4 ms·
I can't believe I'm defending some random New York Post author, but that's not what's happening here. The article is deliberately employing a rant-like, tongue-
by Bakary 4y ago
I can't believe I'm defending some random New York Post author, but that's not what's happening here. The article is deliberately employing a rant-like, tongue-in-cheek agony aunt style and sharing open-ended observations based on shared life experience and the natural intuition of the reader.
It is not meant to be analyzed like a formal logic paper. There is no real data to verify since it concerns abstract values over trillions of human interactions, yet that does not mean it is not a worthwhile contribution. There are plenty of articles like this but there's nothing inherently wrong with employing this discursive style.
- fknorangesite 4y agoI've learned to never underestimate HN's capacity for pedantic literalism.
- As_You_Wish 4y agoIt's everywhere. Everywhere. Metaphor, understatement, hyperbole, irony, satire, all verboten. I'm pretty sarcastic/satirical, and the number of times people say that it is "impossible to tell" sarcasm and satire in written form amazes me. Yet, there are always some people who do understand, so I know it isn't me, and I know that people do understand satire and sarcasm and all the other wonderful literary devices that are available. It's a cross to bear if one uses the full range of language.