The Onion defends right to parody in Supreme Court brief

Quote from Fox News.

Meanwhile Trump has been telling people he was a far left activist who intentionally mowed someone down in cold blood and the mainstream media refuses to cover the story (possibly because Trump made up most of the details).

There's some weird stuff about the the crazy guy saying the kid was in an extremist Republican outfit, but as far as I can tell that's just the ravings of a drunk with mental health issues who just run someone over while DUI.

Do you honestly believe this or are you just trying as hard as humanly possible to make a pedantic point for the sake of argument?

Some people also find cruelty funny. That wouldn't make cruelty funny.

Yes, when talking about people who are Christian nationalists trying to install a theocracy, you may have the words "fascist" and "Christian" in the same article. But it's not in the same ballpark, or even the same sport, as saying you're being called a fascist for saying "Merry Christmas".

If anything, it's motte and bailey disguised as a joke. They're trying to get people to see anyone associating anything even Christian adjacent to fascism as unreasonable people.

But. You can be Christian and not be a fascist. You can go do Christian things, worship Christian gods, attend Christian churches, have Christian holidays. No one is going to say anything about it. The minute you try to force me to accept your Christian things, worship your gods, attend your Churches, and celebrate your holidays over all others, is the minute we start having problems. The minute we begin saying that you are a fascist in addition to being a Christian. Because no one is saying Christianity is fascism. But that's what that "joke" does. It's basically staking the claim that people complaining about Christian fascists are saying that all Christians are fascists. Or at the very least, saying that's a leap you can make. And it's not.

How about limiting the proof of what you think "liberals" think to stuff that blue checkmarked Twitter accounts who aren't professional comedians say in earnest. Otherwise we might as well use stuff scrawled on a bathroom stall wall in poop for our sources.

What people don't get is if you want to start censoring "dangerous speech" then you'd better have a perfect definition of what dangerous speech is. But there isn't one.

So what ends up happening is you ban speech with good reason, set a precedent, then your political opponent takes power and starts banning speech as well.

Kind of like how schools don't actually give students detention for missing class during shootings, but the onion said it total happens because of...

It's the same thing. The Onion does it much better, but it's still satire.

I wouldn't fault someone for enjoying the Onion but not being a fan of the Babylon Bee though. In addition to having worse writers the Bee is also limited to pandering to the worldview of their target audience which doesn't always have a solid basis in reality. It's easy for their jokes to fall completely flat when they're a scathing critique of something imaginary, but if you were a believer in the fantasy you'd probably feel the Bee was much more entertaining.

That said, the Bee does manage to land some solid hits at times and I suspect the cognitive dissonance that can cause may make some people uncomfortable which could also sour their enjoyment a bit.