#Josspic pinture imagesize fake sex code
Doing so accepts your opponents’ premises, and just forces them to fine-tune the moral code you so dislike. The larger lesson may be this: if you’re serious about challenging a social norm that has institutional power, don’t waste your energy on satire. The school, exasperated at the international attention they’ve garnered, has simply approved a new dress code that would force Lemieux to wear slightly smaller fake boobs. Rather than forcing the school to confront the grotesque absurdity of letting a male wear prosthetic boobs to a teaching job, it’s simply prompted a debate on what size and shape the prosthetics should be. Academia is still publishing, apparently sincerely, autoethnographic studies about pedophilic masturbation.Īnd in much the same way, if Lemieux is attempting to force an absurd anti-discrimination law to breaking point, the attempt has failed.
It caused a huge stir, but neither academia’s perverse incentives nor the often ridiculous stances in ‘critical studies’ have noticeably changed as a result. Readers may recall the 2018 Sokal Squared hoax, in which James Lindsay, Peter Boghossian and Helen Pluckrose seeded peer-reviewed journals with absurd ‘critical studies’ papers they’d simply made up. Historically, satirists from ancient Greece and Rome onward have taken aim at those in power not with the aim of removing them, but of disciplining bad actors: that is, when confronted with satire, people develop a better sense of what ‘going too far’ looks like, and the culture corrects accordingly. More often, it has a parasitic (and, arguably, reinforcing) relation to its subject, in more precisely defining its boundaries. For regardless of intentions, the actual function of satire is rarely to dismantle what it mocks. If this is so, though, does it change anything? Sadly, probably not.
0 kommentar(er)
