Tasteless And Insensitive, What Do You Think?

[anotheoldgit]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4090422/A-BBC-comedy-sketch-Real-Housewives-ISIS-showing-character-suicide-vest-sparks-fury-viewers-say-trivialises-plight-real-life-jihadi-brides.html

[andy-hughes]

douglas - //I'll not debate the point any longer lest you reach for the delete button. //

Groundhog Day dawns once again -

Moderators are not permitted to remove posts that refer to them personally - if they wish they can report them in the manner available to all site members, and the Editorial staff will make a decision on deletion.

[ToraToraTora]

not specifically ISIS though is it? more like standard Islamic practice, stonings, floggings, beheadings, gravity feeding etc all standard stuff from these barbarians.

[Lie-in King]

Yes, it's "satire" but IMO falls flat on its face.

I didn't like their (Jolyon Rubinstein and Heydon Prowse) previous series "The Revolution Will Be Televised" (BAFTA, shmafta...) & have never been a fan of that kind of "let's prank famous people in public" television. This pair, Dennis Pennis, Dom Joly, most especially the execrable Ali G & others similar have always left me cold.

Is this sketch "tasteless & insensitive"? I suppose so, but had it been funny it might have worked. Frankly I can't find the enthusiasm to get too exercised over it.

[andy-hughes]

Lie-In King - as I said, you have to pick and present a subject in such a way that the satire can be seen for what it is - and this crass nonsense fails, not because its target is wrong, it's not, but because the humour is absent.

[Lie-in King]

Andy - we agree - on this, at least ;-)

[ToraToraTora]

I take Andy's point, satire should be funny and one of the ways it does that is by exaggeration. Unfortunately what they portray is standard Islamic practice and thus the exaggeration elements are absent so really there is very little left in the area of amusement.

[naomi24]

No doubt the followers of radical Islam will find it insensitive. Ridicule is an invaluable weapon – and in this instance, that’s fine by me. I laughed.

[andy-hughes]

divebuddy - //It doesn't really matter whether you (any particular person) finds it funny or not. It's called free speech. //

Actually it does.

I always refer to the famous quote about free speech - from Oliver Wendel Holmes Jr. - paraphrased - 'Free speech does not entitle you falsely to shout 'Fire!' in a crowded theatre.

I am entirely in agreement with that - freedom of speech is not without limits - and the concept of free speech does not entitle people specifically to incite racial hatred.

It appears that the general consensus in this instance is that the satire is so badly conceived and poorly delivered that no one, unless deliberately looking to be offended, and therefore discounted - would find this offensive, or need to protect it under any free speech umbrella.

[andy-hughes]

Naomi and I cross-posted, but I think she has pointed out those who would look to take offence, even from such a poor attempt at humour - Radical Islam, which among the other essentials it lacks - a sense of humanity, perspective, tolerance, shame, dignity, and so on, certainly lacks a sense of humour.

[naomi24]

andy-hughes, I didn’t think it was a poor attempt at humour. I laughed.

[ichkeria]

The best weapon against some things often is satire.
As someone comments at the link, making these people look ridiculous is appropriate (because, as well as being deadly they ARE ridiculous) and might just make a few impressionable people see them in a different light

[andy-hughes]

Naomi - //andy-hughes, I didn’t think it was a poor attempt at humour. I laughed. //

Fair enough - the best thing about humour is its subjectivity.

For instance, I know people whose taste and judgement I would never normally question, who advise me that Birds Of A Feather is in fact, funny!

[naomi24]

andy-hughes, I think that's funny too.

[andy-hughes]

ichkeria - //The best weapon against some things often is satire.
As someone comments at the link, making these people look ridiculous is appropriate (because, as well as being deadly they ARE ridiculous) and might just make a few impressionable people see them in a different light //

I entirely agree - to me the point about satire is that in addition to making you laugh - and hopefully even more important - it makes you think.

As I pointed out in my first post - it is just a shame that some satire is sufficiently badly conceived and delivered - as I believe to be the case here, that any merits in its message are buried under the avalanche of protest about its lack of taste.

In my view, satire that does not have a compete absence of taste is simply not fulfilling one of its first and most important conditions.

[andy-hughes]

Naomi - then I suggest out senses of humour are poles apart - what is your view on -

Woody Allen
Ricky Gervais - The Office & Extras, not the stand-up
Frazier
One Foot In the Grave
Steptoe & Son

[naomi24]

andy-hughes, of you want to continue a conversation with me about random show business personalities and television programmes, rather than de-rail AOG's thread, I suggest you start a separate one.

[andy-hughes]

Fair enough.