4 ms·

In my experience Americans are pretty blunt, and will not hesitate to point out flaws and make cynical jokes about them openly in the presence of their team.

wahern 6y ago
Cynical or sarcastic jokes are arguably the opposite of blunt. They're a way to acknowledge or broach a subject which the person, and most often the group, is uncomfortable or incapable of articulating more clearly. For example, because they're being forced to do the impossible, or because the character, cause, or resolution of an issue is poorly understood. People from cultures where sarcasm isn't common don't understand this nuance and seem to find this kind of dialogue abrasive and unconstructive. Perhaps the sentiment is that if you can't articulate it clearly, then the issue is non-existent, for better or worse, or you're just being lazy and unhelpful.
- cuddlybacon 6y ago
  I think cynical and sarcastic jokes are blunt, and are something that arises when the culture is open about discussing problems but people don't have the agency to solve them.
- austincheney 6y ago
  As I have discovered direction and attitude make a huge difference in the understanding and comfort of sarcasm to persons with no familiarity of the concept. If the target of the sarcasm is a third party the communication comes out clearly absurd but both the speaker and listener can understand and appreciate the absurdity together, which is less confusing. If the direction of the sarcasm is something about the listener it can come out as a clever rhetorical hostility that takes getting used to. If the sarcasm is approached with an uplifting tone and positive body language it is much more likely to be take as a joke even if the content of the communication doesn’t immediately parse as a joke and even though the content may be completely disparaging. What also helps, counter intuitively, is providing multiple sarcastic statements in quick succession. People listen to spoken words at set rate but the nonverbal parts of communication are instantly clear. This allows the listener the opportunity to consider the extended thought in a single context allowing for a richer sample of sarcastic communication to think over.
  - bigiain 6y ago
    Yes. Sarcasm + empathy for those around you dealing with the problem = powerful form of communication. Sarcasm + being an asshole = being an asshole. (Note: This is from my Australian background/culture/point-of-view, and I don't for a moment think it applies cross culturally - we are the culture where calling someone a cunt can be either a sign of deep profound friendship, or a reason to be punched in the face. When in the US, I need to be careful with that sort of instinctive interaction/language...)
- monksy 6y ago
  It must be said that there has been a counter-culture that has been militant in trying to get rid of this. They're enforcing speach codes via code of conducts. (I.e. look at some of the recent examples including Linus Torvald (and the number of people who piled on), donglegate guys, etc)
  - bigiain 6y ago
    To be fair, Linus has admitted to and shown himself capable of being an asshole, and the donglegate guys are people I would not want working with my sister. You can be cynical and sarcastic without being personally abusive or a sexist troglodyte. The "militant counter culture" you speak of definitely does exist. But codes of conduct didn't start appearing out of thin air, they exist because they need to exist. Anyone who doesn't recognise that is almost certainly coming from a place of oblivious privilege. (Hell, I admit to being obliviously privileged a lot of the time, and _I_ can see the very real need for codes of conduct to exist so that assholes and troglodytes can't continue saying "It's a joke, calm down", or "I'm just being blunt, you can't handle the truth" or all the other gaslighting bullshit they so often get away with...)
    - monksy 6y ago
      Your sister can't handle nsfw language? I don't think that should be endorsed in the work place. (That was at a conference function between 2 people). They exist because projects have been bullied into doing that. On top of that the conditions were pushed in. Do you really need to have a thing to say "don't deadname"? Expectations of conduct have, and continued to, existe(d) before that and they were enforced. The only thing this does is to try to give people who don't like how a group is run room to bully the people running it.

wahern 6y ago

Cynical or sarcastic jokes are arguably the opposite of blunt. They're a way to acknowledge or broach a subject which the person, and most often the group, is uncomfortable or incapable of articulating more clearly. For example, because they're being forced to do the impossible, or because the character, cause, or resolution of an issue is poorly understood. People from cultures where sarcasm isn't common don't understand this nuance and seem to find this kind of dialogue abrasive and unconstructive. Perhaps the sentiment is that if you can't articulate it clearly, then the issue is non-existent, for better or worse, or you're just being lazy and unhelpful.

cuddlybacon 6y ago
I think cynical and sarcastic jokes are blunt, and are something that arises when the culture is open about discussing problems but people don't have the agency to solve them.
austincheney 6y ago
As I have discovered direction and attitude make a huge difference in the understanding and comfort of sarcasm to persons with no familiarity of the concept. If the target of the sarcasm is a third party the communication comes out clearly absurd but both the speaker and listener can understand and appreciate the absurdity together, which is less confusing. If the direction of the sarcasm is something about the listener it can come out as a clever rhetorical hostility that takes getting used to. If the sarcasm is approached with an uplifting tone and positive body language it is much more likely to be take as a joke even if the content of the communication doesn’t immediately parse as a joke and even though the content may be completely disparaging. What also helps, counter intuitively, is providing multiple sarcastic statements in quick succession. People listen to spoken words at set rate but the nonverbal parts of communication are instantly clear. This allows the listener the opportunity to consider the extended thought in a single context allowing for a richer sample of sarcastic communication to think over.
- bigiain 6y ago
  Yes. Sarcasm + empathy for those around you dealing with the problem = powerful form of communication. Sarcasm + being an asshole = being an asshole. (Note: This is from my Australian background/culture/point-of-view, and I don't for a moment think it applies cross culturally - we are the culture where calling someone a cunt can be either a sign of deep profound friendship, or a reason to be punched in the face. When in the US, I need to be careful with that sort of instinctive interaction/language...)
monksy 6y ago
It must be said that there has been a counter-culture that has been militant in trying to get rid of this. They're enforcing speach codes via code of conducts. (I.e. look at some of the recent examples including Linus Torvald (and the number of people who piled on), donglegate guys, etc)
- bigiain 6y ago
  To be fair, Linus has admitted to and shown himself capable of being an asshole, and the donglegate guys are people I would not want working with my sister. You can be cynical and sarcastic without being personally abusive or a sexist troglodyte. The "militant counter culture" you speak of definitely does exist. But codes of conduct didn't start appearing out of thin air, they exist because they need to exist. Anyone who doesn't recognise that is almost certainly coming from a place of oblivious privilege. (Hell, I admit to being obliviously privileged a lot of the time, and _I_ can see the very real need for codes of conduct to exist so that assholes and troglodytes can't continue saying "It's a joke, calm down", or "I'm just being blunt, you can't handle the truth" or all the other gaslighting bullshit they so often get away with...)
  - monksy 6y ago
    Your sister can't handle nsfw language? I don't think that should be endorsed in the work place. (That was at a conference function between 2 people). They exist because projects have been bullied into doing that. On top of that the conditions were pushed in. Do you really need to have a thing to say "don't deadname"? Expectations of conduct have, and continued to, existe(d) before that and they were enforced. The only thing this does is to try to give people who don't like how a group is run room to bully the people running it.