In a normal world that would be true. In the timeline we’ve been locked in since Harambe, the absurd (often horribly and repugnantly absurd) is occuring so many times daily that it’s necessary to note whether you’re opposing it or adding to it.
I disagree. In verbal sarcasm, there’s often an equivalent, where the sarcastic phrase is said with a certain tone, or certain syllables or words are emphasized, to convey the meaning that that statement is sarcastic and not the actual intent of the speaker. That information is lost in written text, and something like /s simply creates a written equivalent. It hardly “ruins” the sarcastic statement when a verbal equivalent might be similarly blatant and the mark to signify sarcastic intent is only read after the rest of the statement anyway.
Just figuring out a sarcastic statement by virtue of that statement being absurd enough as to not possibly be intended seriously, does not work in situations where the statement is presented by itself without other context, and the assumption that “nobody would say that thing unironically” is false, because in such a situation, the sarcastic and non-sarcasic use appear exactly the same.
Further, having no standard for conveying sarcasm unambiguously would mean that someone who really did intend to say something like that unironically could simply hide behind “I was being sarcastic” when called out on it.
The way I see it, if you say something and others dont get it, that is more on you for failing to communicate clearly than on others for not understanding. At the very least, you accept any potential consequences of being misunderstood (getting into pointless arguments, being viewed poorly etc) if you opt to intentionally make your meaning ambiguous with something objectionable.
What horrible antisemitism! /sarcasm because some dumbass people admit not knowing what the “s” means. Stop using the internet if that’s you
Don’t use the /s or explain away your sarcasm at all. It ruins it.
If people don’t get it, that reflects poorly on them, not you.
Functional literacy and critical thinking skills are important, now more than ever.
In a normal world that would be true. In the timeline we’ve been locked in since Harambe, the absurd (often horribly and repugnantly absurd) is occuring so many times daily that it’s necessary to note whether you’re opposing it or adding to it.
I disagree. In verbal sarcasm, there’s often an equivalent, where the sarcastic phrase is said with a certain tone, or certain syllables or words are emphasized, to convey the meaning that that statement is sarcastic and not the actual intent of the speaker. That information is lost in written text, and something like /s simply creates a written equivalent. It hardly “ruins” the sarcastic statement when a verbal equivalent might be similarly blatant and the mark to signify sarcastic intent is only read after the rest of the statement anyway.
Just figuring out a sarcastic statement by virtue of that statement being absurd enough as to not possibly be intended seriously, does not work in situations where the statement is presented by itself without other context, and the assumption that “nobody would say that thing unironically” is false, because in such a situation, the sarcastic and non-sarcasic use appear exactly the same.
Further, having no standard for conveying sarcasm unambiguously would mean that someone who really did intend to say something like that unironically could simply hide behind “I was being sarcastic” when called out on it.
on top of that, for every stupid statement, there’s somebody who actually believes it.
Just write it in italics you socially illiterate fuck waffle
NO
When you hold everyone’s hands, you coddle them. Either they get it or they don’t. The rest can fuck off. I’m also on the campaign against /s.
The way I see it, if you say something and others dont get it, that is more on you for failing to communicate clearly than on others for not understanding. At the very least, you accept any potential consequences of being misunderstood (getting into pointless arguments, being viewed poorly etc) if you opt to intentionally make your meaning ambiguous with something objectionable.
We see things differently, then. Maybe between the two of us, nothing much will change either way and we can both be equally uneffective.
There is a name for it: Poe’s law!