I prefer your definition of "absurdity" to Aristotle's.
I do have somewhat of a conflicting opinion on your bullying philosophy. I agree that one shouldn't be a cunt for the sake of being a cunt. But, what if an ad hominem used in a satire is in itself a meta-satire intended to mock the absurdity of over-sensitivity of humans in modernity, and the ridiculousness of how one allows themselves to be offended by that which they ought not to be?
I am 31 years old, and when I was in school, they were teaching me "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me." Fast forward less than two decades and now people are being jailed for calling people names that are offensive to the subject only by choice. So, I agree that bullying is an unacceptable practise. But, it is a fine line between actively seeking to put someone down and encouraging them to grow thicker skin.
I will leave you with Alan Moore's words on satire, and words that I believe emphasise both the power of satire, and the responsibility that comes with being a satirist.
“Now, as I understand it, the bards were feared. They were respected, but more than that they were feared. If you were just some magician, if you'd pissed off some witch, then what's she gonna do, she's gonna put a curse on you, and what's gonna happen? Your hens are gonna lay funny, your milk's gonna go sour, maybe one of your kids is gonna get a hare-lip or something like that — no big deal.
You piss off a bard, and forget about putting a curse on you, he might put a satire on you. And if he was a skilful bard, he puts a satire on you, it destroys you in the eyes of your community, it shows you up as ridiculous, lame, pathetic, worthless, in the eyes of your community, in the eyes of your family, in the eyes of your children, in the eyes of yourself, and if it's a particularly good bard, and he's written a particularly good satire, then three hundred years after you're dead, people are still gonna be laughing, at what a twat you were.”
@lordless.exile,
Very well-written comment.
Sister ... you're preaching to the choir. I rail on about this nonsense all the time. Indeed, I just called you "Sister" as bait to anyone stupid enough to bite. If one person acknowledging another's gender is now grounds for censure (as many on the Far left now allege), we are in a great deal of trouble indeed.
What I meant by "ad hominem attacks" is name-calling (imputing moral turpitude) as a smokescreen designed to avoid having to provide a cogent defense of one's own views. Hence, as you can't take down the other guy's arguments, you instead start calling him a bigot, commie, fascist, Nazi, sexist, misogynist, racist, homophobe, transphobe, etc. etc., etc. Note that every one of those insults are allegations of "moral opprobrium," providing a pretext to "not engage."
Why not just call your opponent stupid? Because stupidity is not a "moral violation" and thus would not release you from the obligation to provide evidence of your assertions.
These are some of the oldest tricks in the book and form what the Ancient Greeks called "rhetoric."
This is childish behavior. If one can't defend their position logically and with the support of objective evidence, then it is incumbent upon them to be sufficiently self-reflective to ask why. A mark of maturity is being able to realize when you're wrong and being able to modify your beliefs as a result.
Yes, we all believe things that could not survive the scrutiny of a court of law, but those things are things we ought to be able to admit are "opinions," not "facts." And, we ought all be sufficiently fair-minded enough to recognize that societies ought not create laws (which imbue governments with the Power to Compel) based upon our subjective conjectures.
This ... was the essence of the Enlightenment.
BTW, EXCELLENT quote. I am most definitely going to steal it. ;-)
Quill