3 ms·

That kind of sarcasm is not just saying the opposite of what you mean. It’s an attempt to compel the reader into understanding their own flawed rationale by pre

by devmor 2y ago

That kind of sarcasm is not just saying the opposite of what you mean. It’s an attempt to compel the reader into understanding their own flawed rationale by presenting an argument under the reader’s pretense that is obviously flawed. An adolescent way of thinking would be deriding sarcasm as beneath you intellectually.

gretch 2y ago
Great points! Why didn’t I think of that? You must be way smarter than me!
- bawolff 2y ago
  What a weird comment. Were you trying to prove devmor's point?
  - gretch 2y ago
    Oh you didn't understand it? It’s an attempt to compel the reader into understanding their own flawed rationale by presenting an argument under the reader’s pretense that is obviously flawed. But you were confused by it and didn't understand the point I was trying to make?
    - bawolff 2y ago
      From where i am sitting it sounds like devmor implied you had "an adolescent way of thinking" and that offended you. To prove him wrong you essentially threw a tantrum. In fairness, devmor's jab was rude and uncalled for. However responding to an accusation that you're immature by behaving childishly is really kind of weird. > But you were confused by it and didn't understand the point I was trying to make? The confusing part is that it doesn't seem to support your position. Devmor's claim was essentially that sarcasm as a rhetorical device can be abused but isn't inherently bad if used correctly. You then used sarcasm in what Devmor would probably characterize as an incorrect adolescent manner to prove the point that it is annoying. However everyone already agreed that adolescent sarcasm is annoying. Presumably your intent was to demonstrate via example why sarcasm is bad or in the words you quoted, to "[present] an argument under the reader's pretense that is obviously flawed". This didn't work because nobody claimed sarcasm was a universal good, only that in certain situations it could be used to good rhetorical affect. You made a flawed argument, but it wasn't using the pretense of the person you were responding to. To summarize, its confusing because you are arguing against a strawman. Instead of skewering the parent's argument, which i presume was the intent, it instead just made it look like you don't understand the person you are responding to.

by devmor 2y ago

gretch 2y ago

Great points! Why didn’t I think of that? You must be way smarter than me!

bawolff 2y ago
What a weird comment. Were you trying to prove devmor's point?
- gretch 2y ago
  Oh you didn't understand it? It’s an attempt to compel the reader into understanding their own flawed rationale by presenting an argument under the reader’s pretense that is obviously flawed. But you were confused by it and didn't understand the point I was trying to make?
  - bawolff 2y ago
    From where i am sitting it sounds like devmor implied you had "an adolescent way of thinking" and that offended you. To prove him wrong you essentially threw a tantrum. In fairness, devmor's jab was rude and uncalled for. However responding to an accusation that you're immature by behaving childishly is really kind of weird. > But you were confused by it and didn't understand the point I was trying to make? The confusing part is that it doesn't seem to support your position. Devmor's claim was essentially that sarcasm as a rhetorical device can be abused but isn't inherently bad if used correctly. You then used sarcasm in what Devmor would probably characterize as an incorrect adolescent manner to prove the point that it is annoying. However everyone already agreed that adolescent sarcasm is annoying. Presumably your intent was to demonstrate via example why sarcasm is bad or in the words you quoted, to "[present] an argument under the reader's pretense that is obviously flawed". This didn't work because nobody claimed sarcasm was a universal good, only that in certain situations it could be used to good rhetorical affect. You made a flawed argument, but it wasn't using the pretense of the person you were responding to. To summarize, its confusing because you are arguing against a strawman. Instead of skewering the parent's argument, which i presume was the intent, it instead just made it look like you don't understand the person you are responding to.