"Can't you take a joke"--the favorite line of bullies everywhere.
Self-proclaimed American "Christians" pretending that they are oppressed are not only bullies but liars.
Dreams have been described as dress rehearsals for real life, opportunities to gratify wishes, and a form of nocturnal therapy. A new theory aims to make sense of it all.
Verified by Psychology Today
In ridiculing Christine Blasey Ford, did Trump cross the line at his rally last week? Is there even a line, and if so, where is it?
Is it ever OK to ridicule? Maybe not. Or maybe it’s always OK to ridicule and anyone who objects is just being PC.
If it’s sometimes OK, when and who says?
It’s as though we live in a cross between a citizens-arrest free-for-all and a lawless Dodge City. Anyone can ticket anyone for crossing a line that isn’t established.
When we ridicule something, we demote it, pointing out its ridiculousness. In the process, we elevate ourselves in relationship to it. Ridicule accentuates or exaggerates the difference between us and them. It’s an uniter and divider. It unites us in elevated status (what I’ll call “we glee,” the glee of being we). It divides us from a united them in demoted status. Put-downs—they put someone down while lifting the ridiculer up. Burns demote someone, elevating the burner in the process. Ridicule is a power move.
Sometimes people act as though if something can be ridiculed or mocked, then it must be bad. That’s not true. Everyone and everything can be mocked. It’s simple. Just highlight and exaggerate its unappealing features. Try it. Say something, anything, and then mock it with an exaggerated caricature. Anything can be mocked.
We do something similar with ulterior motives. If we can even just imagine one, we often think we’ve invalidated or disqualified an argument. We hear this when politicians in the heat of debate accuse their opponents of playing politics. Even if they are, that doesn’t mean the accuser isn’t. It’s like a lawyer saying, “Objection, your honor, my opponent might be lawyering.” Then imagine making up an ulterior motive. Fill in the blank: “Oh, you just want to do that because…” The operative word is “just.” It means ignore all other possibilities, thereby highlighting an imaginary cause and ignoring all other possible motives.
Ridicule is caricaturing, calling attention to what’s bad or absurd about something or someone, thereby drawing attention away from what’s good or reasonable about it. It’s a thumb on the scale. We tend to wince at it unless we agree with it. We approve of ridicule that calls attention to the bad or absurd that’s been hidden. Thus, ridicule can distort or it can correct a distortion, as when we ridicule a con artist who portrays himself as a saint.
Some act as though ridicule should be outlawed as immoral. Outlawing ridicule would be unenforceable because it’s inherently hypocritical. It’s like judging judgment to be wrong or calling someone a name-caller, which is name-calling. You can’t ridicule all ridicule, mock all mockery, or shun all shunning.
Ridicule is an extension of opinion, which likewise can’t be banished. We all value some things over others. Rationality itself is based on comparative value—ratios. We all have different values. Should we always keep them to ourselves? If you can’t say anything nice, don’t say anything at all? That, too, is unenforceable hypocrisy: Silence all silencers, put down all put-downers. Value having no values. We can’t advocate neutrality about all ridicule any more than we can value having no values.
But it’s true—ridicule is risky. Pull it out and expect retaliation. Those who live by the burn often die by it. Is there a way to distinguish helpful and unhelpful ridicule? Heroic vs. over-the-line ridicule?
We can distinguish ridicule by its target—who or what is being caricatured as ridiculous and by implication who is elevated in the process. Here are the logical targets:
Ridicule can reduce or increase equality. Mocking the more powerful increases equality. Mocking the less powerful reduces equality. Making an exception of yourself increases inequality. It elevates you in comparison to others. Sometimes we do it with the backing of a goon squad, people united with us in ridiculing others (i.e., we glee). Sometimes we do it alone (me glee). We can mock everything but us, which makes us feel exceptional, above it all. This has always been a popular move among teens. Lately, it has become a popular response to Trump on the far left—nihilistic sweeping ridicule of every one further to the right than the nihilist.
There are ways to ridicule others without making an exception of yourself. Late-night comedy’s hosts—Colbert, Bee, Oliver, Meyers, and the breakout artist of this genre, Stewart, make a point of lambasting inward with self-effacing humor. You rarely hear anything like that in current right-wing comedy. It spoils the effect that is its top priority, elevating the team to a status of highest infallibility by any means necessary.
Trump puts others down, never himself. That’s why some people love him, like the cheering crowd at last week’s rally. That’s we glee at work—us elevated at the expense of everyone who isn’t us. One wonders if some Trump supporters resonate with the Walking Dead, zombie genre. Trump’s opponents are the walking brain-dead, easily smote with ridicule because they’re empty-headed lib-zombies. There must be the same on the left, people who think the right has become a zombie goon squad.
How do Trump supporters assuage guilt about aligning with Trump against people of lower status like Blasey Ford? Many of his supporters are Christian. They claim to embrace a more charitable view, and many are quick to claim that ridiculing them crosses the line. How do they manage their double standard?
It’s not difficult. They identify as the oppressed, not the oppressor, and there’s always the anti-PC self-justification. “It’s just a joke. Can’t people take a joke?”
Not all jokes are created equal, which is why it’s useful to recognize ridicule as a power move. Anyone who recognizes that power makes a difference whether justly or unjustly allocated—this would include even those who wish it weren’t—recognizes the need to use power to right wrongs and reduce injustice. For that, ridicule comes in handy.
Still, who we ridicule is a delicate business. We need to watch where we point that thing, and not just for our sakes—burn people recklessly and we’ll be burned—but for everyone's sake.
References
https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/02/politics/trump-mocks-christine-blasey-ford-kavanaugh-supreme-court/index.html
"Can't you take a joke"--the favorite line of bullies everywhere.
Self-proclaimed American "Christians" pretending that they are oppressed are not only bullies but liars.
First rule of a con cult: Never admit that you're a member of a con cult. Especially not to yourself.
Denial is how you get through the day?
Christianity isn't a con cult, so you must be talking about something else, e.g. psychology.
Actually, no. I understand that you were shredding Christianity.
My one-liner would be an example of using ridicule to tell truth to power.
Your one-liner, like your name "sanity" would be an example of you saying what you need to hear, not truth to power.
You're not alone in that. People often declare themselves the authority on truth and sanity, and why? Because they said so, so it must be true and sane.
We are all entitled to our opinions, and all entitled to ridicule each other's opinions. None of that gets the last word.
Science is an attempt to exit such circular confirmation. You're entitled to your opinion that your opinion is higher than science's educated guesses, and I am, in turn entitled to ridicule such notions whether they come from Christians, Muslims, Hindus, etc. or currently in science the people who assume that we are just computers.
Don't get me wrong please. Like you, I have my flights of self-congratulatory triumphalist fantasy, where I get to be the last word on what's true. I think all people have those fantasies. The trick, in my opinion, is to remember that they're fantasies.
Religion is interesting and challenging that way. Look, I'm a musician. That's my hobby like yours is Christianity. When I'm playing I'll pretend that I'm a music god even though I'm not.
I don't begrudge any of us our delusions of grandeur, so long as we remember that reality is not impressed by them. And reality wins all debates in the end.
The problem with religion only arises from the way that through it you only really get your delusion of grandeur rocks off if you pretend that it's reality.
I wish that Christians held their faith the way they embrace Santa Claus, a festive fantastical creature best served to the young and nostalgically revered by adults. You're relationship with Jesus would be much healthier if you held him as you hold Santa. I'd have a whole lot more respect for Christianity if it recognized that reality was much more complex than Christ's hearsay teachings handled.
In my opinion. Feel free to ignore it.
Best,
Jeremy
Some Christians are Democrats.
I figure a little ridicule here, if the message gets across, will keep our ranks from getting smaller.
Amen. Yes you're right. My sense of it is that the culture wars at core are between these two views.
Right: Your debt is to your lineage. You owe society nothing.
Left: Your debt extends beyond your lineage. The meaning of life is to not end it.
The right, though populated by evangelicals, is actually committed in practice to a reading of Darwin consistent with animal nature: Biological reproductive success is the name of the game.
The left has roots in Christianity as espoused by Christ, though from an era when magical thinking was predominant.
I work on the origins of life and therefore end up in the company of many Christian thinkers. I've given keynotes at the institute for religion in the age of science, and sermons at churches.
And its true that democratic Christians are being iced out. May your numbers grow.
With respect (and mutual ridicule)
Jeremy
Wow... I can’t believe I googled the word ridicule and this left leaning , Trump bashing , Christian hating article came up on what I thought would be a neutral response from psychology today .
.You have been negatively and mentally affected by the outcome of 2016 election (TDS IS REAL)
Maybe you need to see a psychologist .
I found this article very unprofessional and disturbing .
Yes, it would be disturbing to someone who strives to see herself as the measure of all things, the gold standard of appropriateness, someone who reviles everything that challenges and copes by sneering at it.
WDS (World derangement syndrome) is real.
J
Sorry, Jeremy, but my experience was just that of Rose.
After watching a segment about politically incorrect humour in old movies on Jesse Watters's Fox show yesterday, I, too, Googled "ridicule" and found your article. And I, too, found it gratuitously anti-Trump. Honestly, that's the kind of liberal bias I've come to expect in PT but it's too bad because it obscured and somewhat derailed your examination of the issue.
But then it's not just ridicule, it's humour generally now, isn't it? By making expressions of hurt feelings paramount and questioning their merit unacceptable, we've fallen into a cultural well where there even the slightest "slight" echoes loud and forever.
I'm old enough to remember the classic old feminist light bulb joke. How many feminists does it take to screw in a lightbulb?
Answer: THAT'S NOT FUNNY!
Hi Jim,
Sorry for getting off on the wrong track in my first responses to your comment. That was my mistake. I carried into my response to you my response to other Trump enthusiasts I had recently interacted with. You were right. Mine was an over-reaction and I kept going with it polarizing ways. I read you too quickly. Again sorry. Live and learn.
You make a familiar point. It's popular in wide circles today to say that there's an epidemic of hypersensitivity. You've got liberish theorist like Jordan Peterson, and Jonathan Haidt saying it. You've got leftist like Bill Maher saying it, and the entire Trump revolution was built on it.
I think PC is ill-defined at present and that without a clear definition, it becomes just another quick cheap sweeping way to dismiss and misread people, perhaps a little like I did in my first response here.
Here's my attempt at a definition: There's hypersensitivity and then there's theatrical faked hypersensitivity. Both are calls for accommodation. Hypersensitivity is an authentic call for accommodation worth considering. Theatrical hypersensitivity is a power grab not worth considering. It's hard to tell them apart but it's important to try. Not all hypersensitivity is created equal.
All of us are hypersensitive about things. The more macho among us are hypersensitive about being hypersensitive about anything. To take an example, you and I would be hypersensitive about physical attacks on the people we love, hypersensitive about our physical flaws being ridiculed in public, attacks on our daughters, etc.
Hyper means "a lot." It can imply "too much" but what's too much is a subjective interpretation. Stalin or Mao could have said that the people whose lives they were destroying were being hypersensitive. After all, they were necessary sacrifices in the service of the revolution. Get over yourself. It's not all about you.
I define PC as theatrical hypersensitivity. To illustrate I would not consider you PC if you had a heartfelt reaction to someone ridiculing your looks in public.
You say my article was gratuitously anti-trump. You were respectful in that you qualified it as your opinion. When you said "honestly" you played the edge between subjective and objective much as Trump does. It's very easy for people to mistake honestly for truthfully. They do not mean the same thing. I could tell you that I honestly believe that all guns should be abolished because every gun has been used to kill a kitten. That could be my honest opinion. People who agreed with me could say "he really tells it like it is!" and no, it's not true at all. What you meant by "honestly" was on the edge there.
Honestly, by which I mean subjectively, I'm flabbergasted at how the Trump movement fails to notice it's own engagement in what to me seems very obviously to be theatrical hypersensitivity. You described Trump as unduly thin-skinned. I think that's theatrical hypersensitivity. You might disagree.
There's another move being used a lot by the Trump movement that relates. It's crying unfair, biased and partisan any opposition to anything the movement does. To my ears, that's also a theatrical power grab. I can't hear any difference between that and a kid crying "unfair!" whenever his team loses a point by the rules.
It's a common human tendency to treat our obsession with fairness to us as evidence of our fair-mindedness, but we're supposed to grow up enough that we're not just sore sports, playing the victim (also theatrical as distinct from real victimhood) every time we lose at something fair and square.
Michael Lewis (author of moneyball and the big short) has a great podcast on this subject called against the rules. It's on the varieties of ways in which referees are being attacked by players who think they ought to be the refs since they are experts on injustice to themselves.
Thank you for sharing your subjective (biased) assessment of my bias. I don't buy it, of course. My subjective assessment is that you've been swept up into a movement that doesn't care about fairness other than fairness to yourselves, engages in unbounded theatrical hypersensitivity in its outrage over other peoples hypersensitivity, and mistakes honesty for truth.
A third sorry for my initial reaction. It's true. I've become hypersensitive to your movement's biases, and its pretense of the neutral view. I think it is doing our nation a lot of damage and from my vista it looks increasingly like people aligned to combat crime on behalf of a criminal, unfairness on behalf of a psychopath, law and order on behalf of an anarchist or neatness on behalf of a total slob. That's not truth, it's my honest educated guess at what's true.
Jeremy
This is a twisting of the motives of people who object to ridicule. Of course it (at least most of it) shouldn’t be outlawed, if only because it is impossible. However, just because it’s impossible to outlaw doesn’t mean there shouldn’t be social sanctions against it. As for judging judgement, not all judgements are equally ethical. Judging someone who verbally abused someone is in a different category from judging a co-worker who made an honest mistake clearly without intent to harm or disrupt.
It’s not a matter of whether the opinion can be fully banished. It’s a matter of whether expressing the opinion (or merely holding it) promotes hurt, harm, or degradation against others.
As for rationality, ridicule on that count alone violates a variant of Occam’s Razor – do not add anything more to an explanation than necessary. Ridicule rarely is necessary (exception: as counter-ridicule against someone who ridicules those who haven’t done any conscious and deliberate wrong to others – in short, ridicule in defense against self or others). As for expressing ourselves or keeping quiet – not all ways of expressing one’s self are of equal moral value. Almost any opinion (save ones that unequivocally demean others outside the role of reasonable and proportionate levels of defense, retaliation, or punishment) can be expressed with good taste, in ways that preserve the dignity of the person spoken about - even in highly controversial cases.
Also, as for punching up vs punching down. Again, it’s not a matter of how much power a person has that makes the person worthy of dignified treatment, without demeaning. It’s a matter of whether the person deliberately sets out to hurt or demean others. Powerless people are just as likely to be hateful as powerful people. Likewise powerful people are equal with powerless people to be sympathetic and kind.
Get the help you need from a therapist near you–a FREE service from Psychology Today.