Wait, so insulting people by using longer words than they understand (as far as I can tell this is basically what Veblen did) is okay, but simple insincerity-based humor isn’t?
And although occasionally people wield sarcasm as a hammer (mainly 10-year-olds who just discovered the concept) it is basically a form of humor: it works when it’s funny. I’m going to rephrase most of your criticisms (some of which make no sense: I mean, what about drethelin’s comment is “whiny”, for instance?) as a complaint about instances when sarcasm just wasn’t funny.
In an ideal use case, one employing sarcasm would take the other’s point to a logical conclusion, but to do it in such a way that the hidden incongruity is exposed. This is where the humor arises (Isaac Asimov’s definition of humor is “a sudden change in point of view”) and it is often the most direct way to point out the logical flaw.
Unfortunately, the Internet lacks tone of voice, so sometimes it’s unclear when someone is being sarcastic. I don’t see that as a problem with drethelin’s comment, though, so obviously it’s possible to do it well.
In an ideal use case, one employing sarcasm would take the other’s point to a logical conclusion, but to do it in such a way that the hidden incongruity is exposed.
The problem is that using sarcasm assumes that the opposition (and it’s always an opposition; sarcasm is offensive and antagonistic) is blind to the faults of their argument, and that you’re teaching them something they didn’t know. This can backfire if the incongruity just isn’t so, and the opposition would have been easily able to explain it to you, had you used a normal communication mode. By using a sarcastic tone, you’re creating obstacles for the opposition to normally argue with you.
It is possible, and in fact advisable, to use “reductio ad absurdum” without a sarcastic tone, because the absurdity should be able to stand up for itself.
Sarcasm about one’s own feelings (“I’m reeeeally enthusiastic about this!”) does not employ reductio ad absurdum, it’s just obnoxiousness for the sake of obnoxiousness.
The problem is that using sarcasm assumes that the opposition (and it’s always an opposition; sarcasm is offensive and antagonistic) is blind to the faults of their argument, and that you’re teaching them something they didn’t know.
I think you’re ignoring the potential for friendly antagonism, here. Both good-natured ribbing and cruelty can employ sarcasm.
I’ve only taken to “good-natured ribbing” recently; it’s an acquired skill that does not come naturally to me; it’s conspicous consumption of overabundant defenses, and I think there are less wasteful ways of showing personal strength or demonstrating the studiness of a freindship.
The usefulness of conspicuous consumption is closely linked to its wastefulness. The broader point, that conspicuous consumption is necessary or desirable, is too long to productively discuss here.
Why not? He was, at the very least, accusing you of obliviousness in not remembering that there is the already-present karma system to perform the function you require. You can choose to not feel offended, like a giant mecha can ignore small arms fire harmlessly bouncing off, but the bullets were real.
Much as I enjoy being compared to a giant mecha, I don’t think that’s what’s going on here. My comment was in fact conspicuously oblivious to the function of the karma system. Pointing that out was funny. And I can’t think of a way to make that joke without the use of sarcasm that wouldn’t fall flat.
It wasn’t, because I’ve spent a great deal of time arguing that the karma system is deficient in serving that purpose. Bringing it up, in that context, was equivalent to ignoring everything I have been saying about it. I thought your not considering it was obliviousness, but acknowledgement of what I was trying to do and exploration of other alternatives.
It wasn’t, because I’ve spent a great deal of time arguing that the karma system is deficient in serving that purpose.
Pretty sure that happened in response to the comment being made, not prior. In any case, the point stands that it might not be deficient in serving my purpose.
Wait, so insulting people by using longer words than they understand (as far as I can tell this is basically what Veblen did) is okay, but simple insincerity-based humor isn’t?
And although occasionally people wield sarcasm as a hammer (mainly 10-year-olds who just discovered the concept) it is basically a form of humor: it works when it’s funny. I’m going to rephrase most of your criticisms (some of which make no sense: I mean, what about drethelin’s comment is “whiny”, for instance?) as a complaint about instances when sarcasm just wasn’t funny.
In an ideal use case, one employing sarcasm would take the other’s point to a logical conclusion, but to do it in such a way that the hidden incongruity is exposed. This is where the humor arises (Isaac Asimov’s definition of humor is “a sudden change in point of view”) and it is often the most direct way to point out the logical flaw.
Unfortunately, the Internet lacks tone of voice, so sometimes it’s unclear when someone is being sarcastic. I don’t see that as a problem with drethelin’s comment, though, so obviously it’s possible to do it well.
The problem is that using sarcasm assumes that the opposition (and it’s always an opposition; sarcasm is offensive and antagonistic) is blind to the faults of their argument, and that you’re teaching them something they didn’t know. This can backfire if the incongruity just isn’t so, and the opposition would have been easily able to explain it to you, had you used a normal communication mode. By using a sarcastic tone, you’re creating obstacles for the opposition to normally argue with you.
It is possible, and in fact advisable, to use “reductio ad absurdum” without a sarcastic tone, because the absurdity should be able to stand up for itself.
Sarcasm about one’s own feelings (“I’m reeeeally enthusiastic about this!”) does not employ reductio ad absurdum, it’s just obnoxiousness for the sake of obnoxiousness.
I think you’re ignoring the potential for friendly antagonism, here. Both good-natured ribbing and cruelty can employ sarcasm.
I’ve only taken to “good-natured ribbing” recently; it’s an acquired skill that does not come naturally to me; it’s conspicous consumption of overabundant defenses, and I think there are less wasteful ways of showing personal strength or demonstrating the studiness of a freindship.
Do you have a point?
The usefulness of conspicuous consumption is closely linked to its wastefulness. The broader point, that conspicuous consumption is necessary or desirable, is too long to productively discuss here.
Linkie?
I’d be interested in this discussion, or a link to an existing one.
So drethelin’s comment earlier, the one that provoked this whole discussion, offended and antagonized me? I don’t feel offended.
Why not? He was, at the very least, accusing you of obliviousness in not remembering that there is the already-present karma system to perform the function you require. You can choose to not feel offended, like a giant mecha can ignore small arms fire harmlessly bouncing off, but the bullets were real.
Much as I enjoy being compared to a giant mecha, I don’t think that’s what’s going on here. My comment was in fact conspicuously oblivious to the function of the karma system. Pointing that out was funny. And I can’t think of a way to make that joke without the use of sarcasm that wouldn’t fall flat.
It wasn’t, because I’ve spent a great deal of time arguing that the karma system is deficient in serving that purpose. Bringing it up, in that context, was equivalent to ignoring everything I have been saying about it. I thought your not considering it was obliviousness, but acknowledgement of what I was trying to do and exploration of other alternatives.
Pretty sure that happened in response to the comment being made, not prior. In any case, the point stands that it might not be deficient in serving my purpose.