I have always thought that conservatives have a much less developed sense of humor than liberals. While it is easy to list a large number of liberal-leaning comedians, for instance, it is hard to come up with more than a handful of conservative ones (and even they, like Dennis Miller, are better characterized as libertarians). This, I think, is because it is difficult to come across as hilarious when you make fun of the poor, minorities and other obvious targets of conservative scorn. Attacking the rich and powerful, on the other hand, is an all time favorite and explains the success of the likes of Jon Stewart.
Then again, in my more sober moments I keep thinking that this can’t be right, and that surely it is simply my bias as a Daily Show regular watcher and leftist coming through loud and clear. Apparently, however, science backs up my admittedly less than neutral political intuition. A recent study published by Heather L. LaMarre, Kristen D. Landreville and Michael A. Beam of Ohio State University in the International Journal of Press/Politics examined how audiences of different political persuasions react to jokes made by Stephen Colbert. The results are quite astounding.
The authors used a respectable sample of 332 individuals, and found that personal political ideology is a good predictor of Colbert’s own political ideology. Here is the kicker: “conservatives were more likely to report that Colbert only pretends to be joking and genuinely meant what he said while liberals were more likely to report that Colbert used satire and was not serious when offering political statements. Conservatism also significantly predicted perceptions that Colbert disliked liberalism.” See? Conservative really do lack a sense of humor!
Moreover, the authors of the study in question also made sure to check whether the two groups thought Colbert is funny (i.e., regardless of how they interpret the comedian’s political leanings). There was no statistical difference in that case, implying that while liberals were laughing at the irony, conservatives were laughing at what they thought was a heartfelt description of the state of the world on Colbert’s part. One would be led to infer a certain degree of meanness on the part of the conservative viewers, which perhaps has something to do with the results of another recent study, showing that people who go to church more often (usually, conservative evangelical Christians) are much more likely to support torture of suspected terrorists. But that’s another, much less funny, story which I’ll leave for another time.
The study by LaMarre and colleagues, I venture to speculate, may also shed some light on a lingering mystery that has occasionally bothered my mind since 2006: what were the people in charge of that year’s White House Correspondents’ Dinner thinking when they invited Stephen Colbert to talk, with Bush, Scalia and other big conservative whigs in attendance? If you watch the video, even as a liberal, you’ll cringe at what you see. I mean, Colbert was at his satirical best and very, very, funny, but you almost (and I underscore “almost”) feel sorry for poor W. being subjected to such obvious abuse to his face. But perhaps W. and company really didn’t understand that Stephen was making fun of them, thinking — like the conservative subjects of LaMarre’s research — that he was laughing with them, not at them.
Well, as Steve Martin once said, “Comedy is the art of making people laugh without making them puke.” Now, there is another good idea for a research project...
About Rationally Speaking
Rationally Speaking is a blog maintained by Prof. Massimo Pigliucci, a philosopher at the City University of New York. The blog reflects the Enlightenment figure Marquis de Condorcet's idea of what a public intellectual (yes, we know, that's such a bad word) ought to be: someone who devotes himself to "the tracking down of prejudices in the hiding places where priests, the schools, the government, and all long-established institutions had gathered and protected them." You're welcome. Please notice that the contents of this blog can be reprinted under the standard Creative Commons license.
Colbert's pwning of Bush at that dinner did make me cringe, he really takes him to task. I can't believe conservatives don't know hes a satire of them!
ReplyDeletewww.TheNewAtheist.com
Which all ties to the idea that humour is a means of showing intelligence to potential mates.
ReplyDeleteSouth Park's creators are republicans, afaik. Penn & Teller are libertarians.
ReplyDeleteI think the reason most republicans have no sense of humour is because most republicans are christians.
South Park/P&T confirms that hypothesis.
You have sober moments, Professor?
ReplyDeleteIt would be naturally HARD to take "the truth" as being funny tho, wouldn't it. Of course, the things people might say supposedly "insincerely" could never lead to actual crimes, could they?
Of course they could.
My husband was much more leftist and lib than I for many years. He's tireder and older now. :)
He made this stunning and yes also revealing comment to me one day after I walked out of his office and said something quietly and pointedly on my way out. He said: "you cannot say things like that. When you say them, you mean it, when I say it, I'm just kidding around."
OH REALLY?
So you (any given lib comedian or lib politician) chose your political positions and philosophy because BEING A PERSON OF YOUR WORD just doesn't matter?!
And by the way, what's funny about that?
The truth of this matter is that the left wants to be able to be contentious, they just don't want to take the blame for it when something goes wildly wrong because of something irresponsible that was said.
Whether it's humorous or humorless or not, I'd far rather be right than be enduring. Maybe one day our lives will all depend on it.
"Which all ties to the idea that humour is a means of showing intelligence to potential mates."
ReplyDeleteJames Carville and Mary Matalin anyone? How about utterly antagonistic to show intelligence to potential mates? I'll bet Matalin's parents were absolutely beside themselves. :)
And in that last comment of mine, that phrase was meant to include "endearing" not enduring.
I don't think the study was very fair because it was based on a one-way interaction (liberal comedian satirically impersonating an exaggerated conservative).
ReplyDeleteIt would have been interesting to see the reverse (conservative comedian satirically impersonating an exaggerated liberal). In that case I think there would be liberals who are in the same position as the conservatives in the study mentioned.
The question would be: would there be a noticeable difference?
Ah, finally a hint to how anyone in the Bush administration could seriously have thought inviting Colbert to speak could have been a good idea. . .
ReplyDeleteCaliana, you say, "It would be naturally HARD to take "the truth" as being funny tho, wouldn't it." My answer would be no, no it wouldn't be hard. As a relatively liberal person, I still laugh at the perceived truth behind comedians such as Jon Stewart, even when his comedy is not ironic at all.
There is a huge distinction between choosing a philosophy or policy and being able to joke about those positions and choosing a philosophy/policy BECAUSE they are amusing. It's a non sequitor to imply, let alone outright say, that a liberal politician or comedian believes what he/she does because of the humor.
The thing about Colbert, though, is that its no secret what his routine is. Which is why I'm reminded of this passage from The Authoritarians (available online, google it)
ReplyDeleteThe need for social reinforcement runs so deeply in authoritarians, they will believe someone who says what they want to hear even if you tell them they should not. I have several times asked students or parents to judge the sincerity of a universitystudent who wrote arguments either condemning, or supporting, homosexuals. Butsome subjects were told the student had been assigned to condemn (or support) homosexuals as part of a philosophy test to see how well the student could make up arguments for anything, on the spot. Other subjects were told the student could chooseto write on either side of the issue, and had chosen to make the case she did.
Obviously, you can’t tell anything about the real opinions of someone who was assigned the point of view of her essay. But high RWAs believed that the antihomosexual essay that a student was forced to write reflected that student’s personal views almost as much as when a student had chosen this point of view. In other words,as in the previous experiments, the authoritarians ignored the circumstances and believed the student really meant what she had been assigned to say--when they liked what she said. Low RWAs, in comparison, paid attention to the circumstances.
... the results of another recent study, showing that people who go to church more often (usually, conservative evangelical Christians) are much more likely to support torture of suspected terrorists.I see a possible problem here. Church attendance increases with age, and older people also tend to lean more to the right. So the association could be (at least partially) spurious.
ReplyDeleteThis reminds me of a date I had in college with a devout Christian. She would do things like pray to God after locking her keys in her car, asking for forgiveness for whatever sin God was punishing her for.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, after a few weeks of dating, I cracked a joke with her over the phone. She was never one to respond to my jokes, but I kept trying. This time, however, she blurted, "If you keep lying to me I'll never believe anything you say."
I was taken off guard. But thinking back over my jokes, they all amount to pretending some distortion of reality -- in effect "lying."
I guess I was wrong to assume that momentary pretension or suspension of disbelief was part of her skill set. I wonder how much this has to do with being raised in an environment where you have to accept 'truth' without questioning.
personally I find the right wing, like Cal, to be riotously funny...
ReplyDeleteMy guess is they wouldn't find that comment very amusing, Kimpatsu!
ReplyDeleteThe 'Colbert question' has always fascinated me. Who is to say that the man does not use his show as a vehicle for expressing elements of his alter-ego? The only thing in his bag of tricks that gives it away is a most unLimbaughDobbs-like physique.
ReplyDeleteA nice little book came out last year with a study about how -in the battle between conservatives and libs, while the liberals' ideas were more correct/ethical/noble what have you, the cons beat the libs in personal ethics/goodness/whatever in a variety of studies by a wide margin. I have heard this refrain often and tend to agree. Thats why I call myself a centrist, even though my tendencies run to the liberal.
Who thinks Glen Beck is funny? I doubt anyone on the left thinks he is.
ReplyDeleteI think even tho he makes good points, he takes us (conservatives) all down the road of having increasingly angry attitudes. I'm not for that. Too much snarkiness, tho funny sometimes, alienates people that we purport to care about.
"personally I find the right wing, like Cal, to be riotously funny..."
ReplyDeleteFunny like an IRS agent?
The people we get our tires done with had a guy working there one day who kept ducking out of site and hiding while I was getting some tire work done. The manager finally comes out and asks me directly: "are you a parole officer? So and so thought he recognized you from down around the court house."
I told her ,"not really, but my kids might think so."
Yeah, people thinking I'm really THAT tough, that's funny. :)
Since when are conservatives ever people of their word or ever right about anything?
ReplyDeleteLaneman "Since when are conservatives ever people of their word or ever right about anything?"
ReplyDeleteNever. Depending on who you're listening to. I solved the dilemma of wondering who's right and I don't listen to anyone, not on politics anyway.
Wading thro bias and agendas is tricky. I do take into consideration tho "what's in it for this person to hold this view?" whether conservative or not.
I have declared for a long time that I DO NOT LIKE FOX. There might be some conservative views articulated through the programing but there is also quite a bit of JUNK that goes through their programing schedule.
Fox is anything but conservative. If I was an objective observer gauging something about conservatism through Fox, I'd quickly assess that it was two faced.
Remember that everything that is put forward as the 'face of conservatism' is not necessarily conservative.
Joe Lapp,
ReplyDeleteWhy don't you write a blog on what all other things did your date do? That'd be universally funny, irrespective of upbringing and political/religious leanings!
Take care.
The right think they're right, but they're really wrong, so all that is left is right.
ReplyDelete"I see a possible problem here. Church attendance increases with age, and older people also tend to lean more to the right. So the association could be (at least partially) spurious."
ReplyDeleteNick,
But it actually makes sense that more Christians think torture is ok. After all, that is what they believe. That if you don't accept Christ, then God will torture you for eternity.
Of course some Christian don't believe like that, but types like Cal and those on the religious right do.
I don't think it's as clear cut as 'conservatives don't realise it's satire'.
ReplyDeleteFrom the abstract and from a couple of interviews with the authors I get that conservatives are aware that he is joking, but believe that he is in someway only pretending to make fun of conservative views, while actually making fun of liberals.
It's like when Jon Stewart makes caricatures of liberal views to make fun of the way conservatives attack the straw man.
Similarly the conservative audience of Colbert Report think Colbert is making caricatures of right wing views to {partly} attack the liberal straw man arguments, and partly to attack their own.
Sheldon "But it actually makes sense that more Christians think torture is ok."
ReplyDeleteThat is too open ended of a statement. Then you must not care much at all about what happens to the victims of terrorism or crime either. That's the alternative.
There is a case of a 3 year old boy who has been abducted in Ca. What if the kidnappers are caught with no little boy in tow? If you were the parent, how long are you willing to wait to find out what they know about where he is?
In cases where certain people are clearly lawless, i have no idea why you would be squeamish to have them experience a bit of discomfort till the truth is told.
The matter of national security is a whole different one tho. We are talking about thousands or tens of thousands of people who's lives may be in jeopardy by a particular terrorist group. In those cases, what do you suggest be done to get to the bottom of terror plots?
Apparently you would care MORE about the life and comfort of that one terrorist than the thousands habitating downtown NY?
The following study says that Liberal states have less freedoms. The lib world view then does have consequences. We can't properly correct anyone, so everyone has to live with less options. Great plan.
Study: Most Liberal States Are Least Fre By: Dave Eberhart
According to a new study released by the Mercatus Center of George Mason University, some of the most liberal U.S. states rank lowest when it comes to personal freedom.
The study, which calls itself the “first-ever comprehensive ranking of the American states on their public policies affecting individual freedoms in the economic, social, and personal spheres,” made a host of findings:
# The freest states in the country are New Hampshire, Colorado, and South Dakota, which together achieve a virtual tie for first place. All three states feature low taxes and government spending -- and middling levels of regulation and paternalism.
# New York is the least...
http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/free_states_study/2009/05/06/211385.html
cal wrote: "We are talking about thousands or tens of thousands of people who's lives may be in jeopardy by a particular terrorist group."
ReplyDeleteBut cal, who are we to thwart God's plans? If He wants to put tens of thousands of lives in jeopardy why would it be ok for us to torture the men who are His instruments for carrying out His plans for those 10,000 people? Remember, "God Is In Charge". We should turn the other cheek (to borrow a phrase) and let God's mysterious ways play out to His ends not ours.
It's one thing DA to drop a comment like that about a large scale problem when it is not personal to you..why not get real and make it personal? When people YOU care about are TRULY in jeopardy, what are YOU going to do about it?
ReplyDeleteAND HOW are you going to curb terrorism and get the truth out of terrorists without causing them any discomfort whatsoever? They're terrorists because they DON'T CARE.
EVERYONE seems have all the answers in the world I notice till they are called on to make a difficult decision. And that's what caring adult do, by the way. They do what's best for everyone, even in the face of howling detractors.
"AND HOW are you going to curb terrorism and get the truth out of terrorists without causing them any discomfort whatsoever? They're terrorists because they DON'T CARE."
ReplyDeleteRead How to Break a Terrorist by military interrogator Mathew Alexander, as it dispels several of the false assumptions that are apparent above. Darius Rejali might also be of interest, since he has exhaustively documented that torture is not an effective means of discerning truth.
Also:
ReplyDeleteWhile the statement is no doubt made out of ignorance, describing torture as "a bit of discomfort" is truly noxious. Being "interrogated" to death - as has happened on multiple occasions - goes beyond discomfort. Being driven to insanity - as has happened on several occasions - goes beyond discomfort. In one instance, a CIA agent in Afghanistan ordered a detainee stripped naked and chained to the floor. Overnight the detainee froze to death. The CIA got a promotion. At Bagram a prisoner who was believed by many guards to be innocent and held in error was beaten in the leg so severely during "interrogation" that he died from the blunt trauma.
A Canadian citizen was kidnapped by the US government and sent to Syria where he was held in a cell a little bigger than a coffin and tortured for several months. He was innocent. Being kidnapped from one's family and flown to Syria, sytematically stripped of one's humanity by being denied the most basic tenets of due process upon which Western civilization is based, goes well beyond "a bit of discomfort."
What's more, while torture proponents propose hypothetical scenarios in which they assume that torture works to save lives in order to justify torture, they curiously ignore the very significant real world example that the United States has already experienced. An example where lives were not saved, but instead destroyed on a mass scale. Tens of thousands of US casualties and hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis have resulted from an invasion that was justified by a false confession of an Al Qaeda/Iraq link that was extracted from Ibn Al-Libi while he was being "debriefed" in Egypt after the CIA kidnapped him from the FBI. In FBI custody he had told his interrogators that there was no such link that he knew of.
Caliana: There is no evidence to suggest that torture contributes to the usefulness of the information obtained.
ReplyDeleteAre you saying that people who are against torture are not caring?
I don't want my country Australia or the United States to torture because it goes against the values that we fight for, it cripples our moral standing and persuasive power in the world, it further encourages and validates others into taking lethal terrorist action against us. In short torturing makes us, our families more unsafe.
Explains why so many British comedians can go to the US, do their irony routine and be taken at face value. Much to the amusement of overseas audiences. Americans (in general) just doesn't seem to get irony. Coincidentally the appreciation of irony is seen as a crucial development stage in the maturation of children.
ReplyDeleteAlso sheds light on what's been going on in conservative administrations. Big boys with deadly toys roaming the world with simple solutions to complex issues.
Notice that in Cal's "kidnapped boy" scenario, she assumes ex officio that the two persons arrested are indeed the guilty party, and the only question is how to find the 3YO kidnap victim ASAP. The real issue, however, is the torture of innocent people that Cal has mistakenly assumed to be guilty.
ReplyDeleteHow about it, Cal? Would you accept yourself being tortured if it meant that by torturing 1,000 innocent people, we could find the one rotten apple who really did commit the kidnapping? Or is the torture of innocents OK only so long as you personnaly aren't one of the innocents being tortured?
Say not so!
Rene "I don't want my country Australia or the United States to torture because it goes against the values that we fight for, it cripples our moral standing and persuasive power in the world, it further encourages and validates others into taking lethal terrorist action against us. In short torturing makes us, our families more unsafe."
ReplyDeleteThat's one theory.
Civil society does not really understand barbaric people at all. We live in such a generally safe environment we have no concept of what it is like to live in an area that is very controlled by a mob type rule or terrorists.
I go into Mexico frequently. The things that happen to people (mostly drug people and law enforcement unfortunately) would blow your mind.
If it was left up to me, torture is JUST too good for what goes on in some of these places. Some people are so barbaric and unrepentant, there is really nothing to do with them but stop them from ever doing what they have done again. Period
Mexico allows no one to have firearms except for law enforcement and a few ranchers. And this kind of governing, in terms of deterring serious and violent crime, shows what a dismal flop it is to not trust your regular, decent citizens to bear arms.
Since you seem certain that that it is somehow bad to deal harshly with those who commit mass murders, decapitate, mutilate etc. what is the best solution to approach the problem where this kind of activity is a daily occurrence?
"Americans (in general) just doesn't seem to get irony. Coincidentally the appreciation of irony is seen as a crucial development stage in the maturation of children."
ReplyDeleteKeeping a sense of wonder and appreciation of the simple things of life I consider a good thing. If you don't, might as well stop all scientific pursuits right now.
Not everyone wishes for their children to become cynical and mistrustful as soon as they possibly can. It ruins ones judgment process and makes it subject to hopeless outcomes. (the glass is not just half empty..its altogether empty!) That you find insincerity to be some kind of sophisticated progressive virtue really makes me wonder why that ought to be considered progressive at all.
It is in fact BACKWARDS.
Civil societies thrive INSTEAD under honesty and straightforwardness, not in the ability to fanagle and be inauthentic. ???!
And that would make us more civil and progressive WHY EXACTLY?
Rene: "I don't want my country Australia or the United States to torture because it goes against the values that we fight for, it cripples our moral standing and persuasive power in the world, it further encourages and validates others into taking lethal terrorist action against us."
ReplyDeleteFear is bad.
Terror factions will do so anyway because they simply depend on us to be civil. As a matter of fact, they insist on it and through the bleeding heart university mindset they're tossing it back in our face.
What a lot of people will consider offensive and torturous will cover a lot of territory tho. If you can't even fly your flag in another supposedly free country because of fear, there's not much you can do. Once again, you guys do not understand people groups and beliefs that are not civil.
Germany is going to GO DOWN because of its total level of fearfulness about Islam. Germans were so intent on keeping it Jew free that they neglected to notice that there was AN ACTUAL threat on the horizon.
"During a protest against Israel's Operation Cast Lead organized by the radical Islamic group Milli Görüs that attracted 10,000 protesters in Duisburg, two police officers stormed the apartment of a 25-year-old student and his 26-year-old girlfriend and seized Israeli flags hanging on the balcony and inside a window.
According to Vahle's report, the protesters threw "chunks of ice, pocket knives and cigarette lighters" at the Israeli flags.
North Rhine-Westphalia's domestic intelligence agency (Protection of the Constitution) cited in its 2008 report the anti-Semitic and militant Islamic group Milli Görüs, the organizer of the anti-Israeli protest, as a threat to the democratic structure of the federal republic."
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1241719494955&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
cal, your answer completely, 100% avoided my question. It's one of the things that so annoys me about God-believers. They charge in telling me that God is in charge, that He has a PLAN for the world and then they rush about trying to change the world. My contention is that if God has put a plan in place, then you as a believer/follower should not be trying to intervene. You did not respond to that.
ReplyDeleteFurthermore, if kidnappers and terrorists are part of God's plan AND capturing and torturing kidnappers and terrorists is also part of God's plan then, basically, WTF? I mean, really, is this someone you want to worship? Doesn't that start to addle your brain with cognitive dissonance?
As for me personally, I'm not necessarily opposed to hurting or killing my enemies. But one has to evaluate the context and as has been pointed out by several, there is evidence that torture doesn't gain the knowledge you seek and may have an undesirable impact in several ways. But what I find most odd is that a professed Christian would be supporting the use of torture. Whatever happened to 'turning the other cheek', 'doing unto others', etc?
Caliana: I'm actually one of those who came from a 'barbaric society' and I want to assure you that humans are humans wherever you go. Most of us want to live peacefully and with a certain amount of freedom.
ReplyDeleteWhen our peace and livelihood is take away from us we get angry, frustrated, and blame other groups external to us. I've seen this happen in the country I was born in (Sri Lanka) and in the country that I call my own (Australia).
There is nothing in our genetics that makes barbaric folk inherently less civilised than you.
The difference is in our (democratic society's) institutions, established by smart men a long time ago who knew the value of right, responsibility, freedom, and the rule of law that is applicable to every human being.
Torturing of people who are not found guilty is a fundamental attack against democratic values and the Civilised Law.
Of course Islam is a threat to society. But so are all kinds of fundamentalism, tribalism and lack of respect for the basic values that make us civilised.
In any case you still haven't answered any of the points raised in my previous post re: uselessness of information obtained in torture, binding our hands when going out actively to fight Islamo-fascism, validating radicalism to the moderate sections of Islam and being seen by them as moral equivalents.
DA "My contention is that if God has put a plan in place, then you as a believer/follower should not be trying to intervene. You did not respond to that."
ReplyDeleteIt would be presumptuous to think that we understand exactly how "the plan" will work and lazy to think that we each cannot be part of that plan.
I see three people who have been definitely atheist at one time who are very proactive in their faith now. And I think that they each do a great amount of good in the world. Therefore their efforts are worth it.
Josh McDowell. Josh.org
I was listening to his story a few nights ago. He was 11 when, as he said, "slammed the door on God" because he had seen the cruelty in his father towards his mother and their family one too many times.
I wonder how many Atheists have had similar life experiences?
Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron. http://www.wayofthemaster.com/
I think all three of these guys are extremely effective, and at least two maybe all three of them use to be atheists.
If God can do that, what CAN HE NOT DO?!!
Its an absolute fallacy that various forms of punishment or behavior modification (including moderate torture where people are basically just made to feel awfully uncomfortable or hungry) act as an encouragement and not a deterrent against increasingly worse crimes.
ReplyDeleteThe bigger problem is that the people who are against such measures have no feelings for the victims or potential victims.
I do.
Caliana: Illegal immoral acts like torture engender retributive immoral acts, either from those who were actually tortured, or from those who identified with the prisoners.
ReplyDeleteMost top counter-terrorism and interrogation experts who do this kind of thing for a living say that torture makes us less safe(just google 'terrorism', 'experts', 'torture'). Do you have any verifiable evidence to support your claim that all these experts are wrong?
We need to be strong in the face of these threats, not buckle at the first sign of trouble and give up on all our values. As a non-American who sees the US constitution as the most sustainable beacon of democracy, I would plead that you not betray it out of irrational cowardice.
“Terror factions will do so anyway because they simply depend on us to be civil. As a matter of fact, they insist on it and through the bleeding heart university mindset they're tossing it back in our face.Caliana, this is ridiculous and redneck. No, the terrorists depend on our “revenge” so they can stir up emotions and recruit more effectively. I thought your God wanted His people to love everyone. Love your neighbor as yourself?!
ReplyDeleteThe first note of hilarity in your piece is the suggestion that any of this has to do with “science”.
ReplyDeleteWhat’s scientific about Heather’s assertion that Colbert’s political message is “ambiguous”? Who is to say that Conservatives haven’t accurately deduced that Colbert is in fact a Conservative double-agent mischievously lampooning Liberals? None.
For that matter, why would Heather select a left-leaning comedy show icon as her test case? Why not Rush Limbaugh or Michael Savage?
All of this is so laughably UNscientific, it hardly warrants commenting on.
BUT, even if we do go along with Heather’s goofy theory, YOU have either deliberately or ignorantly misstated her conclusion.
She did NOT say that because Conservatives have identified Colbert as a Conservative in Liberal clothing, that they are wrong. Only YOU have jumped to that conclusion.
Sloppy, Professor.
Unless of course we admit that Heather’s “study” was disingenuous from the beginning, setting out to prove what we already presume.
Come on. All of us “in on the joke” KNOW that Colbert is REALLY a liberal ridiculing Conservatives. Right? Only Conservatives don’t get it.
By my reading, you have inadvertently endorsed the author’s premise, dubious as it may be, that political ideology shapes perception.
How else are we to explain your conclusion that your sense of humor is superior to that of Conservatives?
This is an assertion that fails to convince when, for example, you suggest Conservative humor—a la Rush Limbaugh and Dennis Miller—is rooted in ridicule of poor, minorities and disenfranchised.
How can a smart guy like you miss it? This is IRONY, man. This is satire that pricks liberal sanctimony. Time honored.
True to form, parody a liberal sacred cow and you people go and get all self-righteous on us. Tiresomely predictable. Yet, like a pratfall, endlessly amusing.
It’s not being rich and famous that makes us a target for ridicule. It’s vanity and self-importance. Take that to heart.
So, what CAN we conclude from this tissue of self-congratulatory navel gazing?
Well, putting aside a confounding liberal penchant for witless juvenility—the John Stewarts, Colberts, and the like--how about this:
Liberals really ARE gullible simpletons. (No irony intended.)
Rene: "Illegal immoral acts like torture engender retributive immoral acts, either from those who were actually tortured, or from those who identified with the prisoners."
ReplyDeleteWell I note that when JUST and decent men are tortured by other countries (like John MCcain and other american soldiers) it does not lead to "retributive immoral acts". It's only when lawless and violent people are given less than great treatment that we hear that there might be a problem there.
Since when do we have to take the word of a criminal, a violent one at that, as pure and unadulterated truth?
Our family has lost four innocent people, three were children, to a preventable crime. In the state that we live in, it is so liberal, it is anyone's guess where the blame might lie when something goes wrong. Four DWIS have hit our immediate family and inlaws, costing a total of seven lives in four separate incidents.
When a government will not deal with crime, it CERTAINLY DOES grow! The reason we won't hit alcohol related crimes in NM head on, is because so many law makers ARE GUILTY.
The reason people won't hit violence related crimes HEAD ON is because they are either guilty of whacking someone around themselves OR THEY'RE SCARED of being caught in a circumstance that they will be on the receiving end of the violence.
BUT IF you are neither guilty or fearful one way or another YOU WILL have your conscience clear enough to hit violent crimes HEAD ON.
"...just and...it does not lead to "retributive immoral acts"...".
ReplyDeleteIt doesn't?! Good grief! Who told you this? Your God? You have a strange way of thinking.
The reason people won't hit violence related crimes HEAD ON is because they are either guilty of whacking someone around themselves OR THEY'RE SCARED of being caught in a circumstance that they will be on the receiving end of the violence..
Very strange way of thinking.
I know, putting the terrorists in jail is not enough for you. You want torture them and make them suffer so that it's worse than death. If I don’t agree with you, it’s because I am guilty or I am a bad person.
Caliana: Sorry I have no knowledge of your local DWI (I even had to look up the acronym) laws or statistics. I personally also think there should be more stringent penalties, including incarceration on DUI offenses here in Sydney.
ReplyDelete"Well I note that when JUST and decent men are tortured by other countries (like John MCcain and other american soldiers) it does not lead to "retributive immoral acts."
Firstly when possible we do take justifiable retributive action against those who torture. We convicted the Japanese who water boarded allied soldiers, lined them up, and shot them.
Even as someone who is against capital punishment, I can't help from feeling satisfied by this, and I'll be satisfied when anyone who tortures is punished accordingly.
And note, the allied forces gave them a full trial. Offenders were found guilty under the law.
Secondly the reason why we are considered "just and decent" is because we aren't like those who torture. If we start attacking the fundamentals of our society then we start becoming like those who we hate.
But that's not even the main point. DWI are found guilty with evidence under the Law. Many of the tortured weren't. Those who ordered the torturing of people who were NOT convicted are attacking the Law and they are enemies of the constitution. They should be punished accordingly.
The enemy combatants who are in custody need to be taken to court, tried under the law and when found guilty they should be punished under the full measure of the law.
"Since when do we have to take the word of a criminal, a violent one at that, as pure and unadulterated truth?"
Who is taking whose word as truth?
Ok just to reiterate the points that you haven't answered yet (which is pretty much all of them):
1. Experts say torture doesn't work (so why are you still pro torture?).
2. Many of those who were tortured were NOT found guilty in the court of law.
2. Torture is against the law so even if it works and even if those being subjected to it are guilty. Do you support breaking the law
3. The rule of law is what differentiates civilised countries from the non-civilised ones. Why do you not respect basic morality?
Please try and address these points. I've been reading through you posts and so far you haven't brought a single positive consequence of torture to this discussion.
I note that Cal has still not responded to my question: Would she be willing to subject herself to torture along with 99 others if it meant that the one rotten apple were definitely punished?
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletecal asked: "If God can do that, what CAN HE NOT DO?!!"
ReplyDeleteWell, he can't seem to design a decent human reproductive system.
DA: Well, he can't seem to design a decent human reproductive system."
ReplyDeleteIf it was any better than it currently is, the world would be at 12 or 20 billion. Is that what you had in mind, more children or just more of something else???? lol!
It is usually what people think about having more children that creates the conflict that creates the illusion of a less than ideal reproductive conditions.
If you're worried about the future, for instance, you probably will doubt that having MORE children is a good idea.
DA
ReplyDeleteYou don't want to hear a big, long thing again about how wonderful, responsible and b-e-a-u-t-i-f-u-l all my kids are again, do you.
lol!
You don't want to bring up reproduction then. As far as I'm concerned, the more kids the mo better.
Since only conservatives lack a sense of humor, Massimo, how many children are you and your lovely wife going to have?
ReplyDeleteChild rearing does raise the level of cooperative skills in married people, and that's a good thing, no matter how one looks at it. No doubt, you'll likely have beautiful and bright children.
One of our friends had triplets about four years ago at age 46. They were born a 25 weeks. Amazing.
I'm catching up on the RS reading, have been quite busy lately... So I'm just reading and skipping the comments (half of them is just Cal failing the Turing test anyway).
ReplyDeleteBut this reminded me of a question I have. It's purely anecdotal and I don't even have a decent 'n' for my "statistics", but I have noticed a pattern: from the kids I went to school with, the ones who were funny and sociable with everybody seem to nowadays be politically moderate or liberal. The "angry" kids, the bullies, now classify themselves as conservative and right wing. Coincidence? Bias on my perception? Or is there something to this?
So I wonder if anyone has ever conducted a study on the correlation between personality as a child and political ideas later in life. Does such a study even make sense?
J.,
ReplyDeleteinteresting idea. You might want to check out this article:
"Political Attitudes Vary with Physiological Traits," by Douglas R. Oxley et al., Science, 19 Sept 2008, p. 166-
They concluded that "the degree to which individuals are physiologically responsive to threat appears to indicate the degree to which they advocate policies that protect the existing social structure."
In other words, if you are afraid of sudden noises, you vote Republican...
Liberals and Conservatives react differently to liberal comedy. Who would have thought! So this is your excuse for a conclusion? Conservatives react poorly to comedy making fun of their beliefs, therefore they have no sense of humor? Perhaps you might entertain the thought politically biased comedy has different reception based on the political ideal of the audience. You might want to entertain the idea that people conceptually have a hard time with their beliefs being put into soft satire because they actually believe what is in satire. This is a typical narrow study whose controls are specifically designed to forward the conclusion the scientist wants to find. A real study would have given results of liberals subjected to soft satire of liberal beliefs. Unfortunately no good example of this exists like Colbert for conservatives though I would certainly find it hilarious if one were available. The closest is the Goode Family which is pretty hard satire and focuses on lifestyle and not beliefs. Will Judges satire on liberal lifestyle fair as favorably as his satire on conservative lifestyle (King of the Hill)? I think not. Conservatives sense of humor about their own lifestyle is far more advanced than liberal sense of humor about their lifestyle. Hence the blue collar comedy tour does great, even if they are making fun of their own audience. Yet how many liberals are willing to sit back and laugh at their lifestyle. It's just not funny right?
ReplyDeleteI'm afraid you did not understand the point of the study.
ReplyDeleteAnd it's interesting that you note that there is no conservative equivalent of the Colbert Report. No good comedians on the other side? :)