In medieval courts, the jester was allowed to say things that needed to be said, but that the lords and dukes were all fearful to say. That is the function the blog snarks fill.

The greatest threat to the Mormon blogosphere doesn’t come from snarky meanness, whatever that is, but from self importance and an almost invincible self-righteousness. We need somebody to help us let the air out of our balloons now and then.

Finally HP/JDC, since this is True Confession time, I now know it was you who deleted my anonymous comment at Ironic Priesthood. It was the comment that asked the question if there was a difference between an extra large box of condoms and a box of extra large condoms. The fact that you deleted it says a lot about you, all good IMO, but c’mon man! That was funny, and it wasn’t even PG!

I would probably divide up comedic genres as follows: parody comes from love; satire from anger. Parody wants to be that which it emulates; satire despises it. Both have their place. Parody is certainly gentler.

Regarding fighting a power structure, I assure you that there is no power structure that runs the cabal that dominates all posting on the Mormon Blogosphere. Do not cross Greg Call or you may never be heard from again!

I wonder what people made of the Colbert Report’s recent brushes with Mormonism? I realize that the show will be condemned for mocking that which is sacred in some circles, but I think we need to get used to garments and other practices being discussed in the public realm. I thought, as far as making fun of Mormonism, it was good. It dealt with real practices, and made a correction to a false statement. I felt strangely proud to see my religion lightly joked about by someone whose comedy I respect.

I definitely think that in a community (i.e. like the bloggernacle), you have to temper your sarcasm. You have to be careful about how you do it (i.e. understand how it might negatively affect the community), and you have to be willing to make fun of yourself as part of that community.

What I think makes people like Swift and Jon Stewart so successful in a different way is that although they have very strong/harsh satire, they are generally commenting on an abusive power structure that they would like to see changed. While there’s plenty of wrongheadedness and imperfection in the bloggernacle, we do not have the same kind of power/political structure that motivates the satire of people like Stewart. I think harsh satire doesn’t work in places like the bloggernacle if you are actually trying to be an accepted and active part of the community.

I guess my question is, isn’t it possible to satirize with a broken heart and a contrite spirit? I tend to think it is, but I can’t put my finger on showing exactly how.

AML,
Of course. It is hard to judge how your friends are going to take a joke. That’s the advantage of anonymity. That said, I was being somewhat facetious earlier. There is no way to do comedy without offending some people.

My favorite was when students were cited for writing on the sidewalk with chalk.

When it’s motivated by anger and frustration, it is, of course, wrong.

Eric, I think you’re wrong here. Almost everything The Daily Show does stems from anger and frustration and it is very, very right.