You don’t think there’s any such thing as inappropriate lightheartedness?! What do you think the obvious counterexample is that springs nearly unbidden to my mind, and what is your response to it?
As to talk of appropriateness in comedy, I didn’t say anything about appropriateness in comedy. I didn’t take their actions in accepting the picture, or their comments about it, to be comic performances.*
*I have to acknowledge that with these two, the lines are certainly blurred, but I’m reading the actions I mentioned as basically straightforward and only performative, if at all, in some indirect or mediated sense. In other words, it seems to me they accepted the gift in the spirit it was offered and were expressing their true feelings about the gift, not the feelings of some character they were playing.
You’re right, that’s too vague. In the case of a public figure, particularly one like Saddam, I’d question whether there can be such a thing as inappropriate lightheartedness. In private life, that’d be different.
Just out of curiosity, Frylock, was this the first time you heard about Saddam being forced to watch “South Park?” That story, minus the detail of Matt Stone and Trey Parker receiving a signed photo of Saddam, was first publicized in 2006. I’ve certainly known about it since then.
Yes, it is the first time I have heard about it. (Not sure why you’re asking?)
As to what he deserved, my posts are predicated on the notion that he deserves different treatment at the hands of different people. What the military division in question owed him was to keep him in custody as per regulations and hand him over to the proper authorities. What he deserved from the judicial authorities was a fair trial. What he deserved from his executioners was… execution. What he deserves from others not directly involved with this process runs the gamut, and includes ridicule and humiliation.
I think the possibility of inappropriate lightheartedness in this case varies with the directness or indirectness of one’s relationship to the custody and trial process.
As I said, I was just curious. That had been widely known for about the last three years. I was curious why you came around to posting about it so late and not back in 2006 when the story first broke. Your opinion about it is still valid now as it would have been then, of course, but I didn’t think there was anyone now who was unaware of Saddam being forced to watch the movie, that’s all.
The occasion for my posting was the April 9, 2009 story about the creators of South Park. I was posting about their actions as well as those of the army division in question.
The war in Iraq was a major pop cultural flashpoint that coincided perfectly with the political satire and farce in South Park and other media like the Daily Show. There is absolutely nothing inappropriate or even surprising about this; it’s a completely predictable intersection of international politics and pop culture. Comedy is a reflection of real life (in some ways it’s a truer reflection than “serious” entertainment.) That includes the good and the evil and everything in between.
I don’t know about inappropriate, but the idea of Saddam enjoying a parody cartoon movie about himself is positively mind blowing, not that it really changes my opinion of him as a mad dictator.
Actually I wonder what the point of stories like this are? “Saddam wasn’t such a bad guy because he had a sense of humor.” ? :eek: :dubious: :rolleyes:
I understand. The story of Matt and Trey receiving the signed picture was news Not so much the story that U.S. Marines forced Saddam to watch the movie. I’m usually the next to last to hear news, so I assumed if I knew about it, so did everybody else.
It’s doubtful if Saddam enjoyed it. He had the movie banned in Iraq upon its release.