Two different posts have called out that specific part, and I don't get why. It fits just fine, in context. The overall tone of the article, I get criticizing, but that part seems entirely fine to me.
(the context is that the author's parents seem to have disliked the store, and ran a press that published a book that was sharply critical of Wal Mart, with the result that the author went many years without visiting one—this context is presented right before that entirely reasonable and appropriate use of "transgressive")
It's a continental philosophy thing. The moment I saw Paris Review in the title I knew there would be "transgressive", a few shots at capitalism, and inevitable dog-whistles to race and gender.
And sure enough, coulda won bingo with those assumptions.
Usually some sort of tie back to "the Real", in either the Lacan / Zizek sense, or the Baudrillard sense. Didn't get any of those, though; kinda disappointed.
> The moment I saw Paris Review in the title I knew there would be "transgressive", a few shots at capitalism, and inevitable dog-whistles to race and gender.
Lol. Boy Howdy, you nailed it and I love your Bingo card. In my weak defense, I hoped that, since it had been vetted by the good denizens of Hacker News, it would’ve been a bit better than average.
To be fair, even the most remote Carrefour in rural France would be considered an opulent food palace for the top 5% in the United States. Some forms of capitalism seem to produce more aesthetically pleasing results than others.
(the context is that the author's parents seem to have disliked the store, and ran a press that published a book that was sharply critical of Wal Mart, with the result that the author went many years without visiting one—this context is presented right before that entirely reasonable and appropriate use of "transgressive")