User:Steve Name/sandbox

Laughtivism
Laughtivism is the strategic use of humour, in activism. Most cases of laughtivism show a strategic mocking of an opposing ideology or social movement with the purpose of undermining the opposing authority and promoting one's own ideology. Inciting humour is a method of non-violent social movement engagement that has been around since roughly the mid-early 2000s, the first mention of the term came from a Yes! magazine article in 2011. It has been used in the past in specific instances periodically as a way to mock and undermine authority figures, tyrants, and dictators. However, the concept of Laughtivism can be applied to more modern examples of humour and mocking used to undermine political ideologies.

Origins of Laughtivism
The Yes Men; one of the original users of the concept of laughtivism, originally began as an antiglobalization effort in 1999. Mike Bonanno; a member of The Yes Men, claims that laughtivism is both a fun and highly effective strategy of disarming and undermining an opposition. The other reason that makes laughtivism and the use of humour so attractive to special interest groups like The Yes Men is that it is very cost effective according to The Yes Men and other political activist groups. Coming up with a funny concept to mock an opposing view or ideology costs less than organizing a protest or march involving many people. The only catch is that in order to be effective, the joke must be objectively funny in order for it to gain traction and popularity to effectively disarm the opponent.

Otpor was a Serbian political activist organization from 1998-2004. Influenced by Gene Sharp, Otpor used laughtivism as part of the successful movement to take down Slobodan Milosevic in Serbia in 2000. The student group used street theatre, posters, and installations to mock the dictator and gain cultural support. This assisted in removing the fear that Milosevic was able to create. One installation invited citizens to sign a birthday card for Milosevic with a gift of handcuffs and a prison uniform.

Many of the original uses of laughtivism were against dictators or tyrannical governing bodies. This is particularly relevant because dictators tend to rely on fear in order to command control. They rely on fear in order to maintain their position. By using humour, mocking and strategic undermining; resistance movements are able to slowly disarm the dictators' ability to instil fear in a population. Without fear, dictators find it increasingly difficult to command control. This is one of the fundamental reasons why laughtivism originally took off as a successful political activist strategy.

Methods of Laughtivism
Srdja Popovic and Matthew Miller claim that designing a successful laughtivism campaign relies on conveying meaning and delivering their message. It is not as simple as pulling off a simple gag. The two activists explain that humour is very effective at reducing fear, building confidence, and also adding a trendy factor to movements. Making a movement trendy is a tactic in attracting new people to support the movement. On the opposite side, acts of laughtivism can cause very awkward responses from the opposition which can further undermine their position and fortify the laughtivism user's position. Highly successful instances of laughtivism campaigns will force the opposition into a corner. The opposition will then be forced to undermine their position and credibility with whatever they decide to respond with.

The Power of Laughtivisim
Srdja Popovic, considered to be one of the original implementors of Laughtivism, and co-founder of the political activism group Otpor; spoke on the Power of Laughtivism in his TEDx talk. "There are three main reasons why Humour is such a powerful weapon in a social movement...First, humour melts fear. Fear is the air that dictators breath. Without fear, they cannot survive. There is nothing that breaks fear faster than a joke. Second, humour makes your movement look 'cool and if your movement is 'cool' and 'in' everyone wants to join, and your movement will continue to grow. Third, humour and mocking creates a huge dilemma for your opponent, if they react they will look stupid, but if they do not react, other people will start mocking them as well"

Political humour is as old as politics. Satire has been used for years to expose the ridiculousness involved in politics. Humour was strategically implemented in protests against the Soviet Union in the 1980s, in the peace protests of the 1960s, and resistance movements in Nazi-occupied territories during the 1940s. Laughter and jokes are no longer just fun for the political movements of today; they now serve as a vital part of an activists group arsenal. "Of course, just because laughter in non-violent political activism, is now common, it does not mean that it is easy. On the contrary, laughtivism requires constant adjustments and plenty of creativity for the various media streams to stay in the public eye." Sustaining a steady stream of quality content ensures that a movement remains extremely relevant in the news, various headlines and tweets and is key to maintain a movement’s momentum. Without creativity, laughtivism can fail before the ambitions of a movement are met. And ridicule can quickly descend into anarchy and violence without restraint and good judgement.

The Problem With Laughtivism
There is another side to Laughtivism and its effectiveness. Kei Hiruta critiques the article Why Dictators Don't Like Jokes by Srdja Popovic and Mladen Joksic, and claims that Laughtivism is not all its made out to be. "First, it is not true that laughter is always or even normally on the side of the people. There is democratic laughter and there is dictatorial laughter. Satire and jokes can be used ‘to speak truth to power’, but they can also be used to conceal the truth and reinforce cynicism. George Orwell encapsulates this in the unforgettable revised commandment in Animal Farm: ‘All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others.’ Dictators know how to smirk, though one may wish they only knew how to growl. Second, there is the laughter of cruelty as well as humane laughter. Even the worst kind of authoritarianism does not consist solely of cold-blooded ideologues, capable of stabbing an enemy without showing any sign of emotion. It also hires state-sponsored sadists and criminal elements, who enjoy using their license to kill, rape and otherwise inflict pain on the powerless. But let us not demonise authoritarians to feel proud of ourselves. Remember Abu Ghraib; the laughter of cruelty is also heard in liberal democratic torture chambers. Freely elected governments have too issued permits for sadist entertainment. Laughter can serve inhumanity and no particular form of government has a monopoly of that wretched commodity." These points are highly important, but another point is often ignored when people become too impressed by the power of laughtivism. It is that laughter itself will not achieve what constant political engagement aims to achieve; which is new and constantly improving political environment. "Mockery, jokes and satire are powerful tools to destabilise the existing order, but they are ill-suited to the different tasks of ending chaos, filling a power vacuum and installing a new order. Laughter as a political weapon is like bullets and explosives in this respect; it must be put in storage when the task of rebuilding a broken community gets started. Once strongmen depart or make sufficient concessions, laughtivists must stop laughing and start deliberating and negotiating with their former enemies; they must turn their righteous anger into an enduring sense of justice, and they must realise that the destructive force of laughter could turn against itself to block the way forward." Hiruta brings to light some important points particularly regarding the disruptive power of laughtivism coupled with the lack of stabilizing ability of laughtivism. The fundamental issue with laughtivism lies in the inability for humour to correct the root issue and fill a power vacuum. However, when implemented as a portion of a bigger activism plan, laughtivism can be a powerful tool to disrupt the order in power currently, while a different strategy other than humour will need to be implemented once the position of power has been sufficiently destabilized by the humour.

Satirical Political Comedy News Shows In Relation To Laughtivism
As mentioned previously the Political Humour and Satire are not new concepts. The use of humour to forward the position of one's political party and simultaneously undermine the position of the opposing political party is a concept that the public has been exposed to for many years. In the popularity of programs like The Daily Show, Last Week Tonight, and Real Time with Bill Maher - the impact of subversive political humour is everywhere. "Political parody, irony, and satire have not only surged in popularity in recent years, but they have become complexly intertwined with serious political dialogue. While some have argued that this blending of the serious and the satiric only serves to cheapen the discourse, it is in the realm of the satiric that some of the most interesting, engaged political debate is taking place." "According to a 2015 study from Microsoft, the average consumer’s attention span has dropped to eight seconds – one second less than that of a goldfish." With this being the reality of the current environment, many people's attention spans are too short to allow for long-form political debate to be an effective method in informing the public of policy or any political discourse for that matter. That is where shows like The Daily Show, Last Week Tonight, and Real Time with Bill Maher play an important role. Many consumers are trending more and more towards entertaining political satire rather than traditional political debates or discourse.

"It is a seemingly earnest form of irony and satire that is on the rise. Professional entertainers, political activists, and average citizens are responding to the political discourse around them, not necessarily to malign the political process or debase particular high profile figures, but more often to make forceful political claims and to advocate action in the search for solutions to real problems." This new climate for political debate has invited the masses to participate in political discourse. By boiling down major political issues into an entertaining piece of television, more citizens are included in the discussion. Amber Day summarizes this change in modern political discourse. "Satirists are seizing the opportunity to enter the conversation by circumventing the standard conduits of political information and the highly stage-managed, predictably choreographed nature of current political discourse. More importantly, fans are avidly coalescing around these forms, fervently keen to hear the critiques made, and drawing pleasure from the communal affirmation. Rather than engendering cynicism, as critics charge, the newly flowering realm of politicized satire is providing many with a sense of community and purpose notably lacking from organized politics in the twenty-first century."

While there is no doubt, certain benefits to including the masses in political discourse, there are some side effects of doing so through satirical comedy that could be problematic. "Political satire has historically been a force for good. It has the power to place the lower and upper echelons of society on the same playing field. Such levelling is necessary for the long-term function of democracy. In a democratic society, elected officials must not be elevated above those that they represent. Recently, the tradition of political satire continues stronger than ever, most notably with comedic 'news' shows." The issues with these types of shows are outlined extensively by Cameron Speltz from The Bottom Line. "When parodying general politics and political figures, it is inevitable that the satire that “news” shows wield will touch upon various political stances or ideologies. If the targets are politics and politicians, then political viewpoints will eventually enter the crosshairs as well. By satirizing a particular political stance — intentionally or otherwise — the likes of Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert and John Oliver inadvertently guide their viewers away from that stance. It is easy to imagine why. If the smart, funny men on TV say a show is silly, then we are inclined, as viewers, to feel the same way." "And once we feel like politics aren’t worthwhile, we avoid them. In the rare events that we do become engaged in political discourse, we are faced with another problem: our lack of knowledge. Satirical news shows do not provide us with enough information to actually hold a discussion on the views they espouse, yet they make us feel as though we are informed. Under these circumstances, any political discourse will be highly insubstantial — rife with factual errors and mired by the participants talking past one another. Not only does political satire discourage the exchange of ideas, but it makes us ill-equipped to debate in the first place." Speltz brings up some important points in understanding the full spectrum of political satire in the modern climate. Taking note of the emulatory factor that television personalities have on their fans, political satire shows wield significant power in being able to steer their viewership in a particular direction politically. The fact that there is no governing body to make sure that the political views expressed on the show are strictly neutral, could potentially be problematic. The lack of regulation on the information expressed in these shows means that Speltz is correct in that viewers are not always given the full picture. Satirical political comedy can be quite entertaining but is not necessarily entirely informative, leaving viewers an incomplete idea of political issues could potentially cause problems in terms of voting. Uninformed voters are an issue in their own respect, but misinformed voters can be even more of an issue. As Speltz explained, viewers of political satire comedy shows are more inclined to align themselves with the host of the show, and whether or not they are misinformed, the viewers can then become entrenched in their misinformed ideologies. Another key point that Speltz touches on is understanding the spin that comes along with satirical political comedy. Like many forms of modern information media, satirical political comedy news shows contain a certain amount of spin with each of the stories they present. This is clear with other traditional news networks as well. When the average viewer watches Fox News or CNN they are generally aware of political biases that each news network carries. What Speltz is arguing is that these biases be made more clear in terms of the satirical political comedy news shows, so that the viewers may be aware of the spin being put on their news pieces. This would hopefully create a more informed viewership less likely to being steered in one direction or another by an entertaining host.

The term Laughtivism does not refer specifically to political satirical comedy news shows as referenced previously. However, there is a strong connection between the two. Laughtivism as mentioned; is the strategic use of humour in activism. Laughtivism focuses more on using humour and mocking as an activists tool to destabilize an opposing power. Satirical political comedy, on the other hand, uses humour and mocking to make political discourse entertaining and digestible for the viewer, and also to promote their own political views. The fundamental principle that satirical political comedy news shows have in common with activist groups using Laughitivism, is the use of humour to promote one's own political positioning and simultaneously mock or undermine an opposing political positioning. For that reason, satirical political comedy news shows remain connected to the principles of Laughtivism.