3 ms·

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

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?