Humorists.

Swiss writer Alain de Botton once argued that the chief aim of humorists is not to merely entertain, but also to "convey impunity messages that might be dangerous or impossible to state directly," and since society allows humorists to say things that others might are afraid to say, he also sees humorists as vital existences that would point out the flaws in society.

First of all, what are humorists? Humorists are people who write or perform humorous material. Humor is meant to be funny (or very witty that it's funny), and to make people laugh. This definition tells us that the chief aim or the main purpose of the job of a humorist is to entertain, and most of the time, only to entertain. Whether to "convey impunity messages that might be dangerous or impossible to state directly," is just an option. It is fine if humorists do and it is also fine if they don't. Conveying impunity messages is the satirist's job.

A satirist may indeed convey his or her message in a humorous manner, but that is not his/her main goal. A satirist is there to point out flaws of a certain subject, most of the time in an "intelligent" way, instead of bluntly spitting outright insults and curses to the targeted subject. Satirists indirectly (or sometimes even slyly) strike their attack on their target. Some satirists transform their messages into metaphors, representing the targeted phenomenon and subject. Some satirists may convey their messages in a satirical way. Some satirists may exaggerate certain aspects of their messages, which may come with a humorous effect; for example, how Jonathan Swift suggest people to 'devour babies' in A Modest Proposal--his suggestion is so extreme that it is funny and we can't take his suggestion too seriously. However, all after all the main aim of satirists is their overall message, not the entertainment. They are to there to point out the flaws, but with or without humor, it is their choice. Just how we cannot say that humor is the chief aim of satirists, we cannot say that being satirical is the chief aim of humorists.

As for humorists, it is fine for them to ridicule or point out the ugly sides of society or any other subject.  would say that "poking fun" is a very appropriate phrase for what many humorists do. When many humorists criticize (thought "make fun of" would be more accurate) a certain thing, they present it in a funny manner, people laugh--but it is even more laughable when the flaw the humorist points out happens to be true (well, most of the time) and agreeable (or sympathetic). I am pretty sure that we all have times that we laugh so hard whilst repeating the phrase, "Oh boy, that is so true, that is so true!."  If what we were laughing at was unrealistic or not agreeable, would we have laughed so hard? Probably not, because very likely we will be busy disagreeing, or busy trying to understand what was the joke exactly about. Often when something is true and agreeable it smacks our mind, the impact is stronger than what we disagree or what we are unsure of.

Also, when humorists often make of certain things, unlike satirists, they do not necessarily urge for change. Isn't that what we all do sometimes? We see something ridiculous, we criticize it and laugh at it. The main goal of the humor is not to demand change. They use the flaws of society merely as a useful topic of another performance--and they use it very well and successfully, since many people agree upon it and thus are able to laugh even harder. To humorists, the more the laughter, the more they have done the job. To satirists, the more the awareness, the more they have done their job.
.