Think twice before mocking
I don’t entirely agree with Julian here. (Maybe all the commenters have said what I’m going to say; I don’t read comments at Comment is Free any more and haven’t read these. If they’ve already said this just go watch Sarah Palin re-runs or something.)
The piece is about religion and mockery and free speech and the predictability of what people say about them.
But isn’t mockery good, and any belief system incapable of putting up with it deficient in some way? That’s true, but you can’t just ignore the background against which lampooning takes place. Christians, for example, are not oppressed, despite what some wannabe martyrs would have us believe. British Muslims, in contrast, are a somewhat beleaguered minority. We should think twice before mocking them because, while comedy speaking truth to power is funny, the powerful laughing at the weak is not.
Of course, but that is to conflate two issues: mockery of Christians and Muslims, and mockery of Christianity and Islam. I don’t think I’ve spent much time and energy, if any, saying we shouldn’t be told not to mock Muslims. I have spent a lot of time and energy saying we shouldn’t be told not to mock Islam, or any other religion or any other set of ideas. I think there’s a big difference. I don’t much want to mock beleaguered minorities, but I also don’t want to extend that to holding the beliefs or the ideas of beleaguered minorities sacrosanct. That’s especially true given the fact that within any beleaguered minority there are of course people with more power and people with less power, and the people with more power may well use beliefs and ideas to justify their own power. That is in many ways true of people in the beleaguered minority known as Muslims.
There can of course be cases in which mockery of a religion or set of ideas is a way to mock the people who hold them. But even so, I think it’s important to make the distinction, and to keep it in mind.
A very complicated question. I understand Julian’s point of view and I also understand your affirmation that within the Islamic world (which may not even be a world, except as seen from a distance) there are powerful people, generally males, and powerless people, generally female and gays. I also understand your distinction between mocking Islam and mocking Muslims, although I’m not sure that most Muslims understand that distinction. Perhaps more empirical data, more sociological research, on Muslims, would help settle this question. Perhaps, until one is sure that mocking Islam produces a liberating effect on those Muslims who are oppressed by their culture (if one can even speak of an Islamic culture), it would be prudent to think twice before mocking.
I agree with you in theory, OB, but I have come to realise that people identify with their ideas. As Richard Dawkins put it, “tread softly because you tread on my memes”. At times I have put friends offside for merely politely disagreeing with some of their ideas. They felt as though I was calling them stupid . . . unfortunately, and often at great detriment, people find it hard to separate themselves from their ideas. People are more often likely to be proud and stubborn than curious and open to inquiry. I suppose in a minority group, especially one that is, or perceives itself to be, under attack, people will grip even harder to their identity which is formed in part by the shared ideas of the group.
I think mockery is brilliant. Wish I could do it, but I am more useful as a mockeree than a mockerer.
btw, I think mockery is more a ‘status challenge’ than an intellectual debate. The mocker attempts to put the mockery on someone to display his superior status in terms of the inferiority of the other. If the mockery fails, it isn’t necessarily about the content of it; more whether the challenger has sufficient social cred that the observers laugh at his jokes, and the victim little enough that the observers do not restrain their laughter.
Exellent piece G.athough I am not sure you can say that because someone has idiotic ideas they are an idiot, I have met several realy smart people who apear to have inherited ideas (on religion and politics mostly)from their parents and dont question them in the same way that they would question anything else. I dont know why this happens but I dont think it is because they are stupid?
amos & Rose, I think you’re misguided & Ophelia is entirely right here. This is not specifically complex & specifically tread-carefully-ish. Yes – persons care for their ideas, but only if you attack all of their ideas at once, you make it personal. To take one of their ideas, & mock that is entirely another matter. I sincerely believe that if they take the idea seriously, they should be happy if it is mocked – any other attitude to it is to reduce the idea to dogma in which case it is not defining them anymore as a person (except insofar it indicates a certain geographical & historical place as context).
What Ophelia doesn’t state is that it’s also necessary to distinguish between a mocking attitude & a pestering attitude (the latter is always personal). Many a counter-example to Ophelia’s point is a case of pestering – pestering should be always out, although it is difficult to legislate the distinction.
I think Ophelia, you may be in danger of doing a Christian on us. Christians very often say that they love the sinner by hate the sin. That sounds duplicitious to me. You think we can mock the religion and yet treat religionsts with respect. I’m not sure that’s possible.
If what you’re saying is that we should not treat minority groups with contempt and mockery, this is no doubt right. But you can’t criticise the religion of that minority, or mock it, without members of the minoirity taking offence. And usually, criticism of minorities is criticism of the leadership of minority groups, who are most articulate, and have easier access to public media.
I think Baginni is wrong too, but criticism of minority views is going to be found offensive by some – they will even take it personal mockery, as they should – and that’s okay. I guess my question is: when does mockery spill over into something less defensible, and has Baginni made enough distinctions here?
Muslims, we’re told are a beleaguered minority in Britain. Isn’t there a good reason for that, consider the kinds of things that they’ve been up to. Why shouldn’t they be beleaguered? So that they can grow into a majority that no one will dare beleaguer?
JoB – your point overlooks the fact that for some people, and the ardently religious are notable amongst them, dogma is a good thing. Likewise, pestering is in the eye of the beholder.
One might also note that the ascent of particularly assertive forms of Islam is in reaction to a perception of being a beleaguered minority, yes, but a minority that is right, and righteous, and which deserves to triumph; and which, when it does, will put its foes beneath the yoke. In that sense, it’s just commom-or-garden Will to Power.
“Persons care for their ideas, but only if you attack all of their ideas at once, you make it personal.”
Sorry, but I disagree with that. Sometimes it really doesn’t matter how you say what you’re saying, just the fact you’re saying it is seen as offensive. It’s almost as though for many people there is a perception that argument or disagreement is a negative and anti-social thing to do, even if you agreed with much, or even most, of what else they hold to be true. I suppose we all have to pick our battles, and sometimes we need to judge the wider social context and decide whether a battle would be appropriate.
In regards to mockery, I don’t think it often helps win anyone over to your argument, but people who already agree with you may find it amusing. I suppose it comes down to a utilitarian analysis of what one might be trying to achieve by mocking. I also don’t see why religions should be exempt from being mocked in principle, when everyone else, especially politicians and celebrities, are fair game.
“You think we can mock the religion and yet treat religionsts with respect.”
No, not exactly. I didn’t say that and I wouldn’t say it; I’ve become intensely leery of the very word ‘respect.’ I was careful about what I said, and it was a pretty limited claim – I said ‘I don’t think I’ve spent much time and energy, if any, saying we shouldn’t be told not to mock Muslims’ and ‘I don’t much want to mock beleaguered minorities.’ That’s all I said. That’s partly because it depends – it depends on what is meant by ‘mockery’ and it depends on what beleaguered minorities we’re talking about. Take the FLDS for instance – I don’t feel much need to refrain from mocking them.
Dave,
It might be that for some dogma is the good thing. Be that as it may dogma is not a good thing. Criticizing dogma is therefore never personal. The reaction to criticizing dogmas might be to take it personally but that’s then an error of the receiving end entirely.
Pestering isn’t also in the eye of the beholder. It is not subjective just by the fact that it leads to emotions and tears (on top of that nothing with any meaning is purely in the eye of the .. but that’s more philosophical a point). If you have kids you would know that it is quite clear where mocking stops and pestering begins. As I said, it’s very difficult to legislate on it (which is why one should refrain from doing so), but it still is quite clear in specific circumstances if it’s a pestering-case, a.o. because it’s not funny.
Rose, I’m prepared to be sympathetic to anybody’s point of view but we need not be so sympathetic as to condone idiocy. If somebody has such long toes – he/she should not be surprised if he or she is mocked on his or her bigotry.
I do not know the statistics of success of mockery in argument. I do know there are cases in which it works. More isn’t needed to defend mockery. Certainly, we do not need to rely on utilitarianism – it’s good fun so if it helps that is an optional plus.
(this being said, I think mockery is of essential importance to critical debate of any sort)
The background of the formation of the MCB, pointed out by Allen, is disturbing. It’s worth pointing out that it was parallel bodies in Canada that attempted to have Mark Steyn’s book America Alone banned by Human Rights Commissions because of its offensive content. They did not succeed, and the fact that they tried indicates, it seems to me, that Muslims need to be heavily criticised for their activities, if not mocked. Mockery, in fact, might go a long way towards putting things into perspective. This is not a matter of minorities as such, at all, beleaguered or not. It has much more to do with the real dangers that our understanding of minorities poses for rights and freedoms.
I’m sorry, Ophelia, for misreading you. I actually didn’t, and my point was meant to be a bit of a joke. But there is a problem about mockery and offence. As I said, Christians talk about loving the sinner and hating the sin, but the love looks a lot like hate when you see it in action. All you have to do to mock some people is to repeat that you think their beliefs untrue or dangerous or repressive, or some combination of these criticisms, and the offence will look a lot like mockery (or hate).
Besides, referring to Baginni’s piece, what is ‘comedy speaking truth to power’? What kind of power? Where? The sad truth seems to be that cultural minorities, in present day circumstances, wield incredible power. Just because they feel beleaguered, very often, gives them great power. Power is dangerous, and corrupts. I fear it has corrupted many minorities. Look at Harper Collins and the didgeridoo. That’s a corruption of power used by a beleaguered minority. These are deep and dangerous waters.
Allen, for italics, put [i]word[/i], only use the pointed brackets used for html codes.
I’ve been unsuccessful coming up with an example of mocking a religion which is not also — inevitably — mocking those who believe in it. Not, perhaps, some relatively minor or quirky religious belief or practice or article of dogma, but a basic tenet of the religion. (And not, of course, mocking the believers across-the-board; merely because someone holds one mock-able belief does not itself mean that they are entirely mock-able, or stupid.) Can you really mock a belief in a sky fairy without also mocking a person who holds that belief (limited, if you like, to the holding of that belief and nothing else)?
Sorry about missing the joke, Eric!
“I’ve been unsuccessful coming up with an example of mocking a religion which is not also — inevitably — mocking those who believe in it.”
What do you mean unsuccessful? What do you mean example? What do you mean inevitably?
The two are not logically identical, after all. So what is the claim here?
I think it’s mostly that people whose beliefs are disputed or mocked will choose to take that as disagreement with or mockery of themselves. But it’s not actually impossible to consider beliefs and ideas impersonally.
Sure, in some sense it’s impossible to point out so much as a typo without potentially making someone feel foolish. But then…what? No mistake should ever be corrected?
Unsuccessful: I have tried to think of something but have not come up with anything that fits. Of course, this could be a failure of my imagination or creative powers.
Example: An instance of mocking a basic religious belief that does not also mock a believer in it.
Inevitably: This may have been too strong. Substitute “legitimately” or “understandably” if you like. The idea is that when believers feel personally mocked by a mocking of their religious beliefs, it’s a normal, fair reaction.
I’m not concerned with people who take offense at any little thing. I’m wondering whether the distinction between mocking beliefs and mocking believers is real. It may be “not impossible” to make that distinction. But is it a distinction that one actually sees, or should expect to see?
Yeh understandably is much better (in my view).
I would say for one thing that the separation is much harder to make in real life face to face conversation than it is in public discourse, and also that we have to insist on the right and indeed duty to engage in the latter. It’s understandable to feel shamed or hurt if people roughly contradict a foolish belief in person; it’s much much less understandable to react that way to a book or article.
If someone is upholding sexist or homophobic or other views that I find repugnant, I reserve the right to argue back and, depending on mood, mock. Whether s/he is part of some other minority or not is irrelevant. As Amos says, Muslim men (and for that matter, men in a number of other religions, including some Jewish and Christian denominations) are oppressing women and gay people of both sexes. I find that offensive.
Hi Ophelia,
I believe that there are no thoughts without a thinker. Or beliefs without a believer. One can mock beliefs and ideas as one can also mock trees, but they (the beliefs and thoughts and trees) can not hear you and will not take offense and will not change. The actual target of mockery are those people who hold the beliefs, not the beliefs themselves. Obviously, when mocking ideas (for example “mocking Islam”) one is actually mocking persons for holding those beliefs. They are the real target. Any attempt to distinguish between mocking ideas and mocking people who hold those ideas is just, at best, a neat and disingenuous philosophical exercise. Mocking is a social activity: doing it alone in the privacy of one’s home with no one around gives less satisfaction than with an audience to hear.
People are often very wedded to their cherished beliefs (I’m not saying they should be. In most cases it would be probably better for all if they weren’t) and criticizing their beliefs, as others said earlier, will often and naturally be construed as implying that they are stupid, evil etc. Maybe they are and maybe they should listen to criticism, but let’s be up front about it: when one “mocks beliefs”, one is actually mocking people for holding those beliefs. I’m not saying that one can’t and shouldn’t distinguish between beliefs and believers, but rather that when “mocking beliefs”, one is mocking believers. That, it seems to me, is the whole point of mocking.
Fryslan,
You believe that? Ha! Ha! Ha! How ridiculous?
(Sorry, I’ve wanted to do that one since the beginning of the thread! ;-) )
But more seriously, I think they are two aspects in what JB said. One is the idea of Muslim as oppressed. Note there that he is not advocating a total stop of all criticism or mockery. More an awareness of the context in which it takes place. And it is true that often such actions are a (transparent) cover for racism.
Two is, as Fryslan said, I think, beliefs are often a real part of somebody. They are not simply a veneer on the surface that you can scratch and replace. OB would not be able to get rid of her commitment to gender equality, for instance, (or me of my deeply held belief that everybody would be better off being French) without a profound rewiring of her brain functions. Would she still be OB then?
Mocking is such a good tool because it goes deep and people who use it should stay aware of that.
Ophelia, you say:
“It’s understandable to feel shamed or hurt if people roughly contradict a foolish belief in person; it’s much much less understandable to react that way to a book or article.”
Ah….., but, you see, this whole thing is almost all about books and articles and the offence that people have taken. I’m sure there are lots of folk who have said nasty things to Muslims on the street – like some of the women who have been jeered for being all bagged up – but there is scarcely anyone who dares to print a cartoon, or tell a joke about Mohammed. It’s all about books and articles! And that is taken as mockery. Question anything about Mohammed or his wives in print and you’ll find your comeuppance.
Fryslan, I think your analysis goes a bit far: Beliefs don’t just reside in the minds of believers. After all, the concept ‘God’ is no less in my head for my not believing God exists: I know what the word “God” means, etc.
Thus, mockery of a belief or idea isn’t SOLELY about the people who hold the idea: It’s intended to shape attitudes about the idea itself. There could be many people who are neutral or indifferent to an idea, or who maybe sorta-kinda adhere to an idea or attitude, who can be turned against it by well-aimed mockery. For example, not everyone has a settled opinion on creationism, but most people (rightly) think astrology is complete bunk. So mocking the creationists’ “teach the controversy” strategy by comparing it to the “controversy” between astronomy vs. astrology or round earth vs. flat earth can be quite persuasive. (There’s a great Tony Auth editorial cartoon from a few years back that mocked the “teach the controversy” strategy particularly well, but sadly I can’t find a link to it outside the pay-subscription only archive at gocomics.com.)
Yes, mocking an idea as foolish does still paint people who hold the idea as foolish, but that’s not always (or even usually) the primary point. Maybe I’ll add that to the criterion I discussed before above. If we treat mockery as criticism, we can ask two questions: Is the criticism legitimate? And is the intended audience of the mockery-as-criticism primarily those being criticized (in which case mockery is just an insult), or is the criticism aimed at a broader audience who might actually be swayed by criticism?
And Arnaud: If McClone & the Holy Roller win this election, I’ll agree with you that I’d be better off being French and emigrate. I hear Paris cafes are very congenial environments for philosophers…
Arnaud,
I’m Frisian (who would have guessed) and hold a similar belief as you regarding nationality. Friesland rocks ;-)
You say
“Mocking is such a good tool because it goes deep and people who use it should stay aware of that.”
Exactly. I would go even further and say that it cuts deep. It can really physically hurt.
Ophelia,
I have the impression that you are making some kind of category mistake.
You say “There can of course be cases in which mockery of a religion or set of ideas is a way to mock the people who hold them. But even so, I think it’s important to make the distinction, and to keep it in mind”.
In my opinion you can discuss and analyze beliefs, but you can’t mock beliefs. What would that even mean? Does one go around saying something like “Flat earth. You’re such a stupid idea” No, instead one mocks people for holding such beliefs. And, besides, the flat earth belief wasn’t always such a “stupid” belief. Beliefs only become “stupid” through new insights, new confounding evidence. Beliefs are just beliefs (we can say that something is an interesting belief or a dangerous belief or a stupid belief, but actually beliefs as such don’t have such properties). So, stupid beliefs don’t exist as such only people who continue to hold them in the face of overwhelming evidence against them.
One can distinguish between beliefs and people who hold those beliefs. One can take these beliefs seriously and dispassionately analyze and discuss them. But mocking beliefs is just plain impossible (a category mistake,IMHO). So it seems to me unwise to use a distinction such as “mocking Christianity” versus “mocking Christians” as a defense against acknowledging what one is actually doing.
G (my, what a short name),
I think I understand your point. There are also people who do not (yet) hold certain beliefs (such as belief in a flat earth) and so when it is pointed out how untenable such a belief is, they need not be upset or hurt.
However when one mocks (instead of analyzing and discussing) beliefs, one is using a rhetorical tactic to “shame” people from even taking the belief seriously. (“Anyone in their right mind wouldn’t believe such a stupid belief. You agree, right? No? Ha, ha, ha”)
Once again, one is not discussing or analyzing the belief, but one is using mockery of a belief as a tactic for attacking potential believers.
I’m not saying that mockery isn’t an effective tool. It’s just that I don’t agree with Ophelia that in the case of mockery you can have two non-overlapping Magisteria: “mocking beliefs” on the one side, and “mocking (potential) believers” on the other.
Hope I’m making sense here and I hope I’ve understood you correctly.
Fryslan, yes I get that you think one can’t mock beliefs, you said that before, but I didn’t reply; I’m not sure why you said it all over again. It’s just incorrect to say that one can’t mock beliefs or that that would entail addressing the beliefs as if the beliefs had minds. It’s not ‘you’re such a stupid idea,’ it’s ‘that’s such a stupid idea.’ No, it’s not a category mistake to mock beliefs. And what’s ‘the flat earth belief wasn’t always such a “stupid” belief’ got to do with anything?
Sorry, but repetition and insistence aren’t going to do it. I’m not going to agree that mocking beliefs is the same thing as mocking the believer just because you tell me it is, and then tell me again, and then tell me again.
Hi Ophelia,
I addressed you personally in only two posts. It seems a bit unfair to say ” just because you tell me it is, and then tell me again, and then tell me again.”
I posted twice to you because I was grappling towards a clearer statement of my point.
“It’s just incorrect to say that one can’t mock beliefs”
If you say so.
“..or that that would entail addressing the beliefs as if the beliefs had minds.”
Not what I said or implied.
From the tone of your post I gather that you’re not interested in continuing the discussion.
Hi Fryslan –
No, sorry, go ahead. I didn’t mean to be brusque – though there is a somewhat challenging note to some of what you said. The bit about ‘a defense against acknowledging what one is actually doing’ for instance – that’s an accusation of dishonesty, as well as of doing wrong while pretending not to. But never mind.
“If you say so.” Well I do say so. It just is normal idiomatic usage to talk of mocking or making fun of silly beliefs – though not usually teasing them, come to think of it. Maybe you’re confusing the two? I think it is accurate to say one can tease people but not beliefs, but that’s not accurate of mockery.
So when is mockery okay? I think it’s when the intellectual or sociopolitical value of the mockery outweighs its potential to affirm bigotry.
Here I was specifically referring to mockery of marginalized groups, not just any mockery.
And no, I don’t think you can get around this just by saying that some ideas deserve to be mocked no matter who holds them. Sure they do, but so what? The people laughing at the mockery aren’t necessarily thinking about the merits of said ideas at all. That’s the whole problem.
>Serious criticism in a book or an article would have a much lower threshold.< Why should there be any threshold for serious criticism?
Because what Jenavir said – Very often talking about “Islam” is code for “those icky savage brown people,” and there’s just no getting around this point. Therefore there’s a threshold, and fortunately for us, Jenavir knows where it is.
Jenavir, I think you are right only in a way. There is nothing conceptually difficult about separating a person from an idea. The difficulty is that people have a degree of identification with sets of ideas, and use the ideas to separate ‘us’ from ‘them’, the others. In that context, rubbishing the ‘status marker’ ideas cannot be separated from rubbishing the people who use those ideas to display their goodness.
Abortion, religion and guns are a great example issues for the US, whereas in the UK and Australia they are not so significant as moral status markers.
But your idea of ‘icky brown savage people’ being encoded in the word ‘islam’ when used by political opponents seems to me to be a strawman. If some head-chopping member of a terrorist organisation explicitly roots his (or her) murders in the core doctrines of Islam, why should we attribute racism to criticism of such? If people travel from Saudi Arabia or Egypt to Iraq so they can blow up Muslim women and children in their own streets, is that exempt from criticism for some reason?
Please also attribute for us the source of that phrase ‘icky brown savage people’. Was it first used by the people you attribute racism to, or by their political opponents, or composed by yourself, no doubt as mockery?
CP,
‘rubbishing the ‘status marker’ ideas cannot be separated from rubbishing the people who use those ideas to display their goodness.’
Great backpeddling there but: rubbish!
Michael Moore ridiculed gun laws, if I follow your lead he’s guilty of having mocked those undoubtedly many “average smalltown Americans” personally – quod non. In fact, that point of view self-destructs by its own ridiculousness.
JoB, I didn’t mean they are inseparable, I meant they are very difficult to separate in practice, for status marker ideas. If I rubbish the idea that life doesn’t have any meaning until a child is actually born, there are plenty of people who would use that as an indicator that I am on the evil side in the abortion debate; and if I mock the people who think two cells deserve the full protection of the prohibition against murder, different people will think the same.
Michael Moore is of course a mocker from way back, though his schtick at its best is not just mocking rednecks but mocking contradictions. IMHO the Americans I know who find the gun debate important were in some measure personally offended, not just disgusted at his disregard for truth or fair-mindedness.
Well, the difficulty then is theirs. To come into a discussion with such a list of non-discussables is to say: I do not want to discuss. Too bad for them: evil we are (Yoda speaking).
Your comment on Moore is telling: he is not a truth-teller or a fair-minder. He works to put issues on the agenda – his role is to start up debate – your words indicate that he needs to comply with a set of rules from others to do that.
While looking up the definition of mockery I across a letter concerning mockery, written by religious petitioners to U.S. Congress:
“Stop Government-funded Mockery of Religion – Christianity Mocked at Government-funded High School”
http://www.petitiononline.com/NM123987/petition.html –
“But mockery by definition is unserious criticism,”
No it’s not. The Life of Brian is mockery but is also serious criticism of the idiocies of and self-contradictions of religion. Mark Twain was a great mocker of religion and the self-delusion of slave owners – and seriously angry about those issues. Clever mockery can be extremely serious. Swift’s Modest Proposal is mockery and a savage attack on England’s policies towards Ireland.
The Onion is a mockery fest and makes serious points.
Satire mocks. It can also be intensely serious.
“Therefore there’s a threshold, and fortunately for us, Jenavir knows where it is.”
Is that like saying: God tells us things, and, luckily, Sarah Palin knows what it is?
ChrisPer: “in some measure personally offended, not just disgusted at his disregard for truth or fair-mindedness.”
JoB: “Well, the difficulty then is theirs. To come into a discussion with such a list of non-discussables is to say: I do not want to discuss.”
YES, AND… it therefore (weakly) illustrates that many people do not separate personal criticism from issue criticism.
Considering the personal abuse offered against people on the other side of these marker issues, I think the point is clear that on some issues, the personal is not separated from the issues for purposes of mockery.
And I believe OB nailed an important distinction: Keep the focus on the issue, it is different to attacking the people.
The problem is simple, and I’m unclear as to why you’re all shilly-shallying around it – many people who hold eminently-mockable ideas will not themselves allow their identity to be separated from those ideas. That’s what it means to call oneself, emphatically, ‘Muslim’, or ‘Christian’, or, indeed ‘atheist’. You call yourself it, you label yourself as it, you defend it, you take it on as a badge of honour, you wish to be seen as it. When it is mocked, you feel you are. And this is tough luck.
The only point at which one could make the mocking-beliefs-good, mocking-believers-bad distinction is if you mock believers for something not actually associated directly with the belief in question – like, say, depicting US Christians [or anyone else] as people of poor personal hygiene who have sex with their cousins… Assuming that such characterisations lack empirical validation, of course…
Saw a great mocking yesterday:
“And you can’t inflate an empty suit and blithely assume that the American people aren’t going to see that the clothes have no emperor.”
Luckily they didn’t have to inflate too much to create the impression of Palin.
Similar to the long-running Doonesbury joke, in which both Bushes are represented by empty sets of clothes.
I have thought that a good strategy for criticising beliefs is to avoid mockery and offence as much as possible and just focus on explaining why (you think that) an idea is wrong. Among other things, one of the things I hope to achieve is to be able to influence without getting murdered.
Another thing is that I would guess that mockery just gets people angry and emotional, so that they cannot properly consider the ideas you are trying to convey. Of course there may be some people who may take offence at mere disagreement, but the idea is to reach those people who may be open to criticism provided it is not couched in terms of mockery.