Google is about to walk into the Republican chainsaw...

SpacePPoliceman wrote:
Robear wrote:

For example, let's look at a different binary question. "Should you leave a burning building? Yes or No" is a good one. Do you expect a 50/50 split in the yes/no responses to that? :-)

...Where does Obama stand on this leaving the burning building issue?

Well, wherever he stands, I suspect I know where his opposition will stand.

Zudz wrote:

I don't have a problem with it, but I've seen multiple people get really snarky/defensive when the person/audience they're addressing has no idea what it is. Or that it's something worth noting, as opposed to broken markup, in the first place.

The problem is rather tricky, because internet communication clearly needs a sarcasm mark, and there's no universally-agreed-upon one. If you don't know what it means at a casual glance, it's obviously failed at its purpose.

There have been various proposals for punctuation to do the job⸮ Some real-world languages use an inverted exclamation point as a sarcasm marker: ¡

#sarcasm, /s, /sarcasm, [color=green]green text[/color] and so on have been proposed.

Spoiler:

spoiler text inverting or explaining the previous statement also works, but is a bit clunky and prone to more misunderstandings if you word it wrong.

Maybe we should just use emoticons. :p

I think /sarcasm is pretty universal and is clear in its intent. The only way someone would know what /s means is they had already seen /sarcasm and can infer what the author intended. /s is just a lazy shortcut that can lead to misunderstanding.

LeapingGnome wrote:

I think /sarcasm is pretty universal and is clear in its intent. The only way someone would know what /s means is they had already seen /sarcasm and can infer what the author intended. /s is just a lazy shortcut that can lead to misunderstanding.

Or a strikeout.

All I know is Obama shouldn't have let that fire cross the Mexican border in the first place.

Gremlin wrote:
Zudz wrote:

I don't have a problem with it, but I've seen multiple people get really snarky/defensive when the person/audience they're addressing has no idea what it is. Or that it's something worth noting, as opposed to broken markup, in the first place.

The problem is rather tricky, because internet communication clearly needs a sarcasm mark, and there's no universally-agreed-upon one. If you don't know what it means at a casual glance, it's obviously failed at its purpose.

There have been various proposals for punctuation to do the job⸮ Some real-world languages use an inverted exclamation point as a sarcasm marker: ¡

#sarcasm, /s, /sarcasm, [color=green]green text[/color] and so on have been proposed.

Spoiler:

spoiler text inverting or explaining the previous statement also works, but is a bit clunky and prone to more misunderstandings if you word it wrong.

Maybe we should just use emoticons. :p

I like /sarcasm just fine, actually. Green text doesn't work for me. I probably wouldn't even notice that the text had changed color the first time I read it. Emoticons seem like a good idea, but they're really ambiguous.

I don't think that a sarcasm mark is the solution to this problem actually(though I see the utility). I think the actual solution is to not be sarcastic. Sarcasm is often enough misunderstood in real life when seen and heard by people who know the speaker. It's a poor way of communicating, not just online. It'll be hard to wean ourselves at this point, but if you want to be understood properly then sarcasm is probably the last tool you should reach for.

imbiginjapan wrote:

All I know is Obama shouldn't have let that fire cross the Mexican border in the first place.

And this is how "Onion or not" happens.

Zudz wrote:

I think the actual solution is to not be sarcastic

Your plan involves destroying 80% of the Internet, and 60% of GWJ.

^----not sure if sarcastic or not. . .

Yeah, that'll work.
IMAGE(http://replygif.net/i/692.gif)

Seth wrote:
Zudz wrote:

I think the actual solution is to not be sarcastic

Your plan involves destroying 80% of the Internet, and 60% of GWJ.

^----not sure if sarcastic or not. . .

In any case my comment wasnt even sarcastic. It was clearly absurd. I added "/s" as an afterthought. Should have used "/absurd"

Tyops wrote:
Seth wrote:
Zudz wrote:

I think the actual solution is to not be sarcastic

Your plan involves destroying 80% of the Internet, and 60% of GWJ.

^----not sure if sarcastic or not. . .

In any case my comment wasnt even sarcastic. It was clearly absurd. I added "/s" as an afterthought. Should have used "/absurd"

Yes?

Tyops wrote:
Seth wrote:
Zudz wrote:

I think the actual solution is to not be sarcastic

Your plan involves destroying 80% of the Internet, and 60% of GWJ.

^----not sure if sarcastic or not. . .

In any case my comment wasnt even sarcastic. It was clearly absurd. I added "/s" as an afterthought. Should have used "/absurd"

The problem is that no matter how absurd and unbelievable you think something is there's someone out there who believes it. People regularly believe the Onion because it's not outlandish enough, and they make their living being as outlandish as possible.

Obviously the Internet isn't just about to give up sarcasm, but it's probably best to steer clear of it in P&C. There's enough going on in here as is without unintentionally throwing fuel on the fires.

I'd never seen /s before, and people notoriously make weird judgements of probability, and it's been a really rough couple of weeks so my buffers are mostly full. Sorry.

I just assume everyone on the internet is being sarcastic all the time.

muttonchop wrote:

I just assume everyone on the internet is being sarcastic all the time.

That actually works. I haven't been able to tell if any of the last twenty posts or so were sarcastic or not (except the ones marked). This includes my own.

Seth wrote:
muttonchop wrote:

I just assume everyone on the internet is being sarcastic all the time.

That actually works. I haven't been able to tell if any of the last twenty posts or so were sarcastic or not (except the ones marked). This includes my own.

I just assume everone on the internet is being an asshole all the time.

cheeze_pavilion wrote:
Seth wrote:
muttonchop wrote:

I just assume everyone on the internet is being sarcastic all the time.

That actually works. I haven't been able to tell if any of the last twenty posts or so were sarcastic or not (except the ones marked). This includes my own.

I just assume Everone on the internet is being an asshole all the time.

Better.

Chaz wrote:
cheeze_pavilion wrote:
Seth wrote:
muttonchop wrote:

I just assume everyone on the internet is being sarcastic all the time.

That actually works. I haven't been able to tell if any of the last twenty posts or so were sarcastic or not (except the ones marked). This includes my own.

I just assume Everone on the internet is being an asshole all the time.

Better.

+1

I think /sarcasm is pretty universal and is clear in its intent. The only way someone would know what /s means is they had already seen /sarcasm and can infer what the author intended. /s is just a lazy shortcut that can lead to misunderstanding.

I nominate the following:
IMAGE(http://www.byrnerobotics.com/forum/uploads/MarcFoxx/2010-04-09_154535_tron-21-David-Warner-Sark.jpg)
+asm

Wait, do /s-es cancel?

I think he meant /s++, clover....

Robear wrote:

I think he meant /s++, clover....

Double plus sarcastic?

No, we're incrementing the sarcasm twice.

Robear wrote:

I think he meant /s++, clover....

Wouldn't it be /++s?

Increment the sarcasm first. /s++ would make the next /s tag more sarcastic.

var i = 10
print i++
print i
print ++i
-----
10
11
12

fangblackbone wrote:
I think /sarcasm is pretty universal and is clear in its intent. The only way someone would know what /s means is they had already seen /sarcasm and can infer what the author intended. /s is just a lazy shortcut that can lead to misunderstanding.

I nominate the following:
IMAGE(http://www.byrnerobotics.com/forum/uploads/MarcFoxx/2010-04-09_154535_tron-21-David-Warner-Sark.jpg)
+asm

IMAGE(http://i.imgur.com/c9tYTEO.png)

Filipinos do not, as a rule, use sarcasm. We think it's unnecessarily passive aggressive, and usually is also disrespectful. Therefore, it's viewed as a way to negatively impact community and family life - with virtually no upsides. Anything you want to say sarcastically can be said straightforwardly, and often at advantage. I really don't understand why so many of you seem unable to communicate without it.

And no, none of this is sarcastic. It's a mark of how broken down communications can be in the presence of sarcasm that I even have to say that.

LarryC wrote:

And no, none of this is sarcastic. It's a mark of how broken down communications can be in the presence of sarcasm that I even have to say that.

Or it could be that verbal communication is easier and more expressive than text communication.

It is true, but it doesn't matter. I've heard it said that sarcasm is the rhetorical technique favored by teenagers and the terminally ignorant. Scientists do not use sarcasm in technical papers. It obscures meaning for no gain whatsoever. Even when speaking verbally, I do not find sarcasm terribly clever. It almost never makes any interaction better. If you don't have the nerve to criticize directly, then how is sarcasm any better? The lack of respect it signals means death to any productive interaction.

Whatever.