5 ms·
As expected, sarcasm always translates correctly into textual form.
by blktiger 9y ago
As expected, sarcasm always translates correctly into textual form.
- i_cant_speel 9y agoIt's weird that you say that, because I always felt sarcasm didn't translate well to text.
- jazoom 9y agoI think it was sarcasm
- mirimir 9y agoSarcasm is recursive.
- brlewis 9y agoYours is the first comment in this chain that I can say pretty confidently isn't sarcasm. So it kind of breaks the chain, making the sarcasm in this chain non-recursive. Which means maybe you were being sarcastic after all? Actually I don't even know if my own comment is sarcasm or not.
- mirimir 9y agoYour comment comes across as sincere. Mine was sincere, but an overstatement. I should have said that sarcasm tends to be recursive, until broken by sincerity. Anyway, here's my take on the chain: SomeHacker44 -- sincere CGamesPlay -- sincere blktiger -- sarcastic i_cant_speel -- mildly sarcastic jazoom -- sincere
- edward_rolf 9y agoYes because what we have always known about sarcasm and what this thread is a perfect example of is how you can define something as sarcastic/not sarcastic just by how it subjectively "comes across".
- mirimir 9y agoYes, you can guess. But assessment depends strongly on context. And Pow's Law still applies. People can write messages that seem sincere, and then later claim sarcasm. As in "I was only joking". Or people can write sincerely, but come across as sarcastic, or vice versa, and yet be ambiguous enough that readers can't tell. That's where the /s flag help. Done intentionally, such ambiguous messages can probe the reader's state of mind. Or set traps. But maybe you're just being sarcastic ;)
- cerved 9y agoIt's the base case