re: #3 Prof. Backpfeifengesicht, PhD

I have a couple of questions then: CH clearly didn’t feel the need to concern themselves with others’ context, knowing full well that what they were doing would offend—often in the most vulgar, demeaning way possible—so why is it important that we should bother to understand theirs?

If religions can be judged based on a literal reading of verses from their holy books sans the context/exegesis provided by scholars of said faiths, then why does CH get a pass when it comes to literal interpretation?

To be honest, their “satire” didn’t strike me as the least bit clever or funny. To me it was more like the sort of rude “humor” encountered in high school (e.g. vulgar limericks or drawings on bathroom walls, etc.) It also reminded me of the kids who fancy themselves rebels & iconoclasts when all they really are—at least to most people—is obnoxious & ill mannered little snots.

I guess what I’m saying is that as far as I’m concerned CH’s form of expression was lacking social value because while free speech is important, so is the social contract requiring civility. Maybe that’s just me & my puritanical American outlook, but… *shrugs*