The Court Jester

There are a number of rules of thumb that need to apply where rhetorical discourse involves humour and irony – The Court Jester: Essentially UNLESS you are appointed / recognised / claiming the role of court jester in any given context, then humour comes with a duty of care to its target. If the target … Continue reading “The Court Jester”

The Court Jester

There are many posts here describing and using the idea of “The Court Jester” when it come to rules of attempted rhetorical humour. Charlie Hebdo was probably the highest profile example, and #dankula the Scottish comedian convicted without any prior complaint(!) for an offensive video joke the most recent, but it’s a general question of … Continue reading “The Court Jester”

More on the Court Jester from David Mitchell

Grauniad piece by David Mitchell, on my recurring topic of offence in free speech generally and comedy specifically – (ie  The Court Jester. See also Frankie Boyle generally.) The David Mitchell example is in defense of the real case that led to Mike Ward being fined for offense! We need to separate case of the general public … Continue reading “More on the Court Jester from David Mitchell”

Boris – Court Jester or Politician. He can’t have his cake and eat it.

A theme of mine when people are banging on about humour as a “weapon” is that is does matter how it’s used. There’s no simple right to offend, sarcasm can be cheap, and the context matters. In days of old, the court had a jester so everyone knew it was the “fool” who spoke the … Continue reading “Boris – Court Jester or Politician. He can’t have his cake and eat it.”

The Court Jester

This is the second of a three related posts. The first was #1 There is No Right to Offend. No-one has the right not to be offended, but any restraint on the freedom to offend is a matter of cultural tolerance and moral motivation, and categorically not any objectively-defined “right” with statutory limitation to giving offense. There … Continue reading “The Court Jester”

Sweet Reason

Rarely was a program so well named. Exemplary dialogue handled by Evan Davis on BBC R4 Sweet Reason on “Offense”. The thesis being discussed was implicitly: Weaponised Offense Taking as part of Identity by Victimhood. Contentious topic on PC-Ness of free expression. With Jordan Peterson (white-male) and Dr Clare Chambers and Shaista Aziz (non-male / non-white) … Continue reading “Sweet Reason”

Rappaport’s Rule(s)

Rappaport’s first rule of any constructive dialogue that aims to increase knowledge is: You should attempt to re-express your interlocutor’s position so clearly, vividly and fairly that they say “Thanks, I wish I’d thought of putting it that way myself.” Clearly, it’s an extreme version of understand-before-disagree and maybe life’s too short to expect to … Continue reading “Rappaport’s Rule(s)”

Rhetorical Rules of Engagement

Several papers and posts here describe each of these aspects, but even when dealing with would-be factual knowledge, the content may not be entirely objective or logical and anyway, the process is always rhetorical, involving communication between human individuals and the tribes with which we identify. In simplest form: “Tread softly, for you tread upon my … Continue reading “Rhetorical Rules of Engagement”