Discussion»Statements»Rosie's Corner» The don wants a means of retribution against comedy shows that ridicule him like "SNL". What power should he have to sate his hate?
Guess he has the same power the people who control those programs have to sate theirs.
This post was edited by officegirl at February 19, 2019 4:56 AM MST
No satire should be merely gratuitous insults, make unfounded allegations or tell out-and-out lies; but whatever you think of particular politicians, their parties and their policies, it is extremely dangerous for any government to control it. Such control is the tool of the dictator, and would badly damage the USA's international reputation.
It would not be very effective anyway, thanks to the Internet, as dictatorial regimes around the world find.
Trump is often ridiculed as much as our own politicians by satirists here in Britain; in BBC Radio 4 comedy programmes like The News Quiz and The Now! Show, available via the BBC's "Sounds" service. The BBC has a lot of radio listeners and I think TV viewers in the USA. What's he to do about that? Ban Americans from using foreign entertainment web-sites and applications?
So are you saying that SATIRE should be censored? That caricatures should follow a set of rules? That making fun of someone should fall into a template that someone else decides is appropriate? I hope I misunderstand what you are saying here. Horror, Fantasy, Science Fiction, Humor has no rules Durdle. There are some comics I cannot stand. Don Rickles was one of them. His career was based on insulting famous people. He was very successful. Not my cuppa tea. I also despise "comics" who are vulgar obscene use toilet humor and perverted sex in their routines. Once again some folks ADORE them. I don't. But I don't think I have the right to limit people to the kinds of things I find OK do you? So I do hope I have misunderstood you completely. Thank you for your reply and Happy Tuesday to you.
No. I am not calling for censorship, but satire fails if it is merely rude remarks about the individuals without criticising the decisions, actions or policies that should be the real object of the humour.
Satire has always caricatured such aspects as its victims' appearances, to make it very clear who is being satirised; but it should be clear that it's still their ideas that are under attack.
I agree with you about scatological "humour", and like you I simply reject it.
Thank you for your reply Durdle. With respect to little donny dingbat it is his personal flaws and track record IN ADDITION to his so-called "policy" decisions that DESERVE attack and whacking. It is no policy decision when he ridicules people with handicaps. It is not a policy decision when he is very disrespectful of someone like John McCain, EVEN IN DEATH. Little donny dingbat is a trashcan man. He lives there and loves it. I see him as head-to-toe PURE EVIL unredeamable and deadly. How do you KNOW what his policies are? They change erratically dramatically depending upon what TV show he saw last or which talking head had his ear last. That is not policy. That is tumblewood reaction. Tumblewoods go where the wind blows them in any direction at any time however long. There is no direction or goal or core at all. Just my take. Thank you for yours! :)
You asked a single question - should the President have the means of retribution against anyone ridiculing him.
That's the question I answered, by saying "No", without caring who the President is. You opened the discussion out a bit to the more general principles, and I responded in like ways.
You know far more about your Government and President than I do, obviously, though I do know Donald Trump is very unpredictable and untrustworthy, and the reported allegations around him and his entourage seem to become murkier and weirder almost weekly.
However I was not talking about them specifically, just the general need to protect free speech including satire. All I asked was that the satire is not merely gratuitous personal attacks because those are not amusing, and achieve nothing.
Durdle 