Is satire wasteful?

[suarezguy]

The avowed point of, at least the definition of, satire is to critique by ridicule society/specific aspects therein in order to cause positive change.

A lot of satires are made, enjoyed, praised ... and yet they fall short of their supposed point in that the enjoyment and praise seems to be pretty much just from those who already agreed, already strongly believed in the criticism to begin with.

It seems the real effect of satire, if not even the intention, is just preaching to, even flattering to, the choir. If so, should the genre be considered to have failed in its broader, nobler point? Should it, as it actually is, be considered pretty wasteful?

 

[The Wormhole]

No

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

Should it, as it actually is, be considered pretty wasteful?

Not if it's entertaining.

Satire can be as biting and ruthless as it wants, but in the end, it should still be entertaining. Viewers should enjoy watching it. Isn't THAT the point, in the end?

It's like, say, stand-up comedy. Comedians can and should make a point, but in the end, IS IT FUNNY? Same story here, basically.

 

[Kai "the spy"]

The avowed point of, at least the definition of, a debate is to critique by questioning society/specific aspects therein in order to spark debate to cause positive change.

A lot of queries are debated, enjoyed, praised ... and yet they fall short of their supposed point in that the enjoyment and praise seems to be pretty much just from those who already agreed, already strongly believed in the criticism to begin with, while sparking only outrage and even vitriol from those in disagreement. Others couldn't care less and ignore it altogether.

It seems the real effect of debates, if not even the intention, is just preaching to, even flattering to, the choir, while insulting and "owning" the other side. If so, should the query be considered to have failed in its broader, nobler point? Should it, as it actually is, be considered pretty wasteful?

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

enjoyment and praise seems to be pretty much just from those who already agreed, already strongly believed in the criticism to begin with, while sparking only outrage and even vitriol from those in disagreement.

People generally don't like being told that they suck.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

No

Ninja'd.

 

[JirinPanthosa]

All the things you could say about satire only influencing people who already agree could be said doubly about straight debate.

Satire brings in a wider audience and if it doesn’t influence it they at least hear it and humanize it. Satire allows you to hear a competing viewpoint and be more disarmed than if you were just preached at.

Let’s also not discount the power of debating in that manner to people who are on your side but not motivated to do anything. Jon Stewart made a lot of liberal leaning college kids into progressive activists.

 

[Gov Kodos]

The avowed point of, at least the definition of, satire is to critique by ridicule society/specific aspects therein in order to cause positive change.

A lot of satires are made, enjoyed, praised ... and yet they fall short of their supposed point in that the enjoyment and praise seems to be pretty much just from those who already agreed, already strongly believed in the criticism to begin with.

It seems the real effect of satire, if not even the intention, is just preaching to, even flattering to, the choir. If so, should the genre be considered to have failed in its broader, nobler point? Should it, as it actually is, be considered pretty wasteful?

This reads like satire.