infantilizing, condescending, and missing my entire point
Firstly, apologies about the first two, honestly not my intention. And perhaps you’re right about the last
The tag is there so that there isn’t confusion about what you’re saying
Yes I understand that, however especially with humour like sarcasm, it somewhat hinges on the ambiguity. If you remove the ambiguity, it kinda just becomes a non sequitur or contrarian. To add the tag removes something fundamental about it
More subjective on this one, but frankly for jokes that don’t rely on that ambiguity, they shouldn’t need signposting as jokes if they’re any good anyway. Though I’m actually less bothered about them in that circumstance, they’re more like canned laughter, which still has a negative impact IMO but doesn’t take away something fundamental from a lot of humour.
People telling others to use the tag usually comes from them being massively misunderstood and then saying “I was being sarcastic”.
Anecdotal of course, but in my experience it’s more often down to it being unfunny or just shitty. I’d say I’ve seen “I was being sarcastic” much more often as a cop out than any kind of genuine misunderstanding. i.e. they should probably have just not made the joke/quip
do you deliver all of your sarcasm straight?
Tbf, yeah as best I can when trying to be earnestly (lol) sarcastic. If I’m trying to be ironically sarcastic then I’d probably ham up the overly sarcastic stereotypical delivery.
Maybe this is also something of a cultural clash too as someone else mentioned. Dry sarcasm based humour has been something of a key pillar in the gamut of humour throughout my life so far. It was a big faux pas growing up to laugh at your own jokes, that’s probably gonna impact my views on this if we’re gonna do an armchair psychoanalysis
that’s how 4chan brought the nazis back.
A funny jump and technically a slippery slope fallacy, but also kinda a fair point. I didn’t mean it in a black and white sense, but I guess that kinda is the problem. I don’t think we can really include bad actors in a discussion about something they would simply just mimic to continue doing what they already do.
How does clarifying where you stand detriment anyone?
Hopefully elaborated above enough to answer that, but basically after thought there’s more nuance than that question asks for. Some humour kinda hinges on ambiguity that is destroyed by flagging it, other cases it kinda dents it IMO but I guess I have much less of a fundamental issue with it in those cases
Firstly, apologies about the first two, honestly not my intention. And perhaps you’re right about the last
Yes I understand that, however especially with humour like sarcasm, it somewhat hinges on the ambiguity. If you remove the ambiguity, it kinda just becomes a non sequitur or contrarian. To add the tag removes something fundamental about it
More subjective on this one, but frankly for jokes that don’t rely on that ambiguity, they shouldn’t need signposting as jokes if they’re any good anyway. Though I’m actually less bothered about them in that circumstance, they’re more like canned laughter, which still has a negative impact IMO but doesn’t take away something fundamental from a lot of humour.
Anecdotal of course, but in my experience it’s more often down to it being unfunny or just shitty. I’d say I’ve seen “I was being sarcastic” much more often as a cop out than any kind of genuine misunderstanding. i.e. they should probably have just not made the joke/quip
Tbf, yeah as best I can when trying to be earnestly (lol) sarcastic. If I’m trying to be ironically sarcastic then I’d probably ham up the overly sarcastic stereotypical delivery.
Maybe this is also something of a cultural clash too as someone else mentioned. Dry sarcasm based humour has been something of a key pillar in the gamut of humour throughout my life so far. It was a big faux pas growing up to laugh at your own jokes, that’s probably gonna impact my views on this if we’re gonna do an armchair psychoanalysis
A funny jump and technically a slippery slope fallacy, but also kinda a fair point. I didn’t mean it in a black and white sense, but I guess that kinda is the problem. I don’t think we can really include bad actors in a discussion about something they would simply just mimic to continue doing what they already do.
Hopefully elaborated above enough to answer that, but basically after thought there’s more nuance than that question asks for. Some humour kinda hinges on ambiguity that is destroyed by flagging it, other cases it kinda dents it IMO but I guess I have much less of a fundamental issue with it in those cases