Satire, the double edged sword

    It’s common to see bad takes accustomed with a hastily written “it’s just satire bro!” below. Satire has become a shield for offensive opinions to hide behind as if simply stating that it’s satire will make the opinion any less offensive. Satire is defined as “the use of humor to expose and criticize people’s stupidity or vices” on Google, but personally, I feel that they left out a key component of satire. Satire is meant to spark a change, to make people scratch their heads and reflect on themselves in the context of society. And usually, offensive content is the best way to convey this point as long as it actually haves a point. If satire is simply stating offensive things without criticizing a problematic way of thinking, it’s not satire; it’s just a bad opinion. And this type of bad satire often resonates with racists and bigots who embrace the intended satire as the truth. It’s not difficult to identify satire; authors usually go for over rather than under exaggeration to make sure that the audience gets the point. So when someone needs to blatantly state that something is satire, it strips any meaning away from the intended satire. Just like how explaining a joke ruins the joke, explaining the meaning behind the satire gives less of an impact to the point that was trying to be made. There’s not really a solution to bad satire; the audience can’t be expected to pass offensive takes as satires just as authors can’t be expected to stop writing satire simply because their audience doesn’t get the joke. Used effectively, satire can pinpoint all of society’s vices in a heartbeat and bring about genuine change. But if used ineffectively, satire becomes a weapon of the enemy, of racists and bigots who refuse to listen to anything that isn’t validating their own opinions.