I just published a satirical article, entitled A modest proposal for restoration ecology, in a serious journal, namely, Restoration Ecology, and it has a serious argument. The intent was to use satire as a transparent tool to show the limitations of current methods, and to potentially launch more radical ideas that would be capable of more beneficial outcomes. However, I'm anticipating serious pushback and criticism for the proposal, which is transparently unreasonable.
There are a lot of problems with satire: it's frequently misunderstood, authorial intent looms inappropriately large, and perhaps it wouldn't be taken seriously. After the scandals around the Sokol paper, and the more recent expose in the humanities, when is satire appropriate/helpful and when is it not?
Thanks for any thoughts about the contextual or content factors that would lead to satire being more of less productive in a sincere discussion.