3 ms·

I've been thinking about sarcasm lately, as it relates to my own communication. What was the value of sarcasm in this post when you can say the same thing strai

I've been thinking about sarcasm lately, as it relates to my own communication. What was the value of sarcasm in this post when you can say the same thing straightforwardly?

logicallee 10y ago
The point is that it is easy to argue / disagree with: "If it is built on the back of of an authoritarian regime with a human rights violations list several volumes long, it is a bit harder to appreciate the progress." By taking the sarcastic route, you force everyone who thinks that way to agree with you. For example, some people like to push the better part of an operating system over the browser to anyone who views their page, under the guise of client-side javascript frameworks. By pointing this out with sarcasm, you would force them to "agree" with you, while making them realize it is absurd. I think the parent's post wouldn't have been as powerful if they had simply straightforwardly written what they had in mind - sarcasm can get readers to see the absurdity of lauding something. Sometimes adding a /s is advisable but not in this case, as the sarcastic part includes blatantly negative language ("authoritarian regime with a human rights violations list") and so is quite clear.
- o_____________o 10y ago
  Thanks for the thoughtful reply! That's my problem with how deeply pervasive sarcasm is – it employs emotionality and absurdity cheaply, snidely, and often in place of a well reasoned argument. What does this lose? "I am troubled that the company is funded by an authoritarian regime with many human rights violations. These are modern times and we should be more judicious about who we're supporting." The original post said nothing controversial in this audience. It was a lazy and juvenile kind of false cleverness. Irony is ubiquitous now, and employing it to wield dissonance is, to me at least, as cheap as trying to appear powerful by using hate and rage.
  - logicallee 10y ago
    Your proposed version loses a TON. Go back upthread and you will realize that someone had written this "That's likely why they're looking at Saudi Arabia to make the first production track, since the Royal Family can basically do whatever they want." Without any moral component or disagreement. Whereas the version you just suggested sounds like a nuanced objection - the sarcastic version shows that this reasoning is absolutely abhorrent. And the sarcastic version is right. I mean imagine if some kind of gene biotech company, decided to do its first human tests in North Korea, "because the government there can do whatever it wants". This example shows just how wrong the original reasoning is, how outrageous it is. The version you quoted: "I am troubled that the company is funded by an authoritarian regime with many human rights violations. These are modern times and we should be more judicious about who we're supporting" simply doesn't have the outraged effect. For my example I alluded to (but didn't quote) - if I had said, "I am troubled that browsers are frequently downloading a megabyte or more simply to serve what amounts to a static page" this "troubled" does not really relate the level of objection someone might feel. So I personally do not subscribe to your analysis.
    - o_____________o 10y ago
      Gotcha, but I think that was my poor choice of soft language rather than losing the sarcasm. How about this: "This company is funded by an authoritarian regime that tortures and murders people on a regular basis. Remember that when you're staring into the banality of their app." Don't you think irony ends up sabotaging some of the gravity? What do you think about "New Sincerity"? http://www.salon.com/2014/04/13/david_foster_wallace_was_right_irony_is_ruining_our_culture/ http://www.salon.com/2014/04/13/david_foster_wallace_was_rig... I enjoy our exchange, thanks again
      - logicallee 10y ago
        Your new proposed version is great. The problem is that it requires deep thinking and research. People can't be expected to produce that on the spot. Take something like that President Trump disallowed the BBC and CNN from his press conferences. If I wanted to mention that as a rebuttal to someone bringing up something about trump, I really have no other recourse than pointing this out, with sarcasm. So I don't know, imagine someone says trump is committed to fair coverage and the facts, and the snide response is "yep, this is why he banned from his conferences the organizations, like the BBC, that never wanted to be there in the first place, since they were obviously perfectly happy to make up any old quote without even trying to send any correspondents." I don't have any other point to make in this hypothetical example - isn't the sarcasm enough? How would you write it, for this hypothetical example?

I've been thinking about sarcasm lately, as it relates to my own communication. What was the value of sarcasm in this post when you can say the same thing straightforwardly?

logicallee 10y ago

The point is that it is easy to argue / disagree with: "If it is built on the back of of an authoritarian regime with a human rights violations list several volumes long, it is a bit harder to appreciate the progress." By taking the sarcastic route, you force everyone who thinks that way to agree with you. For example, some people like to push the better part of an operating system over the browser to anyone who views their page, under the guise of client-side javascript frameworks. By pointing this out with sarcasm, you would force them to "agree" with you, while making them realize it is absurd. I think the parent's post wouldn't have been as powerful if they had simply straightforwardly written what they had in mind - sarcasm can get readers to see the absurdity of lauding something. Sometimes adding a /s is advisable but not in this case, as the sarcastic part includes blatantly negative language ("authoritarian regime with a human rights violations list") and so is quite clear.

o_____________o 10y ago
Thanks for the thoughtful reply! That's my problem with how deeply pervasive sarcasm is – it employs emotionality and absurdity cheaply, snidely, and often in place of a well reasoned argument. What does this lose? "I am troubled that the company is funded by an authoritarian regime with many human rights violations. These are modern times and we should be more judicious about who we're supporting." The original post said nothing controversial in this audience. It was a lazy and juvenile kind of false cleverness. Irony is ubiquitous now, and employing it to wield dissonance is, to me at least, as cheap as trying to appear powerful by using hate and rage.
- logicallee 10y ago
  Your proposed version loses a TON. Go back upthread and you will realize that someone had written this "That's likely why they're looking at Saudi Arabia to make the first production track, since the Royal Family can basically do whatever they want." Without any moral component or disagreement. Whereas the version you just suggested sounds like a nuanced objection - the sarcastic version shows that this reasoning is absolutely abhorrent. And the sarcastic version is right. I mean imagine if some kind of gene biotech company, decided to do its first human tests in North Korea, "because the government there can do whatever it wants". This example shows just how wrong the original reasoning is, how outrageous it is. The version you quoted: "I am troubled that the company is funded by an authoritarian regime with many human rights violations. These are modern times and we should be more judicious about who we're supporting" simply doesn't have the outraged effect. For my example I alluded to (but didn't quote) - if I had said, "I am troubled that browsers are frequently downloading a megabyte or more simply to serve what amounts to a static page" this "troubled" does not really relate the level of objection someone might feel. So I personally do not subscribe to your analysis.
  - o_____________o 10y ago
    Gotcha, but I think that was my poor choice of soft language rather than losing the sarcasm. How about this: "This company is funded by an authoritarian regime that tortures and murders people on a regular basis. Remember that when you're staring into the banality of their app." Don't you think irony ends up sabotaging some of the gravity? What do you think about "New Sincerity"? http://www.salon.com/2014/04/13/david_foster_wallace_was_right_irony_is_ruining_our_culture/ http://www.salon.com/2014/04/13/david_foster_wallace_was_rig... I enjoy our exchange, thanks again
    - logicallee 10y ago
      Your new proposed version is great. The problem is that it requires deep thinking and research. People can't be expected to produce that on the spot. Take something like that President Trump disallowed the BBC and CNN from his press conferences. If I wanted to mention that as a rebuttal to someone bringing up something about trump, I really have no other recourse than pointing this out, with sarcasm. So I don't know, imagine someone says trump is committed to fair coverage and the facts, and the snide response is "yep, this is why he banned from his conferences the organizations, like the BBC, that never wanted to be there in the first place, since they were obviously perfectly happy to make up any old quote without even trying to send any correspondents." I don't have any other point to make in this hypothetical example - isn't the sarcasm enough? How would you write it, for this hypothetical example?