RevCBL wrote:
Hey, neat.
I'm sure you've heard all the criticisms we're likely to provide, and maybe Guder has a point that we all learned something from it. For my part, the issue isn't so much the satire itself, but the response to it. For all our claims of skepticism, we're way too quick to believe something, as long as it fits with our own view of the world. Just because I don't agree with the unstated premise of the article doesn't mean you shouldn't have written it, but now that it's out, I'm sure there are plenty of folks who will never go back to find out it's not true, so in your small way you've contributed to the problem of misinformation on the internets. You can't put the genie back in the bottle, but you could, now that the point's been made, make a more prominent link to your second post about satire.
I considered doing just that, and even suggested it in various comments. The general response from those who understood and appreciated the satire was that I shouldn't try to make it more clear that it's satire. Of course, some were opposed merely to the idea that I made it "look" like a news article. I really thought I had thrown in enough hints, but I do agree that, at this point late in the game, it couldn't hurt to link very prominently to my article about satire. I will be doing so shortly, and thanks for the suggestion.
Having said that, here's my criticism: If I'm understanding your purpose correctly, I think you failed.
What I tried to do was bring attention to the double standards imposed by the religious upon society. But more importantly, I tried to show how even the non-religious or the moderately religious perpetuate those double standards irrationally.
I said it above, but there's no indication that the (real) concern over the (real) statue is religious in nature, so while there may be a double standard, this ain't it (digression: "double standard," to me, implies that religious people have one standard for themselves and a different standard for everyone else, but what you seem to be talking about is the problem of religious people holding everyone to their standard). If your second sentence is implying that even though it's not mentioned in the article, religion is behind the protest of the statue, I don't think that's clear. There's a difference between protesting an idea and protesting a big abstract dick in your kid's face. They may both be silly, but there's a difference.
You're absolutely right that I injected religion into the satire where it was not overtly evident in the original. I did this based partially on what Guder suggested above, that it' be naive to think that the persons in the original article did not base their standards on their interpretation of religious morality, and partially to give more of a distinct and quickly acceptable reason for readers to think that someone would publicly object to a DNA sculpture.
I do, however, disagree in principle with the idea that there is something fundamentally distinct between DNA and nudity. I am arguing that there isn't anything different other than what our religious and culturally established fears tells us is different. Nudity IS DNA. We are just taught to find it lewd, especially in public. I'm challenging the non-believers and skeptics who perpetuate that idea that there's something wrong with public nudity, and I'm posing the challenge in the form of seeing whether they disagree with those who oppose DNA on display. If they disagree with the opposition to DNA, what is the logical, rational reason to agree with the opposition to nudity on display? (What I'm saying here is perhaps subtle, but it's that there are plenty of so-called skeptics and rationals that perpetuate the taboos that were set in place by puritans and others -- for what reason?).
The target you have hit, though, is the anti-religious skeptics, who are willing to believe without question that people will be offended by a statue of DNA.
Ding!
Swift wrote A Modest Proposal after trying to propose earnest solutions to poverty in Ireland and getting no response to them, so he took the inhumane treatment and neglect and carried them to an obviously immoral conclusion. All you've done here is get a bunch of people to agree that cannibalism is bad.
Unfortunately, that's all you see. Not everyone saw it that way. It could be that I didn't execute it well enough, but I think I used a good parallel (despite what DerGolgo suggests above), since I am using in my satire the essence of human substance, and comparing it to human substance in the flesh, asking what, really, is the difference, and why we're so utterly and irrationally opposed to the display of the latter.
Anyways, crusty, what do you ride?
I currently ride a Yamaha V-Star 650 Classic. It's my 5th bike.
And thanks for your comments!
)
