Saturday, December 09, 2006

Word of the Year: Truthiness


The best satire pokes holes in our conceptions of who we are -- reveals the darkness beneath beliefs that are too easy or too simple. Right now, there are few people better at doing this in America than Stephen Colbert. The Guardian (UK) reports that Merriam-Webster has chosen "Truthiness," a word of Colbert's creation, as it's word of the year.
The word - if one can call it that - best summed up 2006, according to an online survey by dictionary publisher Merriam-Webster.

"Truthiness'' was credited to Comedy Central satirist Stephen Colbert, who defined it as "truth that comes from the gut, not books.''

"We're at a point where what constitutes truth is a question on a lot of people's minds, and truth has become up for grabs,'' said Merriam-Webster president John Morse. "'Truthiness' is a playful way for us to think about a very important issue.''

Other Top 10 finishers included "war,'' "insurgent,'' "sectarian'' and "corruption.'' But "truthiness'' won by a 5-to-1 margin, Morse said.

Colbert, who once derided the folks at Springfield-based Merriam-Webster as the "word police'' and a bunch of "wordinistas,'' was pleased.

"Though I'm no fan of reference books and their fact-based agendas, I am a fan of anyone who chooses to honor me,'' he said in an e-mail to The Associated Press.

"And what an honor,'' he said. "Truthiness now joins the lexicographical pantheon with words like 'quash,' 'merry,' 'crumpet,' 'the,' 'xylophone,' 'circuitous,' 'others' and others.''

Colbert first uttered "truthiness'' during an October 2005 broadcast of "The Colbert Report,'' his parody of combative, conservative talk shows.
Truthiness might be seen by some as a "playful" attack on irrational thinking, but it points to a deeper issue in this country that needs to be addressed. Colbert repeatedly finds humorous ways to expose the hypocrisy of fundamentalist thinking.

The question that comes to mind is this: since they are tackling the same issue, who will be more effective in changing minds, Stephen Colbert or Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins?

Which is the more effective tool, satire or ridicule? They are not the same thing. Colbert's brand of satire can get even the targets of his humor laughing along with him (if we exclude the White House Roast from earlier this year, where he was not well-received by the President and his people).

In the tradition of the court jester, Colbert speaks truth to power. But he does so with the message encased in laughter. Laughter can make the bitter pill a little more acceptable, and as such, there is a greater chance the message will get through.


7 comments:

Unknown said...

Bill,

I think that you reveal the touchy problem that whether it is satire or ridicule is in the cochlea of the behearer.

Currently, folks are protecting the archly deranged Mr. Wilber from any criticisms, nailing closed the cold darkness at the center of his twisted world.

Even the reviled Ms. Coulter has something of great value to say in her most reviled utterance, which was "These broads are millionaires, lionized on TV and in articles about them, reveling in their status as celebrities and stalked by griefparrazies. I have never seen people enjoying their husband's death so much." It is not Politically Correct to make the obvious point that the families of those killed on 9/11 were 'bought off,' paid an average of three million dollars, precisely to do what Coulter is suggesting: that they shut up. [The 'trade' for accepting the govt's money what that they not pursue a lawsuit against the airlines that would reveal the failures by the govt & airlines to respond to the threat to Americans' safety.]

Satire or ridicule? It is wholly dependent on whose ox is getting gored.

william harryman said...

Hey Tom,

You raise a good point. My question would be whether or not Coulter considers herself a satirist in the way that Colbert does?

It seems to me that she is taking the same approach as Dawkins -- she uses ridicule as her tool, not humor. While I agree with you and others that it's possible to see her as a satirist, I don't think that is her intent. Maybe the difference is simply that, intent.

The situation with KW is more complex. He is in no way a satirist, and he generally (Earpy posts aside) does not use ridicule as a tool. The Earpy episode was unfortunate in many ways, but as an attempt at satire it was a miserable failure. The effort to keep I-I insulated from criticism is a much more troublesome situation that, to me, is unrelated to this topic.

However, back to your point -- I suspect that many on the right think of Coulter as a satirist -- but many more do not and take her very seriously. I don't think the same can be said of Colbert. Even the most rabid liberals generally recognize that he is working with exaggerations and stereotypes.

Peace,
Bill

Unknown said...

Quickly, with respect to Wilber, what I mean to be saying is that Ken's praetorian guard [Stu, Hokai, C4, others] rebuff anything negative said about Wilb -- much to the detrement of the enterprize, imho, allowing Wilb's meglomania to thrive and the cult to become more cultish. Thus the first sentence in your post -- "The best satire pokes holes in our conceptions of who we are [revealing] the darkness beneath beliefs that are too easy or too simple." -- is valuable directed AT Wilber. I do wonder if AQAL or the rainbow of colors allow for that; they should.

As for Coulter, I think that anyone who reads her stuff would know she is a satirist of the flamming sort. Her only interest is outrageous humor.

Both Colbear and Coulter can cause their fans to become entrenched in a political position and eschew facts for what one chooses to believe.

There is a difference in that Coulter is [intentionally] sloppy [and misleading] with facts, whereas Colbear is not. Colbear's fans are meant to understand the satire, 'rage' is secondary; Coulter's fans are meant to feel the basis of her [performed] rage; admiring the satire is secondary or not expected. But I do think that Coulter pretending she's serious is part of her act. [And, damn it, she's gonna keep it up; she's making a fortune!]

I think that both Colbear and Coulter fans know the comedy of each uses exaggeration and stereotyping.

I think Liberals tend to believe Conservatives are more clueless than they actually are. [Which is something that pisses off the conservative hoi polloi. They're not so much dumb and clueless as having worldviews along the lines of what Wilber has written in his books. They are just set in believing that liberals enable laziness and are a pack of wussies. They like anyone who can articulate their rage.]

~C4Chaos said...

Quickly, with respect to Wilber, what I mean to be saying is that Ken's praetorian guard [Stu, Hokai, C4, others] rebuff anything negative said about Wilb -- much to the detrement of the enterprize, imho, allowing Wilb's meglomania to thrive and the cult to become more cultish.

huh?! Tom, you are very keen in accusing people and projecting your own baggage. can you point to any post i've made where i "rebuffed anything said about Wilb"? if you're referring to posts i've made agreeing with Wilber's (not Wilber the personality) ideas, then that's not rebuffing. that's called opinion. i don't even engage in stupid lemon eating debates like you do. ah well, maybe just this once i will. "praetorian guard" is the term you use for people who don't agree with your skimpy beer-goggles.

anyway, to stay on topic, WH asked: "who will be more effective in changing minds, Stephen Colbert or Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins?"

i'd place my vote on Stephen Colbert. since he has the higher ratings and laughter is the best medicine.

my two cents.

~C

Unknown said...

You should be able to see the hypocracy in what you say, C4.

When you bitch and whine [as you do in your comment, here], you see that as OK, but when you perceive bitching and whining from others [see your comment in hokai's blog, here], that is derided as lemon eating.

Be careful, C4: You might spontaneously combust.

As for WH's question, I don't think that satirists are directly trying to win hearts and minds. [Tho some are.] Most are trying to be funny and expose some hidden truth. Some more so the first than the second; some more so the second than the first.

~C4Chaos said...

*yawn*

Unknown said...

C4,

You yawn in boredom, but you are fogetting YOU JUST BURNED YOUR ZAADZ T-SHIRT. HORRORS!!!