(no subject)

[labellementeuse]

An excerpt from someone excerpting Rawls:

The intuitive notion here is that this structure contains various social positions and that men [sic!] born into different positions have different expectations of life determined... by economic and social circumstances.

This is very funny to me because this excerpt is in the middle of a Very Serious Piece - philosophers can be really different in their style and Fabienne Peter in this article has made some rather formal stylistic choices - and then out of nowhere there's this tremendously sarcastic exclamation point. So subtle! So sassy! So hilarious! ♥ Oh Fabienne, I thought you were dull but you're so not. (I mean, the content of her article is not at all dull, unless, um, you find a reasonably theoretical analysis of direct and indirect Rawlsian approaches to health care, public health, and inequities dull, which just for the record, I do not. If someone gets me "Public Health, Ethics, and Equity" for Christmas I'll be very fond of them. Hint, Hint, rewihendrix.)

Comments

[semiramis.livejournal.com]

I've always thought [sic] looked a bit like a graphical hiccup. The exclamation point rather just makes that impression worse xD

[labellementeuse.livejournal.com]

haha, OK, I totally know what you mean, and in a way that's almost the feeling I have when I read a sic - I sort of take a breath and a pause to think about what's going on with the original author and the commentator. In this case, I think it's particularly funny because it's usually used to disclaim responsibility for grammar or statistical errors, but in this case it's a totally bitchy comment about Rawls' sexist language. I like it.

[semiramis.livejournal.com]

Hahaha, yeah--usually it's "[this is the writer's grammatical fail, not mine]" but here it's "[⇐ HE ACTUALLY SAID THAT!!!!]" which. Yes. xD

[labellementeuse.livejournal.com]

EXACTLY.