This is the best thread ever, I can't even imagine why you wouldn't want to make this thread. Now everybody on the internet will know how to deal with sarcasm because everybody is going to read your post.
" In certain instances, yes. In certain instances, no. "
Agreed. Some people just do NOT understand sarcasm. As an American, our comedic structure is largely founded on sarcasm, so sometimes it is lost in translation on Teh internetz.
" In certain instances, yes. In certain instances, no. "
Agreed. Some people just do NOT understand sarcasm. As an American, our comedic structure is largely founded on sarcasm, so sometimes it is lost in translation on Teh internetz. "
it's ironic because it's pretty 'fail' that you have to post something sarcastic and then say 'you fail' because it's not witty enough without spelling it out, like demotivators.
not saying you specifically, more the case of the person who made this.
" In certain instances, yes. In certain instances, no. "
Agreed. Some people just do NOT understand sarcasm. As an American, our comedic structure is largely founded on sarcasm, so sometimes it is lost in translation on Teh internetz. "
Not only that, it's only text. It's missing context of facial and tonal cues, so you really have to hope the person reading doesn't take everything super literally. Personally, I probably over-assume people are being sarcastic in forums, especially with absolutes, so I end up thinking someone who's a total bigot is being satirical and will play along with the "joke", only to find out along the way that, no, they're being completely serious. I then feel shame. And dirty. But mostly shame...
Usually you need to know the person, and even then you sometimes get the feeling like you pissed someone off, so it's best to add a "haha" or lol or whatever you use.
@thecleric: It's funny you say that! I've always had an issue with that "just kidding, you fail" at the bottom. You know what? I'm gonna edit it out! Because you are totally right.
I think sarcasm can work on the internet, it just has to be delivered in the right context. For example if I'm in an online discussion and say "Yeah and we all know the 360 has a great history of not breaking down" you can tell I'm being sarcastic.
It doesn't really work, because you can't really tell outside the context, If someone is being sarcastic, it won't be sarcastic to someone that disagrees, since there are no cues to tell him that he isn't serious.
The intonation of your words has a lot to do with sarcasm, so while I won't say it's lost on the internet, it definitely takes a keen eye from someone who is used to/enjoys sarcasm to spot it.
" This is the best thread ever, I can't even imagine why you wouldn't want to make this thread. Now everybody on the internet will know how to deal with sarcasm because everybody is going to read your post. "
I don't think that is a valid statement. The thread creator was trying to address a difficult situation surrounding largely anonymous text based communication, and you criticize his endeavor. In truth, what has been revealed by this post is a discordant amalgam of belief sets and interpretations therein. Furthermore, I am, to use a nice Scottish word, scunnered that you would scupper his initiative to invigorate the effort to reach new solutions by increasing the scope of our inquiry rather than by narrowing or abandoning it. Conversely, your animadversion only serves to obfuscate these few key aspects. It's quite easy for you to bombastically declaim his intentions. But when are you going to provide an alternative perspective of your own? If you think that five-crystal orgone generators can eliminate mind-control energies that are being radiated from secret, underground, government facilities then you won't understand the complexities of foreign and innominate verbalization no matter what resolutions are managed by this exchange. You won't understand my answer if you cower in fear over the criminally violent trends in our society today and the past ten to fifteen years. Well, I suppose you are good at convincing people that the worst classes of neo-patronizing, stinking cadgers toiling the digital cosmos are easily housebroken, but in order to solve the big problems within our comprehensive environments, we must first understand these problems, and to understand them, we must carve solutions that are neither oligophrenic nor ophidian. As I conclude this response, let me remind you that our goal in writing is not only to change the minds of those who make a big deal out of nothing, rather as a means to reverse the devolutionary course that consternation has set for us. In the end, we should not waver; we will not tire, falter, or fail.
" This is the best thread ever, I can't even imagine why you wouldn't want to make this thread. Now everybody on the internet will know how to deal with sarcasm because everybody is going to read your post. "
I don't think that is a valid statement. The thread creator was trying to address a difficult situation surrounding largely anonymous text based communication, and you criticize his endeavor. In truth, what has been revealed by this post is a discordant amalgam of belief sets and interpretations therein. Furthermore, I am, to use a nice Scottish word, scunnered that you would scupper his initiative to invigorate the effort to reach new solutions by increasing the scope of our inquiry rather than by narrowing or abandoning it. Conversely, your animadversion only serves to obfuscate these few key aspects. It's quite easy for you to bombastically declaim his intentions. But when are you going to provide an alternative perspective of your own? If you think that five-crystal orgone generators can eliminate mind-control energies that are being radiated from secret, underground, government facilities then you won't understand the complexities of foreign and innominate verbalization no matter what resolutions are managed by this exchange. You won't understand my answer if you cower in fear over the criminally violent trends in our society today and the past ten to fifteen years. Well, I suppose you are good at convincing people that the worst classes of neo-patronizing, stinking cadgers toiling the digital cosmos are easily housebroken, but in order to solve the big problems within our comprehensive environments, we must first understand these problems, and to understand them, we must carve solutions that are neither oligophrenic nor ophidian. As I conclude this response, let me remind you that our goal in writing is not only to change the minds of those who make a big deal out of nothing, rather as a means to reverse the devolutionary course that consternation has set for us. In the end, we should not waver; we will not tire, falter, or fail. "
Wow. I don't even want to read this wall o' text. I was being sarcastic...or was I? You will never know.
" This is the best thread ever, I can't even imagine why you wouldn't want to make this thread. Now everybody on the internet will know how to deal with sarcasm because everybody is going to read your post. "
I think you nailed the most obvious way to type sarcasm.
" This is the best thread ever, I can't even imagine why you wouldn't want to make this thread. Now everybody on the internet will know how to deal with sarcasm because everybody is going to read your post. "
I think you nailed the most obvious way to type sarcasm. That was not sarcasm. "
Wow...thanks alot. I really appreaciate all the time you took to read an reply.
" This is the best thread ever, I can't even imagine why you wouldn't want to make this thread. Now everybody on the internet will know how to deal with sarcasm because everybody is going to read your post. "
I think you nailed the most obvious way to type sarcasm. That was not sarcasm. "
Wow...thanks alot. I really appreaciate all the time you took to read an reply. "
Wait, was that sarcasm? I was being sincere. I can't even tell anymore. THIS THREAD IS OUT OF CONTROL!
" This is the best thread ever, I can't even imagine why you wouldn't want to make this thread. Now everybody on the internet will know how to deal with sarcasm because everybody is going to read your post. "
I think you nailed the most obvious way to type sarcasm. That was not sarcasm. "
Wow...thanks alot. I really appreaciate all the time you took to read an reply. "
Wait, was that sarcasm? I was being sincere. I can't even tell anymore. THIS THREAD IS OUT OF CONTROL! "
" In certain instances, yes. In certain instances, no. "
Agreed. Some people just do NOT understand sarcasm. As an American, our comedic structure is largely founded on sarcasm, so sometimes it is lost in translation on Teh internetz. "
The British say "Bloody fuck you, ya tosser." ;) "
agreed. the americans are trying to steal are humor and claiming it as thier own.
no it dont work. children dont understand sarcasm. on the internet you dont get to see people face but only their username.... you may argue with them, agree with them, love them, fight them, punch them without knowing how if they old man or young girl but using sarcasm at them dont work if they are children.
I usually make it obvious with word choice, but I still use italics for the simple folk. I've seen many, many cases of sarcasm being communicated poorly or it's just not understood. I've seen the notion of sarcasm being hard to convey in text used as a scapegoat as well. For example, someone makes a post that unleashes the collective fury of other forum goers, so they just claim that they were being sarcastic and it didn't come across well. They're damn liers and I know it!
You kidding? Sarcasm works the best on the Internet.
Seriously, sarcasm works on the Internet though it contains a fraction of what makes it so distinct in, you know, speech. Italics and the context at hand are the ways to find sarcasm and sometimes it doesn't work. It works with some though, so option B is accurate if you know someone to be sarcastic on a regular basis, like myself or jakob187. Claude too! Still, sarcasm is a thing that fuels the Internet whether it works or not.
Log in to comment