Downvoted. Mocking Karl does not contribute to any rational discussion.
He should be criticized but not mocked.
Tabby, I mentioned it before, I'll mention it again: Parody and satire are very important and effective forms of critique.
If you want to put it in terms of 'rational discussion', then they are forms of argumentum ad absurdum (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum
Sometimes this involves mocking, which is not a rational argument, but it is not serious in itself. There's nothing wrong with a little humour *in addition to* a rational argumentum ad absurdum underpinning the parody/satire.
Parody and satire have long traditions, going back thousands of years. They are sometimes *the only way* to criticize harmful ideologies, especially when those ideologies have great power. Please check out the WP article on it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satire
Especially the parts pertaining to its legal status and censorship. Here's part of that:
For its nature and social role, satire has enjoyed in many societies a special freedom license to mock prominent individuals and institutions. In Germany, and Italy satire is protected by the constitution.
Since satire belongs to the realm of art and artistic expression, it benefits from broader lawfulness limits than mere freedom of information of journalistic kind. In some countries a specific "right to satire" is recognized and its limits go beyond the "right to report" of journalism and even the "right to criticize." Satire benefits not only of the protection to freedom of speech, but also to that to culture, and that to scientific and artistic production.