[4ntonius8lock]

I didn't read it. But for some of us, silly inane comments that don't add to the conversation can detract from it.

If that's what you are looking for, may I suggest reddit? On there, an article is posted and you'll have 10,000s of silly one liners with no information or further understanding. Most never having even read the FA. I personally love the fact that /. doesn't allow this. It means those of us who want to discuss topics can actually do so without drowning in a sea of silliness.

[clairity]

good satire does contribute to the conversation and shouldn't be buried imho. but yes, silly jokes and memes can clutter the discussion.

/. admits humor via the "funny" moderation, which then allows you to show or hide funny comments via filtering.

[4ntonius8lock]

Good satire is entertaining.

It does not help build bridges of communication between people who think differently. That's why I think it's looked down upon here.

You are right on the /. point. :)

[clairity]

most comments argue a position, which doesn't necessarily build bridges either. good satire, even if taking a position, should be thought-provoking rather than simply insulting.

[4ntonius8lock]

Satire definition: "the use of humor, irony, exaggeration, or ridicule to expose and criticize people's stupidity or vices, particularly in the context of contemporary politics and other topical issues."

From Wikipedia: "satire is a genre of literature and performing arts, in which vices, follies, abuses and shortcomings are held up to ridicule, ideally with the intent of shaming individuals, corporations, government, or society itself into improvement."

Not only is satire bad for communication, it's bad for learning, since it must presuppose the person creating the satire is not in the wrong. Generally people who are open to learning start from the perspective they too might be wrong. Of course, you are welcome to show me examples of when satire changed your mind... that would make me reconsider a different perspective.

[clairity]

but those are flat and lifeless definitions of satire. i'm delighted by good satire that points out my own as-yet-undiscovered follies in a wry or clever way. a lot of creative writing and philosophical works do this.

idea exchanged is neutered if all writing must be carefully crafted to not offend even a little bit. plenty of comments here offend others, even without that intent, but the best ones will (1) not target individuals and (2) make a reasonable argument. to me, satire is just adding a little cleverness to these latter kinds of comments.

in any case, i'm not imploring you to agree with me, just adding my voice to the chorus.

[4ntonius8lock]

Great. Personally, I've changed my mind on some very serious topics: death penalty, addiction, government regulations, capitalism, etc.

In each case, it took someone patiently going over points to help me see better. It takes time for me to fully incorporate new world views. It was a process that required the patience of another human who helped me work through thoughts without judgement or ridicule.

In my case, satire did not help. In fact, it has generally made me double down on my perspective, since it has an inherently ridiculing tone (you might not agree, but that is so by the very definition of the word) - Most people I know double down when confronted with ridicule. In fact most people generally double down on their opinion no matter how thin the evidence in favor of it.

So I'm asking, what deeply held beliefs did you completely change your mind on when confronted with satire? How did it go?

Hearing people's actual experience that is outside of my common conceptions is always super interesting. I'm always open to changing my mind.