I haven't always been able to laugh at myself or find humor in what critics have had to say about my beliefs and ideas. But the older I get the more I appreciate humor as an important measure of a movement's maturity. A person or organization who can't take the heat of humor is insecure. I believe he or they secretly or no so secretly are worried that once one or two people start laughing, more will join, then more and more until the whole world is laughing. And rather than fight humor with humor or with boring facts, such insecure people and organizations fight the messenger. Even worse, they don't listen to the message with or without humor.
One sees this a lot at demonstrations where many of the signs are spot on ... and funny. But the target finds that offensive and reacts by attacking the sign holder.
The most recent example was comedian Stephen Colbert's testimony before congress in defense of migrant farm workers and in criticism of our contry's treatment of such workers. Because he used humor in his testimony he (and the congresional committee chair) have been criticized as "mocking congress" and "wasting taxpayers' time". Funny, but when buffoons masquarading as congressmen or -women give testimony they're just doing their job. Why didn't a single Republican on the committee ask Mr. Colbert what was so funny about migrant labor? Or if he really thought that a day in the fields made him as much an expert as sitting in the committee room for days on end did for them?