Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Yes, the comic, to survive, needs to create a bond with a particular audience via a particular channel (channel used in the pro sense of a system of delivering and receiving messages. So pigeon post would be a channel!)

As I said there are minority groups everywhere. Many comedians do characters - I surely don't have to name them? - and typically the act will at least partly mock the attitudes and beliefs of the adopted stereotyped minority: the scouser, the punk, the minister of silly walks, the welsh, the cockney, the Staines crew etc etc.

And of course mocking humour formed a very important of WWII, at least as far as the British were concerned.

As usual here at ET it's the inexact or unshared meanings of words that cause many a trip up the garden path. 'Mocking' comes to me as a tad nasty, but usually understood by both ends of the dialogue. It is not far up from teasing or joshing as the temperature of invective rises.

In Funland, bullying is mobbing (translated), which seems to me a milder version of bullying.

But back to the point: IMO, though there are usually sharper cultural differences across borders, there are lots of minorities (cultural isolates) within national cultures. Thus I am referring to all examples of minorities within, and without national boundaries, whereas I realise now that you were referring back to the main thrust of the previous diary. It wasn't a very useful diary and conversation, but there were some issues that came up that I thought worthy of further discussion.

Perhaps we can no longer enjoy the sometimes vicious mocking of political cartoons of the past that were full of the kind of racial stereotyping (mocking) you are talking about. But to me, a cartoon of a Islamic man with a beard with a bomb in his turban is no different from the Pope depicted with young boys. Those cartoons speak to power (misuse of), and thus to leaders who promote, defend or conceal gross acts against a society. The 'collateral damage' is that millions of followers take offense because they think it depicts them personally. My guess is that the Danish cartoon was addressed to an internal audience (which includes a minority who might see themselves as depicted), and the actual worldwide effect of dissemination was not at all predicted.

On the whole though I am in favour of total freedom of expression - except where against the laws of the particular jurisdiction where the freedom is expressed ;-).

You can't be me, I'm taken

by Sven Triloqvist on Tue Jan 8th, 2013 at 11:21:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Others have rated this comment as follows:

Nomad 4