大的发现者也遇到过类似的麻烦，比如把它们绑在木桩上烧死，这是只有人类才能发明的东西。格列佛讲述了一个关于人类讽刺的故事，我们是谁的缺点，尽管我们认为自己更好。 There is one place Gulliver stops on his journey that had particular interest to me. He becomes one with wild horses, and sees freedom for the first time. The horses have given human beings the name ?Yahoo,? and see us as the savages that we truly are.
Several months before seeing this movie, I thought it a good idea to check out a new elementary school, just to see modern education at work, it also being a part of my current study of everything. I was told due to security reasons, I was not allowed to look, so on my way out I did anyway. I looked into a classroom and saw young children standing neatly at attention, next to computers with thin screen monitors. At the blackboard a teacher wrote ?Y A H O O? in large letters for everyone to see. I then questioned the importance of ?yahoo,? over the teaching of the basics of life, at the elementary level or any other. Mr. Swift saw us as savage ignorant ?yahoos,? over three hundred years ago. I still can not believe his insight.
我们都不是天生的。我们就是我们所被教导的。任何年龄段的学生带回家的作业都是以“幸福”为主题的吗?还是只有雅虎??计算机科学比我们自己更重要吗?也许是几何、代数、微积分、计算机、生物学、科学、天文物理学、唯物主义，还有雅虎?占据了重要事物的宝贵空间。我们是被教导帮助别人的重要性，还是金钱的重要性，以及帮助自己?你能想象一所名为“如何生活”而不是“技术”的学校吗?法学院可以是道德学院。 The department of physics, or in other words the department of measuring the differences in nature, could be the department of the nature of equality. Would the universe be a better place if we studied what we can see, instead of what we can not? I think Mr. Swift knew the foundation of ignorance is education, what about you? The question has often been asked: ?Why do we have to study something we will never use?? Would a class on the proper use of a public garbage can be more beneficial than Euclid?s geometry?
Many people over our human history have pointed us to where wisdom is to be found, right in front of us, not further away. We have been micro and macro measuring everything, only to take us further from the truth, something we were unfortunately taught to do. We have a choice to make with the direction of education for our future, that is ?yahoo,? or the truth. If man has become ignorant and cruel, then perhaps a change in curriculum to what is most important and true, will enlighten, make us wise, and set us free.
=

I was surprised and bemused when this program on the radio conflated satirical mockery of religion with satirical mockery of race (perhaps a sign of confirmation bias?). A more apropos comparison that wasn't delved into during the program would have been to discuss/compare the satire of Charlie Hebdo with the satire of Broadway (i.e. The Book of Mormon with all of the accolades). One can research the history of the mormons and find the same 'punching down' from the 1800s to today of a people who were displaced by the United States in the "largest forced mass migration in American History" (Illinois General Assembly on the expulsion of mormons from Nauvoo:http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/fulltext.asp?DocName=&SessionId=3&GA=93&...)
I would be interested in knowing if the individual suggesting 'moral satire' and discomfort with Chrlie Hebdo's cartoons would laugh or be outraged while watching mormons and Africans being demeaned in The Book of Mormon?
When one inserts the the word 'moral', they are only submitting their own personal opinion regarding what they find acceptable and what they personally think should be censored.

嗨贾德森!谢谢你的评论，很高兴在这里“见到”你。我认为你是对的，讽刺经常用来突出各种各样的扯淡，无论是口头的还是表演的。这是一个重要的工具来对抗我们必须处理的所有扯淡。就我个人而言，我认为政治和宗教是两个领域，其中有很多扯淡，所以我们需要讽刺作家来引起人们的注意。

Or to the fact that FB was talking about creating a satire warning because so many people post fake news stories there believing them to be true and expressing their outrage.
Like this one:http://dailycurrant.com/2014/03/20/palin-wonders-if-flight-370-flew-dire...
难道政治已经变得如此荒谬，以至于我们再也无法区分真理和讽刺吗?

I think the inclusion of a blatant "SATIRE WARNING" kills the intent and message of good satire. Satire not only draws attention to the blaring issues of current affairs, but also their more subtle complexities as well. In order for a reader to get the full effect of a satirical piece's purpose, they have to read and commit to understanding not only the topic at hand, but why a seemingly small line might point out a crippling fallacy in the targeted argument just as well as its header.
这不仅是因为政治变得越来越可笑，以至于很多讽刺作品都是为了政治而创作的，而且讽刺作品必须更加谨慎和微妙才能真正产生影响。难怪像你链接的这篇文章会引起混淆——不仅真相越来越难与讽刺作品区分开，讽刺作品也越来越难与真相区分开。

当然，讽刺也要有感染力。但这是个问题，不是吗，咬人和被咬人之间有某种对称?如果潘趣手下留情，笑的应该是朱迪，而不是我们。

我认为这个问题可以归结为:什么时候对他人刻薄在道德上是可以接受的?如果讽刺曾经在道德上是合理的，如果它一定会有影响，那么这意味着我们确实认为有时刻薄是合乎道德的(不管我们是否以幽默的方式刻薄，这是讽刺的一个标志)。
There's been a lot of discussion recently about the American dentist Walter Palmer who killed Cecil the lion. The online backlash against him has been huge, and justifiably so. But is there a line we as decent human beings should not cross in our criticism? Obviously, directly threatening him with violence would be to cross that line, but is joking that he should be skinned and decapitated?

It would seem that satire is by definition militant. Thus satire (like any attack) is only appropriate when used to point out (a) legitimate flaws in (b) a more powerful entity. Any exercise of power by the powerful over the less powerful is some kind of bullying. (It is, of course, still satire. But it is also bullying.) Although bullying need not be punishable by death, it need not be supported in the name of free speech, either.
The question in most cases of "the ethics of humor" (but not all) comes down to who or what is the target of the humor (in some senses, the butt of the joke). If satirists are targeting the oppressed minority of French citizens who are Muslim, they are on very shaky ground indeed. If they are targeting Islam in general, they are on much firmer (if not safer) ground as satirists. If they are targeting the Prophet (peace be upon him), they are either attacking someone with infinitely more power than they have (an appropriate target of satire) or a foolishly revered imaginary friend (arguably an appropriate target of satire, too).
Surely it is not (just) the intention of the satirist that decides who or what the target is. Art is subjective and someone might take offense to almost anything. However, the defense that the artist has no responsibility whatsoever for the emotions created does not seem legitimate. Artists intentionally evoke emotions and use their craft to achieve that. They must have some degree of responsibility for that conscious act. So what are these cartoons targeting? What are they ridiculing? The pope is being depicted as prostituting himself (liberalizing church doctrine) in order to land more customers (believers). Although I do not agree that he is doing that, I can easily see why a conservative believer would think so, and it seems like a valid point. The Muslim in the cartoon seems to be complaining that only his worst side was portrayed in the film. That is likely true. That film probably looked at the dark side of the faith (as do critics of Christianity and other religions). It may have even lied and/or exaggerated. If so, then the complaint by the Muslim in the cartoon seems quite valid. It is not clear why we are (a) ridiculing his protest and (b) gratuitously picturing him as naked. This cartoon fails to ridicule the legitimate flaw (wanting to punish non-Muslims for violating rules that only apply to Muslims), so where is its justification?
If satirists are risking their own death for a few laughs (and arguably making followers think twice), I suppose that is their right ... but we might want to check and see if their loved ones and dependents agree.

看来沃尔特·帕尔默(Walter Palmer)是(a)一个惯犯，(b)逃跑而没有面对他的行为的后果，(c)可能是有人付钱这样做的。如果是这样的话，他显然是“公平的猎物”。但我们甚至不需要一个人类反派来思考这个问题。刻薄的幽默有时被用来通过“削减问题的规模”来减少问题对我们心理的影响。我认为用幽默来嘲笑肿瘤是毫无争议的，希望能减轻它的力量，让我们以一种积极的态度专注于治疗。但对于人类来说，至少在理想状态下，讽刺应该攻击有问题的行为或思维模式，而不仅仅是人身攻击。Interesting issue.

Thanks Jim. I think you hit the nail on the head here with the question of how we identify the target of satire. If the satirists take themselves to be ridiculing extremist Muslims (say), whereas the oppressed Muslims in France or elsewhere in Europe feel like they are being targeted, how do we decide this question? Is there an independent fact of the matter or is it simply a matter of perspective? The answer is very important because, as you say, it it what distinguishes satire from bullying.

Thank you for your response. I suppose this is a little like the distinction between discriminatory intent and adverse impact in employment law. Since, in practice, we cannot know or prove someone else's intent, we are left making judgments about the reasonably foreseeable consequences of the act.

I have come here to correct a gross miscarriage of knowledge and truth.
I believe it was this episode I heard in the car. My apologies if it's not the right episode, but neither do I have the time nor patience nor willingness to spend 2 dollars an episode to determine if this is the right episode.
In this episode or one within the last week, at the very end of the segment, one of the hosts or a guess grossly misrepresented my personal hero John Stuart Mill. The person was arguing for laws against the possession and distribution of cartoons that depict cartoon underage "persons" having sex.
Near the end of the show, this person stated matter-of-factly that John Stuart Mill's defense of free speech was limited to political speech. Nothing could be further from the truth. This can only be the result of willful lying or being entirely ignorant about what John Stuart Mill actually wrote. It's gross intellectual dishonesty either way - stating a clear falsehood, or inventing something out of pure ignorance. If this is a host, then shame on you host, and if I figure that out, I will be sure to avoid your program forever. If it was a guest, you should probably never have that guest on again.
I invite everyone here to read what John Stuart Mill actually wrote in the freely available essay titled "On Liberty". Use your favorite search engine of choice - I don't know the policies for including links in comments offhand. It's out of copyright, and it's easily and freely available many places online.

唉，我们的谈话似乎很有限，只是把讽刺定义为针对机构、个人或群体的喜剧演讲或漫画。
的想法呢?
个人是有可能改变自己的观点和信仰的——正如这位嘉宾在她对在大学里横行的政治正确的抨击中所说的那样，这是自由教育为数不多的核心功能或目标之一。
讽刺作家和评论家不仅应该有批评思想的自由，而且他们和我们都有这样做的责任。允许错误或有害的思想继续存在，就是允许一种癌症在整个社会蔓延。阴谋论是如何形成的，对科学事实和结果的否认是如何繁荣的，偏执和种族主义是如何繁荣的。
让思想成为讽刺和评论的对象，意味着讽刺作家或评论员无需对被压迫者开拳——如果被压迫者遵循的是对讽刺作家或社会，甚至对受压迫的信徒有害的思想，那么，让他恢复理智，向他展示自己信仰的荒谬就是一种教育。它试图纠正谬误和有害的信念，当他们是早期的或新生的和脆弱的。
Moreover, by attacking the ideas or beliefs and rather the individual, the satire or commentary is not bigoted. The offended individual may be persuaded by the satire or commentary and can change his beliefs. Can stop following blindly and thereby question the authenticity and integrity of those who espoused the beliefs he had been holding.
Two final points: first, if an individual finds it offensive to ridicule X, then he ought not to ridicule X. But the individual cannot impose that belief system upon others and prevent them from ridiculing X. In the face of ridicule of X, let the offended individual respond by: (i) ignoring it; (ii) contemplating the meaning and questioning why he finds it abhorrent and beyond reprehensible; (iii) respond with a ridicule of the tenets of the offending satirist or commentator; or (iv) counter the argument and show why the satirical piece or commentary either has a logical fallacy or rests on assumptions that either do not hold where they are purported to hold, or are actually false.
And second, it becomes too easy to create or modify some ***ism in which you claim that any satire or commentary against the core tenets of said ***ism is tantamount to blasphemy and thereby off limits. Doing so, especially in light of the United Nations declaration that there exists a right, a human right, to not be offended, thereby safely encapsulates adherents of that ***ism from any thoughts that might actually cause them to change their beliefs.
在体育、艺术、商业、政治和学术领域——当然还有生活的其他领域——我们设定规则，对A和B漠不关心，然后让A和B为所欲为。评分从0-0开始，我们抑制和惩罚阻碍竞争的公司，我们允许各种政治言论，并在双盲同行评议期刊上发表文章。
In the marketplace of ideas, there are various arenas. This Community of Thinkers is one such arena, where we can present our ideas, hold them up to scrutiny, and learn their weaknesses and strengths, thereby more legitimately holding them with greater confidence, or modifying them in response to the criticism.

Gary, I am with you on your point on bad manners not equating to terrorism. As I see it, the problem is not satire and what satire might or might not generate when targeting this or that. The problem is not whether satire is good or bad or whether satire goes after the rich or after the poor, the powerful or the oppressed. The problem is terrorism. Terrorism kills innocents not in response to a greater or lesser provocation, not due to a cartoon strengthening one?s prejudices, but simply because. Dissecting what satire does well and not so well in this particular context of the terrorist attack to Charlie Hebdo, which killed so many innocent people, rests uneasy for me, and I strongly oppose such an approach - no harsh level of satire can ever justify a terrorist act. Even if the Hebdo material was incendiary or targeted the marginalized, in itself another area of debate, that does not come close to a reason or justification for murdering 11 people and injuring another 11. The prejudices are there. I think satire as a subject of discussion is fascinating; however, it should be thought of independently from terrorist acts and hate crimes.

Some centers of conviction cannot abide shame, even where it is deserved.
用莎士比亚的话来说，地狱的愤怒比不上被蔑视的特权!9/11阴谋的唯一幸存者声称，当他的美国教练(如何驾驶客机撞向摩天大楼)用客观标准(我想，相反，是考虑到他明显的优越品质?)纠正他的考试时，他变得激进了。关键是，至少早期的伊斯兰激进分子是对失去他们在西方和全球化相互联系下的社会地位感到愤怒的一代。如今，伊斯兰教处于逊尼派和什叶派的内战状态，社会底层也卷入其中。就在不久以前，西方女性还会因为展示自己身体的任何部位而感到愤慨，而那幅教皇的漫画肯定会带来死亡，就像《周报》对穆罕默德的漫画所做的那样。(顺便说一句，我不记得是否有人为版主有勇气发布这些漫画而鼓掌。)但问题是，我们如何让羞耻回应我们对它的认识?
Satire is mischief, not violence. But it is, if appropriate, in response to a kind of mischief not so non-violent. This breaks down into domestic and foreign or enemy. But this means that even the most iconic expression of who we are has a kind of violent mischief to it, deserving a bit of shaming. To sully corrode or efface even the most sacred icon amongst us can be an expression of greater intimacy among us than that icon, in the hands of its most fervent promoters, can ever hope to inspire. Domesticity is in itself a kind of mischief, and unless we are free to profane it a bit we will end up strangers to each other in the very reverence of the icon of it. Domestic sarcasm brings us closer. The key to this is that the shamed be so intimate to us that we can recognize the profaning of it as necessary to its intrinsic violence against us. This is why symbols can be so pernicious. But what about shaming the shameless? Or the enemy that can only react violently? It cannot bring us together except as a kind of violence of its own. And the implacably shameless can set us on a course of escalation that has no easy resolution. There is no answer I can see to domestic power centers that simply refuse to see how deserved the criticism is, and who simply use their power to thwart the effect. But with external regimes of such resistance to rebukes, the resolution, it seems to me, is one of domestication, not escalation. That is, we should help each other see the joke. And that it is intended to bring us together, not inspire violence.
A magazine like Hebdo's does have a bit of blame to accept. And that is that when a periodical like this takes upon itself the regular business of ridicule, in order to keep the pages full it must keep up its supply of targets. The danger can only increase of undeserved insult, and escalation looms as a tempting tactic where imagination, or deserving targets, thin out.

The term 'hate speech' is relatively new, whereas satire and free-speech are older, more widely-recognized concepts/notions. When I first read Rushdie's THE SATANIC VERSES, I could not connect the content of the book with the indignity and outright anger of many(?) in the Muslim world. To me, as a non-Muslim, it seemed little more than a creative fiction/fantasy novel. I have no connection either with anyone Muslim, so I would have to do a lot of research to even begin to grasp the enormity of the problem. I am not that moved by any sort of religious philosophy or dogma, so this is one area of research I shall forego. I am working on some ideas of my own (philosophically) and that takes up a great deal of mind space and creativity.
Sadly, the world as we have come to know it, encompasses a Totality of Circumstances, including a cultural war which has erupted into bloody war. Would there have been a bloody attack on Charlie and its satire without Rushdie; free-speech; women's rights; wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and a host of other historical influences? Maybe yes and maybe no. But, I think we have to at least speculate that the impetus for such attack was spurred by those sorts of influences. We magnify the complexities of the world and thereby generate potentials for unpredictable outcomes. Occasionally, we know what we are doing; recognize the perils; and do it anyway. That might be construed as degeneracy, or at mildest, stupidity. Sometimes it is called politics---which may be much worse...

The point that I think was missed on the program with respect to free speech is how to deal with institutions that institutionally forbid disrespecting a symbol. The Muslim religion is the current whipping boy on this with their attachments to symbols representing Muhammad and also printed copies of the Quaran. The US government isn't even clear about this with respect to flag burning.

With respect to John Perry's issue of whether some speech is "moral" I believe he missed the point. It has long been my view that invoking Hitler or a swastika in an argument is plain not productive to any argument about anything else. The same with the "N" word. Its use throws any discussion off the rails and thus is a bad idea.

I only got half the show today on KALW, but I was surprised that no one came at the question from a developmental point of view. As a child, I was relentlessly targeted for aggressive, mocking attacks. As someone of mixed cultural background, I am aware that not everywhere on the planet are school yards run on the law of the jungle. Some places, people are taught manners. These attacks were meant to be destructive, and they were. To this day, I am really not clear if the natives think of this as ok, allowing these destructive forces to run wild. So to get the the point, is this a matter of the "free speech" of children? If not, at what point in development does this kind of behavior become such? As an adult, I no longer allow anyone to have this kind of power over me, but when I see people like those at Charlie Hebdo, I am clear that these are the aggressive bullies of the school yard who never grew up and who never learned basic respect.

Please note that the distinction between attacking the person and attacking a symbol or institution is not such a simple one when we are discussing in a developmental context. The constitution of an "I" is always in relation to such symbols. If I had been Muslim, for example, attacking Islam would be, to a child, like attacking me.

Also note that this distinction is perhaps not such a simple one when discussing in a cultural context. The local notion of adult development does not leave room for such powerful identifications with and connections to such symbols of group affiliation. We are supposed to become the "Individuals" of "Individualist Society". Perhaps that itself is a rather provincial attitude.