Is political humor ethical at all?

[Pilate]

I don't know, what about this:
View attachment 85784

Can't see how this is too relevant. I mean vaguely, but it's still a little off topic.

It's political humor. Is it unethical?

Yes, it is an ad-hominem attack on Hillary Clinton and implies that she is attempting to take over the world. This, despite containing no substance, and seemingly intending to be amusing, is actually meant to foster a certain mindset or a certain line of thought.

 

[Pogo]

I don't know, what about this:
View attachment 85784

Can't see how this is too relevant. I mean vaguely, but it's still a little off topic.

It's political humor. Is it unethical?

Yes, it is an ad-hominem attack on Hillary Clinton and implies that she is attempting to take over the world. This, despite containing no substance, and seemingly intending to be amusing, is actually meant to foster a certain mindset or a certain line of thought.

But -- so what? That may be biased, it may have an agenda. But as it expresses a POV it's not "unethical".

This would be "unethical":

​

--- since it proffers an outright fabrication (Byrd quit the Klan before Hillary was even born, so she couldn't have made the statement; Byrd as a "grand dragon" did not exist during her lifetime.)

But then --- this is not "political humor" either -- it's revisionist history.

Now if you want to include fake quotes that subjects never said and fake histories that never happened which make up the world of Googly Image memes, certainly those are unethical as they are outright lies. But there's nothing "humorous" about those so they don't apply here.

 

[PredFan]

I don't know, what about this:
View attachment 85784

Can't see how this is too relevant. I mean vaguely, but it's still a little off topic.

It's political humor. Is it unethical?

Yes, it is an ad-hominem attack on Hillary Clinton and implies that she is attempting to take over the world. This, despite containing no substance, and seemingly intending to be amusing, is actually meant to foster a certain mindset or a certain line of thought.

It is amusing actually.

 

[Pilate]

I don't know, what about this:
View attachment 85784

Can't see how this is too relevant. I mean vaguely, but it's still a little off topic.

It's political humor. Is it unethical?

Yes, it is an ad-hominem attack on Hillary Clinton and implies that she is attempting to take over the world. This, despite containing no substance, and seemingly intending to be amusing, is actually meant to foster a certain mindset or a certain line of thought.

But -- so what? That may be biased, it may have an agenda. But as it expresses a POV it's not "unethical".

This would be "unethical":

​

--- since it proffers an outright fabrication (Byrd quit the Klan before Hillary was even born, so she couldn't have made the statement; Byrd as a "grand dragon" did not exist during her lifetime.)

But then --- this is not "political humor" either -- it's revisionist history.

Now if you want to include fake quotes that subjects never said and fake histories that never happened which make up the world of Googly Image memes, certainly those are unethical as they are outright lies. But there's nothing "humorous" about those so they don't apply here.

It expresses a POV that is pretty absurd. Do I like Hillary Clinton? No. But I don't think she's trying to take over the world and I don't think that the claim made even has any merit.

 

[PredFan]

I don't know, what about this:
View attachment 85784

Can't see how this is too relevant. I mean vaguely, but it's still a little off topic.

It's political humor. Is it unethical?

Yes, it is an ad-hominem attack on Hillary Clinton and implies that she is attempting to take over the world. This, despite containing no substance, and seemingly intending to be amusing, is actually meant to foster a certain mindset or a certain line of thought.

But -- so what? That may be biased, it may have an agenda. But as it expresses a POV it's not "unethical".

This would be "unethical":

​

--- since it proffers an outright fabrication (Byrd quit the Klan before Hillary was even born, so she couldn't have made the statement; Byrd as a "grand dragon" did not exist during her lifetime.)

But then --- this is not "political humor" either -- it's revisionist history.

Now if you want to include fake quotes that subjects never said and fake histories that never happened which make up the world of Googly Image memes, certainly those are unethical as they are outright lies. But there's nothing "humorous" about those so they don't apply here.

It expresses a POV that is pretty absurd. Do I like Hillary Clinton? No. But I don't think she's trying to take over the world and I don't think that the claim made even has any merit.

What you need is a sense of humor.

 

[Yarddog]

But it is not genuine in its efforts to amuse, it is only genuine in its efforts to mold people. It is a tool of control that is dishonest.

Is it ethical for our elected leaders to be above criticism? At least with a political joke, you KNOW its a joke. you Know its intended to be biased. The news media can lie to you all day or omit things or editorialize with a straight face and you can call that ethical.

 

[Pogo]

It expresses a POV that is pretty absurd. Do I like Hillary Clinton? No. But I don't think she's trying to take over the world and I don't think that the claim made even has any merit.

And that's your POV, and the attached meme has a different POV. As opinion, neither of those is "unethical".

It would be if it deliberately misrepresented some fact or quote, but what you have there in the original example is mere insinuation -- "what one person thinks the subject represents". You can't censor them from expressing that, however colorfully they choose to do so.

 

[Yarddog]

I don't know, what about this:
View attachment 85784

Can't see how this is too relevant. I mean vaguely, but it's still a little off topic.

It's political humor. Is it unethical?

Yes, it is an ad-hominem attack on Hillary Clinton and implies that she is attempting to take over the world. This, despite containing no substance, and seemingly intending to be amusing, is actually meant to foster a certain mindset or a certain line of thought.

But -- so what? That may be biased, it may have an agenda. But as it expresses a POV it's not "unethical".

This would be "unethical":

​

--- since it proffers an outright fabrication (Byrd quit the Klan before Hillary was even born, so she couldn't have made the statement; Byrd as a "grand dragon" did not exist during her lifetime.)

But then --- this is not "political humor" either -- it's revisionist history.

Now if you want to include fake quotes that subjects never said and fake histories that never happened which make up the world of Googly Image memes, certainly those are unethical as they are outright lies. But there's nothing "humorous" about those so they don't apply here.

It expresses a POV that is pretty absurd. Do I like Hillary Clinton? No. But I don't think she's trying to take over the world and I don't think that the claim made even has any merit.

many jokes are over exaggerated but there is a grain of truth or sometimes more than a grain. If you had a healthy sense of humor you would understand that, The common man in this country has very little power anymore, were born to work and pay property taxes and vote for the two choices they give us, Dont take away what little freedom of expression we still have

 

[Carla_Danger]

That could make a good argument for not letting children go to church. lol

You mean a good argument for making children go to church being unethical. I'm not arguing legality. Unfortunately our constitution apparently permits lying, deceit, and bribery but I'm saying that it's definitely unethical.

So, who's your beef with and why? It appears that you've focused on John Oliver as one of the comedians you feel are unethical. Care to be specific?

My beef is with political humor in general. John Oliver was merely an example. My beef with them comes as a result of the fact that I find their behavior to be unethical and morally bankrupt. They reduce serious matters to a joke and then use cunning to lure unwitting people to one side or the other side of the political spectrum. Political discourse is a serious matter and there's a lot at stake. This is not a joke. Someone who watches X's show is likely going to hold X's view. Now, are they entitled to that view? Yes. Does that view hold merit? Maybe, maybe not. But often what these shows can do is they will foster a mindset in which any kind of dissenting opinion, left wing or right wing, is written of as...you guessed it...a joke.

So don't watch it.

It's not nearly that simple when we have elections and nationwide laws upon which people are supposed to vote. I can't just go "well this law was passed as a result of people being misinformed I think I just won't follow it." I'll get arrested, and maybe jailed. I think you're missing the big picture here that political comedy shows, and the media as a whole are abusing their power and influence. And while I can turn them off and rise above all that, so many others can't and that's a problem that affects the country. That means you, your friends, your family, me, my friends, my family, everyone. I can't just turn off the rest of the country and "not watch."

And why would you want to force people to turn off their TV's? Are you having control freak issues?

 

[Pilate]

You mean a good argument for making children go to church being unethical. I'm not arguing legality. Unfortunately our constitution apparently permits lying, deceit, and bribery but I'm saying that it's definitely unethical.

So, who's your beef with and why? It appears that you've focused on John Oliver as one of the comedians you feel are unethical. Care to be specific?

My beef is with political humor in general. John Oliver was merely an example. My beef with them comes as a result of the fact that I find their behavior to be unethical and morally bankrupt. They reduce serious matters to a joke and then use cunning to lure unwitting people to one side or the other side of the political spectrum. Political discourse is a serious matter and there's a lot at stake. This is not a joke. Someone who watches X's show is likely going to hold X's view. Now, are they entitled to that view? Yes. Does that view hold merit? Maybe, maybe not. But often what these shows can do is they will foster a mindset in which any kind of dissenting opinion, left wing or right wing, is written of as...you guessed it...a joke.

So don't watch it.

It's not nearly that simple when we have elections and nationwide laws upon which people are supposed to vote. I can't just go "well this law was passed as a result of people being misinformed I think I just won't follow it." I'll get arrested, and maybe jailed. I think you're missing the big picture here that political comedy shows, and the media as a whole are abusing their power and influence. And while I can turn them off and rise above all that, so many others can't and that's a problem that affects the country. That means you, your friends, your family, me, my friends, my family, everyone. I can't just turn off the rest of the country and "not watch."

And why would you want to force people to turn off their TV's? Are you having control freak issues?

Even if I wanted to do that, which nowhere I have indicated that I would, would it honestly be a bad thing? But go on, show me where I said I would like to force people from their tvs. I dare you. Because all I've said thus far is the political humor and political media are often unethical.

 

[Pilate]

It expresses a POV that is pretty absurd. Do I like Hillary Clinton? No. But I don't think she's trying to take over the world and I don't think that the claim made even has any merit.

And that's your POV, and the attached meme has a different POV. As opinion, neither of those is "unethical".

It would be if it deliberately misrepresented some fact or quote, but what you have there in the original example is mere insinuation -- "what one person thinks the subject represents". You can't censor them from expressing that, however colorfully they choose to do so.

It is not just my POV that Hillary Clinton is not trying to take over the world. There is virtually no evidence suggesting such a scheme and nowhere here have I expressed any intent to censor anyone or anything.

 

[Pilate]

But it is not genuine in its efforts to amuse, it is only genuine in its efforts to mold people. It is a tool of control that is dishonest.

Is it ethical for our elected leaders to be above criticism? At least with a political joke, you KNOW its a joke. you Know its intended to be biased. The news media can lie to you all day or omit things or editorialize with a straight face and you can call that ethical.

There is a big difference between honest criticism and dishonest manipulation or easily impressionable people.

 

[Carla_Danger]

So, who's your beef with and why? It appears that you've focused on John Oliver as one of the comedians you feel are unethical. Care to be specific?

My beef is with political humor in general. John Oliver was merely an example. My beef with them comes as a result of the fact that I find their behavior to be unethical and morally bankrupt. They reduce serious matters to a joke and then use cunning to lure unwitting people to one side or the other side of the political spectrum. Political discourse is a serious matter and there's a lot at stake. This is not a joke. Someone who watches X's show is likely going to hold X's view. Now, are they entitled to that view? Yes. Does that view hold merit? Maybe, maybe not. But often what these shows can do is they will foster a mindset in which any kind of dissenting opinion, left wing or right wing, is written of as...you guessed it...a joke.

So don't watch it.

It's not nearly that simple when we have elections and nationwide laws upon which people are supposed to vote. I can't just go "well this law was passed as a result of people being misinformed I think I just won't follow it." I'll get arrested, and maybe jailed. I think you're missing the big picture here that political comedy shows, and the media as a whole are abusing their power and influence. And while I can turn them off and rise above all that, so many others can't and that's a problem that affects the country. That means you, your friends, your family, me, my friends, my family, everyone. I can't just turn off the rest of the country and "not watch."

And why would you want to force people to turn off their TV's? Are you having control freak issues?

Even if I wanted to do that, which nowhere I have indicated that I would, would it honestly be a bad thing? But go on, show me where I said I would like to force people from their tvs. I dare you. Because all I've said thus far is the political humor and political media are often unethical.

You've certainly been complaining about what people watch. And so far, I've only noticed you being biased towards left wing comedy. You specifically pointed out John Oliver.

I have no idea of what you are suggesting because this thread makes little sense. It sounds like you might need a little cheese with your whine.

 

[Carla_Danger]

Well take that British guy. You know, glasses, snaggleteeth, I can't really remember his name. But his whole show, while perhaps humorous, is in the purest sense of the word biased and dedicated to winning over people to one side of the political spectrum. The average person, being unable to see through or even consider the possibility of propaganda or lies being shown on television to persuade them, would be totally defenseless against this kind of molding.

So you actually think minds are passive sponges that simply accept whatever they're told without question? And it's just a matter of who gets to that mind first?

Weird.

That could make a good argument for not letting children go to church. lol

You mean a good argument for making children go to church being unethical. I'm not arguing legality. Unfortunately our constitution apparently permits lying, deceit, and bribery but I'm saying that it's definitely unethical.

That pesky little Constitution certainly gets in the way of fascism, doesn't it?

 

[Pilate]

My beef is with political humor in general. John Oliver was merely an example. My beef with them comes as a result of the fact that I find their behavior to be unethical and morally bankrupt. They reduce serious matters to a joke and then use cunning to lure unwitting people to one side or the other side of the political spectrum. Political discourse is a serious matter and there's a lot at stake. This is not a joke. Someone who watches X's show is likely going to hold X's view. Now, are they entitled to that view? Yes. Does that view hold merit? Maybe, maybe not. But often what these shows can do is they will foster a mindset in which any kind of dissenting opinion, left wing or right wing, is written of as...you guessed it...a joke.

So don't watch it.

It's not nearly that simple when we have elections and nationwide laws upon which people are supposed to vote. I can't just go "well this law was passed as a result of people being misinformed I think I just won't follow it." I'll get arrested, and maybe jailed. I think you're missing the big picture here that political comedy shows, and the media as a whole are abusing their power and influence. And while I can turn them off and rise above all that, so many others can't and that's a problem that affects the country. That means you, your friends, your family, me, my friends, my family, everyone. I can't just turn off the rest of the country and "not watch."

And why would you want to force people to turn off their TV's? Are you having control freak issues?

Even if I wanted to do that, which nowhere I have indicated that I would, would it honestly be a bad thing? But go on, show me where I said I would like to force people from their tvs. I dare you. Because all I've said thus far is the political humor and political media are often unethical.

You've certainly been complaining about what people watch. And so far, I've only noticed you being biased towards left wing comedy. You specifically pointed out John Oliver.

I have no idea of what you are suggesting because this thread makes little sense. It sounds like you might need a little cheese with your whine.

So you can't actually show me where I said that I want to censor people? You also accuse me of bias when I clearly stated in my writing that this kind of media can push people to either side of the political spectrum, not just once, but several times. Perhaps emotion is starting to clout your judgement and you're getting a little worked up because I, not even by name originally, mentioned something you like in a negative fashion. And may God have mercy upon my soul for not liking something you like. If you have no idea what I am suggesting then that's your fault and not mine. I cannot control who has good reading comprehension and who does not. So, allow me to clarify for you what I was getting at. I originally expressed the backed opinion that political comedy was unethical due to the fact that it virtually always serves as some form of indoctrination for the left or the right. To that end I wanted to see if anyone felt the same way. You're free to disagree, but please don't accuse me of saying or expressing things that I have never said nor expressed.

 

[Pilate]

Well take that British guy. You know, glasses, snaggleteeth, I can't really remember his name. But his whole show, while perhaps humorous, is in the purest sense of the word biased and dedicated to winning over people to one side of the political spectrum. The average person, being unable to see through or even consider the possibility of propaganda or lies being shown on television to persuade them, would be totally defenseless against this kind of molding.

So you actually think minds are passive sponges that simply accept whatever they're told without question? And it's just a matter of who gets to that mind first?

Weird.

That could make a good argument for not letting children go to church. lol

You mean a good argument for making children go to church being unethical. I'm not arguing legality. Unfortunately our constitution apparently permits lying, deceit, and bribery but I'm saying that it's definitely unethical.

That pesky little Constitution certainly gets in the way of fascism, doesn't it?

That "pesky constitution" as you so delicately put it allows lobbyists to buy your congressman, and it allows you lie while on the political trail. Am I a fascist for thinking those things are wrong? You may love corruption an being fed lies, but I was raised by a good and upstanding family where we were taught that lying and betraying your country are bad things.

Your president is bought by corporations, as is your congress. And I think most heinous of all is that your beloved, infallible, God conceived constitution allows these corrupt rats legal protections. They are TECHNICALLY not breaking any laws so nobody can touch these people. And I think just as bad is that "we the people" voted for these crooks. We are accomplices to their crimes.

 

[Ridgerunner]

 

[Carla_Danger]

Well take that British guy. You know, glasses, snaggleteeth, I can't really remember his name. But his whole show, while perhaps humorous, is in the purest sense of the word biased and dedicated to winning over people to one side of the political spectrum. The average person, being unable to see through or even consider the possibility of propaganda or lies being shown on television to persuade them, would be totally defenseless against this kind of molding.

So you actually think minds are passive sponges that simply accept whatever they're told without question? And it's just a matter of who gets to that mind first?

Weird.

That could make a good argument for not letting children go to church. lol

You mean a good argument for making children go to church being unethical. I'm not arguing legality. Unfortunately our constitution apparently permits lying, deceit, and bribery but I'm saying that it's definitely unethical.

That pesky little Constitution certainly gets in the way of fascism, doesn't it?

That "pesky constitution" as you so delicately put it allows lobbyists to buy your congressman, and it allows you lie while on the political trail. Am I a fascist for thinking those things are wrong? You may love corruption an being fed lies, but I was raised by a good and upstanding family where we were taught that lying and betraying your country are bad things.

Your president is bought by corporations, as is your congress. And I think most heinous of all is that your beloved, infallible, God conceived constitution allows these corrupt rats legal protections. They are TECHNICALLY not breaking any laws so nobody can touch these people. And I think just as bad is that "we the people" voted for these crooks. We are accomplices to their crimes.

Okay, so I'm asking you again, what do you want to do about it? Do you want to make it illegal to lie? If so, how would you plan on enforcing that?

 

[Pilate]

So you actually think minds are passive sponges that simply accept whatever they're told without question? And it's just a matter of who gets to that mind first?

Weird.

That could make a good argument for not letting children go to church. lol

You mean a good argument for making children go to church being unethical. I'm not arguing legality. Unfortunately our constitution apparently permits lying, deceit, and bribery but I'm saying that it's definitely unethical.

That pesky little Constitution certainly gets in the way of fascism, doesn't it?

That "pesky constitution" as you so delicately put it allows lobbyists to buy your congressman, and it allows you lie while on the political trail. Am I a fascist for thinking those things are wrong? You may love corruption an being fed lies, but I was raised by a good and upstanding family where we were taught that lying and betraying your country are bad things.

Your president is bought by corporations, as is your congress. And I think most heinous of all is that your beloved, infallible, God conceived constitution allows these corrupt rats legal protections. They are TECHNICALLY not breaking any laws so nobody can touch these people. And I think just as bad is that "we the people" voted for these crooks. We are accomplices to their crimes.

Okay, so I'm asking you again, what do you want to do about it? Do you want to make it illegal to lie? If so, how would you plan on enforcing that?

I want to encourage people to think for themselves, fact check what they hear from the talking heads on tv, and to be open to viewpoints different than their own.

 

[Carla_Danger]

That could make a good argument for not letting children go to church. lol

You mean a good argument for making children go to church being unethical. I'm not arguing legality. Unfortunately our constitution apparently permits lying, deceit, and bribery but I'm saying that it's definitely unethical.

That pesky little Constitution certainly gets in the way of fascism, doesn't it?

That "pesky constitution" as you so delicately put it allows lobbyists to buy your congressman, and it allows you lie while on the political trail. Am I a fascist for thinking those things are wrong? You may love corruption an being fed lies, but I was raised by a good and upstanding family where we were taught that lying and betraying your country are bad things.

Your president is bought by corporations, as is your congress. And I think most heinous of all is that your beloved, infallible, God conceived constitution allows these corrupt rats legal protections. They are TECHNICALLY not breaking any laws so nobody can touch these people. And I think just as bad is that "we the people" voted for these crooks. We are accomplices to their crimes.

Okay, so I'm asking you again, what do you want to do about it? Do you want to make it illegal to lie? If so, how would you plan on enforcing that?

I want to encourage people to think for themselves, fact check what they hear from the talking heads on tv, and to be open to viewpoints different than their own.

Oh, is that all? Okay, I have and do, thank you for asking. Now I've got to go watch a re-run of John Oliver, and get caught up on The Daily Show.