There are so many ways to poke fun at the politics of the day. It is even easier to poke fun at some of the politicians who are in the middle of the politics of the day. Much of this is the kind of stuff that fills the posts on Facebook. I don't like some of the posts. I find some of them to be foolish and completely out of place. Yet, I read them. More and more, there are a number of people who must spend their day posting many times a day. These usually involve the placement of memes that are meant to attract attention. Most often, they are met with the usual emojis to show a like or various degrees of dislike or strong feelings. For me, those visual comments give a feel for the thoughts and feelings circulating in the air. There are also written comments that show agreement - expand on a topic - display disagreements - and even point followers to additional information. I find that some of this can be a positive aspect of posts. I know I post quite a few photos of pieces of art in museums - but then I also often use the picture to say things the painting was never meant to say. Most of it is meant as political or social humor. And yes, I receive a spectrum of emoji comments. That fine.
Today I need to rant about the responses made to memes in which the comments are used to degrade the character of people simply because of who those people are. Sometimes they add nothing to the stream of conversation. It may just be a complete insult - a smear - a bigoted display of fear or hate. The comment that finally pushed be into a rant position was when one person referred to Pete Buttigieg as being a 'pee pee toucher.' There was no stream that was headed that way - it just came out as a display of the kind of ignorance and intolerance of others that can turn very ugly, dirty, violent, and demonic. I place such a comment on line with someone who uses a disgusting term to refer to people of color or people of other faiths. It has no place. It shows us how how far people will go to trigger the fear, hatred, bias, and ignorance that too often sets people against one another. This kind of comment does not fall into the category of humor. It is the kind of remark that would make a venue remove someone from the stage.
This doesn't mean we cannot poke fun. I remember when Clinton used 'deplorable' during the 2016 election. In my view, she was the deplorable one - and people went back and forth about that. Trump seemed to be a self-proclaimed pussy grabber. No one would have said it if he hadn't used it himself. So let the humor carry on. I have said many times that I really appreciate editorial cartoonist who are able to make us all look like stooges at times. Yes, they can be biting and they can piss people off, but never do good satirist or cartoonists or even political pundits disparage or degrade other people for their sexual orientation, ethnic background, religion, or race. When folks begin to slam others or take them down because of who they are, we are seeing the violence of a culture being put on display. No one needs to be physically touched - the words of disgust or ignorance or fear become the triggers that open up the door to actual violence toward others. There is much history to back that up. First the words fly - then fists - then.
If we see something in another person and we are alarmed or offended by what seems to be the character of that person or group, it is proper to point it out. For example, I will read something about Christian leaders who appear to back people and actions that I would never associate with being a follower of Jesus. Yet, I also know that my actions or words may solicit a similar view of my comments. We can then argue about those points - disagree - agree - change our thoughts. But when a person from a minority group is diminished by others for simply being who they are, I think we must more quickly and more purposefully disagree. But I must also say that as part of a majority group that has a long history of being in a position of power, I really find it hard to listen to people make blanket statements about 'gray haired, older, white men. I'm usually not bothered by it unless the statement is meant to be definitive of who I am or meant to degrade or attempt to not give me a voice in the room - simply because of some parts of my identity.
Our task, in my opinion, is to never cease to see with gracious and open eyes - those we would be tempted to disparage - those we fear - those who look and sound different from our own folk - those for whom we have no contact or never have met - those upon whom we can throw labels in an attempt to diminish them. The high ground is really not a place above others - it is the ground we share with those at whom we think it would be so easy to throw stones. It is when we stand alongside - them.
TRRR