The implication of emoticons in serious debate - Yay or Nay?
So it came up in debate recently that emoticons weren't considered appropriate by some in serious debate, because it was too silly for super-serial topics like immigration and so on. Apparently, a common method to express emotions over the internet or defuse a situation was considered inappropriate by enough people and a moderator, so I figured it posed the legitimate point; is it okay to use emoticons in a serious debate?
This also brings up the discussion of whether or not it's okay to be silly about a serious topic at all. Famous movies, such as Life is Beautiful (which is a favorite of mine) portrayed the Holocaust in a humorous, but still respectful manner. It made light of a terrible situation and in doing so was able to show the absolute absurdity of the issue at hand, while still being faithful to the original information. In this way we could perhaps talk more in depth about a terrible situation, by being able to witness it without reflexively cringing at something horrible put in front of us; in other words, it made it easier to digest, and thus absorb the message. It was only the Jester who could speak ill of the King, because he did it in a way that wasn't too deriding. Stephen Colbert and John Stewart got huge Republican followings, because they could speak to them in a manner that was humorous when criticizing them, and have even been able to criticize their own fellow democrats. Can humor be used in a super serious discussion, can sillyness or a break in extremeness or, should it be avoided?
Let me know what you think, Mythweavers!
This also brings up the discussion of whether or not it's okay to be silly about a serious topic at all. Famous movies, such as Life is Beautiful (which is a favorite of mine) portrayed the Holocaust in a humorous, but still respectful manner. It made light of a terrible situation and in doing so was able to show the absolute absurdity of the issue at hand, while still being faithful to the original information. In this way we could perhaps talk more in depth about a terrible situation, by being able to witness it without reflexively cringing at something horrible put in front of us; in other words, it made it easier to digest, and thus absorb the message. It was only the Jester who could speak ill of the King, because he did it in a way that wasn't too deriding. Stephen Colbert and John Stewart got huge Republican followings, because they could speak to them in a manner that was humorous when criticizing them, and have even been able to criticize their own fellow democrats. Can humor be used in a super serious discussion, can sillyness or a break in extremeness or, should it be avoided?
Let me know what you think, Mythweavers!