this post was submitted on 23 Jun 2023
14 points (79.2% liked)

Asklemmy

43328 readers
1604 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
14
Deleted (lemmy.dbzer0.com)
submitted 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) by IsThisLemmyOpen@lemmy.dbzer0.com to c/asklemmy@lemmy.ml
 

Deleted

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] picoblaanket@lemmy.ml 9 points 1 year ago (2 children)

This is a very short story about sarcasm:

Ted opposes racist rants.

Yesterday - Ted posted a few exaggerated racist rants (sometimes with the /s).

2,177 people saw Ted’s racist rants.

  • 50% of them guessed he was joking.

  • 98% of them would not have seen a racist rant yesterday, if it weren’t for Ted's little gag.

So the question is:

Despite the sarcasm... isn’t Ted just spreading more of what he honestly deplores?

Is Ted subverting his own integrity?

Why not say how we actually feel?

[–] tikitaki@kbin.social 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

i think there's merit to sarcasm depending how it's done. satire can be a powerful tool to poke holes into ideas.

but like many things in life, you need tact and a bit of self awareness

[–] picoblaanket@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago

I agree, there is a time for purposeful sarcasm.

To me, it requires two conditions:

  1. A person has already expressed their real perspective to a specific ‘opponent’, and

  2. That specific opponent cannot see the hole in their own logic.

This Norm MacDonald radio clip is a good example.

He explains his true perspective, and only switches to sarcasm for one sentence (at 5:25), to show the opponent how she is being goofy [and it works].

His foundation of sincerity gives context to the sarcasm.

Conversely - nowadays - a common ‘communication style’ is to just spray aimless sarcasm at distant or imaginary foes,

which (to me) reflects a deeper cultural issue...

a hiding behind mockery, a suppression of real constructive bravery,

just dunking on one-dimensional charicatures of strangers (who might not actually exist).

[So I agree with you - there are times for purposeful sarcasm.]