4 ms·

I would argue that "failing" to interpret sarcasm in this context is generally the fault of the person employing sarcasm. With none of the other cues that are a

I would argue that "failing" to interpret sarcasm in this context is generally the fault of the person employing sarcasm. With none of the other cues that are available IRL (tone of voice, body language, facial expression, etc.) there's very little to tell a reader what is meant to be taken literally, versus taken as sarcasm. So yeah, if a writer doesn't include /s or ⸮ or whatever, that's on them if their words are misunderstood.

TameAntelope 4y ago
- turtledove 4y ago
  Because they have context that I don't? Because they quickly scan down to other comments and see the people explaining the joke? And not everyone else "got the joke". I'd assume many folks didn't get it, but didn't post.
  - TameAntelope 4y ago
    - turtledove 4y ago
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
      - TameAntelope 4y ago
  - yamazakiwi 4y ago
    I didn't understand the reference but I didn't have to quickly scan to other comments because the next comment mentioned that it was a reference. I would also say that sometimes being exclusive can make a joke funnier to the in-group. Denoting your sarcasm can make humor less attractive, in the same way explaining a joke ruins it. Sometimes you want to be vague to see who catches the signals. Some people, myself included, will react poorly when requested to perform additional work when additional work from the requester also could have been performed.
- mindcrime 4y ago
  What evidence is there that "everybody" else did "get it"? And what does that even have to do with what I just said? Choosing to communicate poorly is a bad decision, even if some people happen - by chance - to understand you correctly in spite of that bad decision.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - TameAntelope 4y ago