traditional meaning of irony

[JeenLeen]

Would someone be willing to explain the traditional/classic/'real' definition of irony with contrast to how the term is often misused or overapplied now-a-days?

Not looking into a discussion about linguistics and whether or not a definition can be correct verses how it is generally used. I know those are nuances that impact the meaning of my question, but please take it at its intent. Also, I'm sure asking about irony will lend easily to sarcasm, so, well, please limit sarcastic/ironic definitions of irony, as I'm pretty bad at detecting sarcasm and likely moreso via text mediums like this forum.

Thank you.

[Trekkin]

Knowing this will be nitpicked to death, here's an honest attempt at a straightforward answer:

Other than dramatic irony and sarcasm, "irony" usually refers to situations that run counter to our expectations, typically in some humorous way. For example, it would be ironic if I spent so much time filling out my day planner that I missed all of my appointments, as you would expect the planner to make it easier to remember and keep them.

It has been misused to refer to intentionally defying expectations with the intent to be humorous, which robs it of any humor value. In other words, if I always "ironically" dress in a certain fashion, for example, you would logically come to expect that I would continue to do so, making it no longer "ironic". It has gone further to being deliberately invoked by people for advertising purposes, much like "extreme" was during the '90s, further diluting any meaning it might otherwise have beyond "someone wants you to approve of this thing."

[kyoryu]

Right, like a fitness guru dying of a heart attack is ironic. Since you normally associate heart attacks (at least in young people) with poor health.

Alanis Morrisette thinks ironic just means "crappy things that happen".

[Aliquid]

Other than dramatic irony and sarcasm, "irony" usually refers to situations that run counter to our expectations, typically in some humorous way.

It has been misused to refer to intentionally defying expectations with the intent to be humorous, which robs it of any humor value.



Right, like a fitness guru dying of a heart attack is ironic. Since you normally associate heart attacks (at least in young people) with poor health.

Alanis Morrisette thinks ironic just means "crappy things that happen".
Yes there appears to be two major errors with the popular use of Irony.
(1) Using "irony" when "bad luck" is better (that's you Alanis)
(2) Hipsters using "irony" to show how they are defying expectations

Although Alanis's song is ironic... it is ironic that a song about Irony is full of non ironic examples. That defies what one would expect, and is kind of funny (laugh at her funny, not laugh with her). But she has openly accepted that to be the case.

I wonder about Alanis's song... if additional context were provided.

For example "It's like raaaaaain on your wedding day"
What if your wedding day was deliberately scheduled in a desert during the dry season... and it rained anyway. Would that push it away from "crappy luck" to irony?

[jayem]

It's (in my expectations) not just counter to expectations, there's something a bit more circular, almost contradictory. It's one of the things you learn to know if you see it.

An apparent paradox is good, the time planning being a nice example.
But a heavy investment (that would have been right based on the expectation) that turns out to be wrong (in reality) is good.

I bet £5 the top book on my collection was Oliver Twist, ironically it was Pride and Prejudice doesn't work.
I bet £5 the top book on my collection was Oliver Twist, ironically it was The Gambler does.
I bet £5 the top book on my collection was Oliver Twist... I canceled the bet, ironically it was Oliver Twist does.


[edit to add]
For example "It's like raaaaaain on your wedding day"
What if your wedding day was deliberately scheduled (to avoid rain) in a desert during the dry season... and it rained anyway. Would that push it away from "crappy luck" to irony?

I think so, particularly if it was worse that day than the normal wedding venue/time.

[Trekkin]

For example "It's like raaaaaain on your wedding day"
What if your wedding day was deliberately scheduled in a desert during the dry season... and it rained anyway. Would that push it away from "crappy luck" to irony?

Maybe. I think you'd have a stronger case if the wedding participants were meteorologists or something; there's a element of being hoist by one's own petard that's hard to define but is important in irony, I think.

[Aliquid]

I think so, particularly if it was worse that day than the normal wedding venue/time.


Maybe. I think you'd have a stronger case if the wedding participants were meteorologists or something; there's a element of being hoist by one's own petard that's hard to define but is important in irony, I think.
Look at us helping Alanis

Revised scenario:
A wedding that would be ruined by a rainy day is planned for a certain location. The groom's father (a meteorologist) insists that there is a high chance of rain at that location/time and suggests a new location/time that he calculates will have the lowest chance of precipitation. In the end, ironically, the wedding is ruined by rain, while it is sunny at the original location.

[Devils_Advocate]

I think that the key is that situational irony isn't just unexpected but the opposite of what one would expect. I guess the main question is "Would expect under what circumstances?"

E.g. "A no-smoking sign on your cigarette break isn't ironic, it's inconsiderate office management. Now, a no-smoking sign in a cigarette manufacturing plant, that's ironic!" That doesn't actually sound all that especially surprising, but not being surprising doesn't mean that something isn't ironic, because it's still the opposite of what we would expect if... uh... if something. It's the precise nature of those ideal hypothetical circumstances of expectation that's elusive, I think.

[Trekkin]

And, of course, whether something is ironic also varies with the observer, since it depends on the expectations we have.

[Kalmageddon]

But we can all agree that people that say they are being ironic when they are being sarcastic or even just generally humorous need to be beaten down with sharp sticks, right?

[Fri]

An example from the top of my head that shows specific use of irony is from Watchmen, where the scientist that would become Dr Manhattan got stuck inside the experiment chamber because of safety door. I think it's specifically used as irony, because a safety door is expected to keep you safe from dangerous experiment, but he become stuck and hurt by the experiment BECAUSE of the safety door.

[90,000]

It's like "goldy" and "bronzy" only it's made out of iron.

[DataNinja]

An example from the top of my head that shows specific use of irony is from Watchmen, where the scientist that would become Dr Manhattan got stuck inside the experiment chamber because of safety door. I think it's specifically used as irony, because a safety door is expected to keep you safe from dangerous experiment, but he become stuck and hurt by the experiment BECAUSE of the safety door.

Sounds like my last two jobs (though, obviously not to that degree). Everyone always trips over or bangs into the temporary safety signs, but no one ever trips or slips on the thing they're warning about...


It's like "goldy" and "bronzy" only it's made out of iron.

No, no, if we're going down that route, it sounds more like the ferrous fifth letter of the Roman Alphabet. :smalltongue:

[Trekkin]

An example from the top of my head that shows specific use of irony is from Watchmen, where the scientist that would become Dr Manhattan got stuck inside the experiment chamber because of safety door. I think it's specifically used as irony, because a safety door is expected to keep you safe from dangerous experiment, but he become stuck and hurt by the experiment BECAUSE of the safety door.

See, this is what I meant by different expectations making different things ironic. This never struck me as ironic, because I've gotten trapped by safety doors more times than I can recall.

[Vinyadan]

Irony is a way of saying something while meaning something else. Socratic irony is telling people you are ignorant and, asking them for their wisdom, to show them that, since you at least know that you don't know, you know more than they do.
Irony in everyday life is saying something opposite of what you mean, but in such a way, that what you mean can be understood anyway.
Tragic irony is the unknowing premonition of the incoming disaster through some casual words.
Sarcasm is a malevolent subtype of irony.

[2D8HP]

Here you go:

https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcT-FJtV7XYeDUSPloqLjoJyaKtVKDVBaiw2fT6dgGkiLG-28GeQ

[Gravitron5000]

But we can all agree that people that say they are being ironic when they are being sarcastic or even just generally humorous need to be beaten down with sharp sticks, right?

It would be more poetic to beat them down with a sack full of thesauruses and dictionaries.

[Aedilred]

But we can all agree that people that say they are being ironic when they are being sarcastic or even just generally humorous need to be beaten down with sharp sticks, right?

Sarcasm is a type of irony. So, not really.

[Kalmageddon]

Sarcasm is a type of irony. So, not really.

I do not agree with your Internet opinion. Therefore, we must engage in mortal combat to determine who gets the last word.

[2D8HP]

I do not agree with your Internet opinion. Therefore, we must engage in mortal combat to determine who gets the last word.


"But, you see, I have the will of the warrior. Therefore, the battle is already over. The winner? Me! Rematch? You lose again! Had enough? I thought so!"

https://vignette3.wikia.nocookie.net/en.futurama/images/9/9c/Fnog-Futurama.png/revision/latest/thumbnail-down/width/153/height/247?cb=20100131102331

[JeenLeen]

Sarcasm is a type of irony. So, not really.

Can you be sarcastic without also lying (in the sense of stating something untrue)?
Something ironic defies expectations, but is true in that it occurs/exists (ex. heart attack by health guru) or involved a prediction one believed would be true (ex. predicting no rain by the meterologist father-in-law). Though I suppose doing something 'ironically' means that your doing it is in a sense a deception, since the meaning of the doing is not the case.

I'm terrible at detecting sarcasm, and usually only realize it by a mental process of "What they said doesn't make sense... Actually, the opposite is true / I thought they believe the opposite of that.... OH! They are being sarcastic!" I have gotten to how this process usually only takes a second or two instead of about half a minute.

[Trekkin]

Frankly I find it extremely difficult to communicate with people who don't speak sarcasm, and seldom worth the effort.

Such people need to be sent to the re-education camps until they can be properly integrated with society.

Perhaps a eugenics program would dilute the need?

Are you seriously joking about rounding up people with autism spectrum disorders (among other things, including language processing difficulties) into internment camps for the sake of eugenia?

Seriously?

Do you know who you sound like right now?

This is the most viscerally appalling thing I've read on here in a while -- and that's saying something these days. I've been called degraded, deranged and insane, but being jokingly told to report to the death camps is a new low. I mean, it's nothing new, but it's new on here.

[2D8HP]

...I"m terrible at detecting sarcasm....


http://ep.yimg.com/ay/stylinonline/big-bang-theory-was-that-sarcasm-baby-tee-9.jpg

OK, here's how.

Anytime someone makes a statement if interpreting it as sarcasm would make it funny then it most likely was sarcasm.

http://wp-content.bluebus.com.br/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/sarcasm-big-bang-theory.jpg

Not so much sarcasm as irony is:


For me in a traditional "role-playing game", non-GM players respond to the environment that the GM has invented:

GM: You find a box.

Player: I open it.

Whereas in a "storytelling game" multiple players also change the environment described:

Player 'A': A box is found.

Player 'B': Inside the box is a letter.

I'm sure there's blends, but that's the basic distinction I see.

While it may be fun to disparage one or the other ("Your fun is wronger than my fun!"), it's also absurd.

Because we all know that POKEMON IS THE ONE TRUE GAME!

:wink:


First a statement urging tolerance, followed by an intolerant statement, which is subverted because Pokemon players are seldom blowhards about how "superior their game is to other games".

Get it?


http://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/images/texplainthejoke.jpg

[JeenLeen]

Are you seriously joking about rounding up people with autism spectrum disorders (among other things, including language processing difficulties) into internment camps for the sake of eugenia?

Seriously?

Do you know who you sound like right now?

This is the most viscerally appalling thing I've read on here in a while -- and that's saying something these days. I've been called degraded, deranged and insane, but being jokingly told to report to the death camps is a new low. I mean, it's nothing new, but it's new on here.

With how "no way he could actually mean that" it sounds, perhaps he is trying to be sarcastic by stating it?

edit: just noting that I wrote this before seeing the post immediately above my post. The post above mine makes me think it more likely he was being sarcastic.

[Kalmageddon]

That's a very autistic spectrum reaction, right there.

[Trekkin]

With how "no way he could actually mean that" it sounds, perhaps he is trying to be sarcastic by stating it?

edit: just noting that I wrote this before seeing the post immediately above my post. The post above mine makes me think it more likely he was being sarcastic.

Oh, I'm well aware. It's still a horrifying statement to make -- if anything it's more so, since sarcastically intimating that people who don't understand sarcasm should die is more likely to be misinterpreted as earnest by those very people.

I get it's a joke. It's an appalling joke.

[2D8HP]

That's a very autistic spectrum reaction, right there.


I'm more inclined to believe he did a "double reverse sarcasm back at you pal!".



...It's an appalling joke.


In the remote case that you're actually being sincere, I will tell you the address I'm at right now:

850 Bryant Street, San Francisco.

The Hall of Justice.

On the 7th floor is County Jail #4, in which 800 men stay behind bars, where most of my work is.

Across the alley is County Jail's #1 & #2, with more who live behind bars.

We have the Courts, the Homicide Investigators office, and on the north-east side of the building we have the Autopsy Room, in which I have seen body after body, while I work.

"Appalling" jokes are the norm here, and I forget that others have different sensibilities.

I'm guessing that you don't watch Monty Python, or Curb Your Enthusiasm?

[Devils_Advocate]

My understanding of how that sort of "humor" works is this: Taking someone seriously as a threat is affording them, in a way, a kind of respect. As such, treating horrible people who advocate horrible things non-seriously serves as a sort of disrespectful mockery. But that's understandably upsetting to those who think that those horrible people should be respected as threats on the grounds that they represent actual serious threats.

A key point here is that treating someone as harmless doesn't just directly ridicule that individual or group, but also paints their fiercest critics as silly for getting worked up over imagined danger. It... might be worth considering not doing that. In some cases, it may be only due to such critics that the individual or group in question isn't a real danger, and don't they deserve respect for that, even if that unfortunately means also giving some awful demagogue more respect than you'd prefer? It's probably better to err on the side of over-respect in general.

Scare quotes because, as I understand it, this sort of thing isn't really comedy in the "ha ha" sense. More comedy in a "sneer sneer" sense; if it can amuse, that's nice, but it's primarily meant to belittle someone. Unless you're the sort of person who really does crack up at the antics of those wacky Nazis (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ThoseWackyNazis), in which case I'm not even sure what to tell you. Um... "Oh, those crazy genocidal totalitarians, when will they ever learn?"

No, wait, I know: I don't think that laughing at anything is inherently morally wrong, but in some cases, it's really inconsiderate not to try to keep that to yourself. There we go!

[2D8HP]

Well I've learned something.

When the OP wrote that "...I"m terrible at detecting sarcasm..", it didn't occur to me that he was actually not being sarcastic.

As far as autism goes, previously those who have mentioned being autistic in this Forum have posted things that I've thought were jokes (and of course I find OotS funny), so the thought that extreme hyperbole doesn't always translate seldom occurs to me.

[Trekkin]

Hey, I've learned things too -- and for the record, I was being sincere in being deeply troubled by jokes that amount to "people who don't get that this is sarcastic are inferior and should be killed", because people who don't get that you're being sarcastic will think you're earnest. One might think that would be immediately apparent, since that's the point of the joke. Then, too, when the thing you propose in jest has actually happened, it's not so much a question of getting the humor as not being triggered.

It's just difficult for me to brush this kind of thing off as a harmless jest when I've seen so many people utterly emotionally wrecked by this kind of "humor" -- and, in too many cases, attended their funerals.

[Devils_Advocate]

I think I've figured out what I was trying to put my finger on before: Situational irony is the opposite of what we would naively expect! So safety measures causing harm is ironic because we would naively expect them to prevent harm. More generally, anything doing the opposite of what was intended is ironic, because we naively expect things to perform as intended. And we wouldn't naively expect a company that promotes smoking to prohibit it, and so on and so forth.

... Although, it seems Trekkin disagrees with me and thinks that situational irony is just the opposite of whatever is, in fact, expected in practice?

"How ironic." "No it's not!"


Irony is a way of saying something while meaning something else.
That's verbal irony, as opposed to situational irony.


Irony in everyday life is saying something opposite of what you mean, but in such a way, that what you mean can be understood anyway.
So, sarcasm? People usually just call sarcasm "sarcasm", I think, which is why calling it "irony" is potentially confusing, even if sarcasm is a type of irony.


I'm more inclined to believe he did a "double reverse sarcasm back at you pal!".

When the OP wrote that "...I"m terrible at detecting sarcasm..", it didn't occur to me that he was actually not being sarcastic.
I didn't see any reason to think that JeenLeen or Trekkin were being sarcastic. It seems like you might have the opposite problem of difficulty detecting sarcasm, 2D8HP.

The funny thing is that some people will often reply to sarcasm in text by saying that sarcasm doesn't translate well to text because it relies on tone of voice. Personally, I never seem to have any difficulty detecting sarcasm in writing. But I do think that it's only considerate to bear in mind that other people might not. But the same goes for spoken sarcasm, doesn't it?

I have yet to see anyone outright say that spoken sarcasm is fine but written sarcasm is bad (because they can recognize the former but not the latter), but if I ever do, I am totes ready to confront them with their hypocrisy!

Speaking of which, is hypocrisy always ironic? Well, I think that there's a bit of ambiguity as to what qualifies as hypocrisy, for starters. Is it hypocritical to say that your own behavior is inappropriate? Maybe, in a sense, and that could be considered ironic to the extent that we naively expect people to adhere to their own standards. But when people talk about hypocrisy, I think they're usually talking about criticizing others for something that you think is fine when you do it. And I think that we have a stronger naive expectation that people at least apply their standards of behavior to their own conduct, even if they don't actually live up to those standards, on the basis that that's what those standards are primarily for. So someone who only applies those standards to others' behavior is applying standards of behavior contrary to naive expectation, as well as violating their own standards seemingly without realizing it. Which is, like, double ironic?

If irony were strawberries, we'd be drinkin' a whole lotta smoothies.

[oudeis]

Frankly I find it extremely difficult to communicate with people who don't speak sarcasm, and seldom worth the effort.

Such people need to be sent to the re-education camps until they can be properly integrated with society.

Perhaps a eugenics program would dilute the need?


Are you seriously joking about rounding up people with autism spectrum disorders (among other things, including language processing difficulties) into internment camps for the sake of eugenia?

Seriously?

Do you know who you sound like right now?

This is the most viscerally appalling thing I've read on here in a while -- and that's saying something these days. I've been called degraded, deranged and insane, but being jokingly told to report to the death camps is a new low. I mean, it's nothing new, but it's new on here.I read his comment as directed more at the overly-serious, pompous, or just plain dull-witted individuals that you find in all walks of life.

[kyoryu]

My general guideline, especially with text, is:

"Is there an interpretation of this that doesn't rely on the person who wrote it being a jackass? If so, presume that this is the correct interpretation until provided evidence to the contrary."

IOW, make a strong assumption that most people are decent, until given sufficient contrary evidence.

In the specific case here, there's two readings:

1) Utterly sarcastic, as the idea of sending people to concentration camps for the crime of not getting a joke is horrible and beyond what any reasonable person might believe.

2) Dead serious, and this person is basically a Nazi.

Number one seems like the obvious conclusion, to me.

[Trekkin]

Number one seems like the obvious conclusion, to me.

To me, as well. Earnest proposals of genocide merit a stronger response than mine.

That it is apparently acceptable on here to evoke the spectre of some of the worst parts of human history in jest -- that was what I found so wrong in a world where people who, among other things, lack the ability to recognize such jokes for what they are have been bullied and hurt and driven to suicide and indeed killed outright by the thousands for exactly the reasons and in almost exactly the manner that it is now apparently okay to joke about.

Who cares what a reasonable person would believe? Reasonable people have permitted this to happen en masse.

Apparently I'm in the minority for not seeing the innate thigh-slapping humor in references to Aktion T4. So be it.

[Aliquid]

To me, as well. Earnest proposals of genocide merit a stronger response than mine.

That it is apparently acceptable on here to evoke the spectre of some of the worst parts of human history in jest -- that was what I found so wrong in a world where people who, among other things, lack the ability to recognize such jokes for what they are have been bullied and hurt and driven to suicide and indeed killed outright by the thousands for exactly the reasons and in almost exactly the manner that it is now apparently okay to joke about.

Who cares what a reasonable person would believe? Reasonable people have permitted this to happen en masse.

Apparently I'm in the minority for not seeing the innate thigh-slapping humor in references to Aktion T4. So be it.I haven't bothered to post since the beginning of the thread, but I have been following it, and I do agree with your perspective.

I think the challenge is that many people are unfamiliar with the concept of neurodiversity, where as you have witnessed it first hand (even if not by that name). For you, someone who is "non-neurotypical" is a real person, not just some vague concept. You are capable of seeing things from their perspective, and immediately see how harmful a statement that is intended to be sarcastic can be.

Most people see someone who doesn't get sarcasm as a personality flaw... i.e. the person could get sarcasm if they just loosened up and stopped being so self important. Where as you see them as someone potentially on the autism spectrum. As someone who is literally incapable of grasping sarcasm, rather than choosing not to. and that makes all the difference in the world.

[oudeis]

Eh, not seeing it. I think 2D8HP's original reference is more CCCP than NSDAP.

[T-Mick]

Irony is a gap between words and truth. A character says something, and the reader knows he's mistaken.

Irony is a gap between words and meaning. A character says something, but the real meaning is different from what they said or though they meant.

Irony is a gap between intention and outcome. A character can expect something or set out to do something, but we can see that things won't turn out as expected.

Irony is a gap between appearance and reality. A character interprets the world one way, but we can see that this interpretation is wrong.

This is the best explanation I can give of irony. I cribbed it from Richard Gill's "Mastering English Literature." The section on irony is great, and much more comprehensive.

EDIT: More insights from Mr. Gill: Irony is about seeing and not seeing. Irony is always against someone, and is about power therefore. Irony involves a sort of alliance between the writer and the reader. Et cetera et cetera. There's more.

[Devils_Advocate]

Can you be sarcastic without also lying (in the sense of stating something untrue)?
Yes. (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SarcasticConfession) Sarcasm is about projecting insincerity; it doesn't require that you actually disbelieve what you're saying. Furthermore, people are wrong about things, sometimes. So someone could make an accidentally correct sarcastic statement that she believes to be false. Both could be considered examples of situational irony, insofar as we generally expect sarcastic statements to be false.

In addition to situationally ironic sarcasm, there's also ironic sincerity. Suppose that someone describes himself by saying "I enjoy playing games that combine all of the fun of cooperative storytelling with all of the bookkeeping of major accountancy". One wouldn't normally expect someone describing various roleplaying games in that way to enjoy them, but that doesn't mean that someone can't make that statement honestly and without intent to deceive. This sort of ironically sincere statement -- sincerity where one would naively expect sarcasm -- stems from a sort of sardonic self-awareness. To the extent that it's meant to appear "cool", it's based on the idea that being cool isn't about liking cool things, but rather about knowing what is and isn't cool, and more broadly about awareness of the broader social context in which one's actions take place, regardless of what those actions actually are. (Essentially, "Isn't it ironic that someone cool, like me, likes this uncool thing? That's not what you'd naively expect of someone so cool.")

This is the yet-more-ironic alternative to the mere "so bad it's good" ironic appreciation of lesser hipsters. And yet, even ironic sincerity is itself a mere tier 2 ironic gesture; that is to say, only 2 steps removed from normal sincerity without any sort of irony. Consider how I just explained advanced hipster irony and made it seem sort or pathetic (as any attempt to appear cool must once one recognizes it as such), and then consider how doing that is showing off my own understanding of social dynamics. Then consider how I just admitted as much. See, I don't care whether I seem cool. That's what makes me so cool.

I don't even know how sarcastic I'm being. Which itself is pretty cool... or is it?

"The upper echelons of irony should always include measures of sincerity. And if the satirical practice is executed faithfully it will achieve something bona fide in its own right regardless. Through an intense commitment bordering on religious devotion to the absolutely inane, absurd, or plain ****ing stupid, a very different kind of sincerity begins to materialize. One of reverence to the ridiculous. You begin to 'mean it,' but what exactly it is you mean is never quite what appears on the surface, and is utterly inaccessible to obtuse and literal minds. That you 'mean it' then becomes inseparable from the joke, and additional rich strata of humor may be stripped aggressively from this irreconcilable truth."


I'm terrible at detecting sarcasm, and usually only realize it by a mental process of "What they said doesn't make sense... Actually, the opposite is true / I thought they believe the opposite of that.... OH! They are being sarcastic!" I have gotten to how this process usually only takes a second or two instead of about half a minute.
This is pretty much exactly how one notices sarcasm in text. At least, that's how I do it. It seems to come naturally to me, though.

But, on even a little reflection, it's pretty damn counterintuitive that sarcasm comes anything like naturally to anyone or exists as a social convention in the first place. Like... sometimes people mean the opposite of what they say, and expect you to understand that. Man, what?! That sounds like something you'd tell someone as a prank. Why is that even a thing? It's not hard to see how someone would find that confusing. If anything, it's hard to see how sarcasm is as popular and well-understood as it is.

And that sort of consideration is true of a lot of things. Why some people are tone-deaf is an interesting question, but it's more of a mystery why most people aren't.


Apparently I'm in the minority for not seeing the innate thigh-slapping humor in references to Aktion T4. So be it.
This is one of those "Where do you draw the line?" things. For example, you didn't respond similarly to Kalmageddon advocating beating people down with sharp sticks for their word usage. I'm personally reminded of Garfield the Cat's tendency to proclaim that those responsible for some annoyance "should be dragged out into the street and shot" in his cartoons.

Now, 2D8HP's remarks were fairly over the top, but at least that was done partly in service of indicating that he was joking. Garfield's would probably be less upsetting to less people, but still fairly upsetting to some people, I imagine. And beating people with sharp sticks is probably a pretty rare form of punishment, all the more so for failure to adhere to a particular brand of linguistic descriptivism, but there's probably someone out there who would be triggered by that. But, honestly, someone could be triggered by basically anything.

We can talk about how likely something is to upset large groups of people, but... isn't there something a bit incongruous about that as an approach to respecting minorities? Increasingly discounting them based on how small they are? Aren't the smallest minorities most likely to be the most marginalized and in need of our attention and consideration?

I'm totally not even saying that you're wrong, just that there's not a simple black-and-white dichotomy here, but rather a whole spectrum of grey. You are unavoidably biased by your personal experiences, just as 2D8HP's sense of what is socially appropriate has been shaped by his work environment. I'm not saying that you've been biased in a bad way, just that lacking your perspective doesn't make someone a monster, and that others might take similar issue with some of what you consider acceptable.

[Trekkin]

You make a good point -- one that should be made more often. Permit me to offer a more reasoned counterpoint than I previously have, if only at others' urging:

We must not allow the Overton window to shift carelessly. If 2D8HP were to honestly propose genocide, then yes, I'd advocate for having the basic respect for him to put forth a thoughtful and fact-based, albeit vehement, opposition to the idea. The honest consideration of horrifying ideas is the price of reasoned discourse.

I would argue, though, that humor is qualitatively different. Jokes necessarily assume, a priori, that their audience is comfortable enough with their subject to find it a harmless absurdity -- and, even if only a little, they encourage us to find it so, lest we "not get it" and so be left out. This can help people deal with tragedy, but it can also lighten its arguably necessary impact and forestall our normal reaction to unacceptable events. Consider, say, jokes about prison rape. There are people out there who will argue they're funny, even as they assert that rape totally isn't; unstated but assumed is the implication that the incarcerated are "other" enough that it somehow doesn't register.

This is a problem, because as much as we like to pretend otherwise, every mass slaughter, every genocide, every staggering atrocity in history was perpetrated by human beings very like us. They didn't wake up one day and decide to be evil; they arrived, by recognizable thought processes, at the conclusion that whatever they were doing was the right call here. Further, the rest of us stood by and let them do it. We have done what is now unthinkable and we remain capable of doing so again.

So yes, let's bear in mind that opinions and viewpoints differ -- and I'm well aware that I'm just as far out from what other people would find acceptable, even without your exhortations. However, I would hope that, should I air those views, I would be censured for doing so. The extremism I find normal is just as capable of precipitating pogroms as anyone else's, were it allowed to go uncommented upon and tactily acknowledged as acceptable. It begins with "harmless" jokes, sure, but given enough jokes it leads to propaganda about all the reichsmarks They are costing Us, and thence to serious consideration of how to stop Them without anyone pointing out how insane that is.

I'm not calling 2D8HP a Nazi. I am saying, however, that making genocide funny is complicit in making it acceptable, and then making it happen, and it is possible to turn a blind eye and say the line hasn't been crossed yet and encourage rational discussion until the opposition is filling mass graves, all without anyone involved realizing what's happening. I would rather argue, strenuously, that people are people even when they don't or can't look or sound or think like us and therefore deserve the full measure of our compassion and empathy no matter how much they might annoy us. Implicitly asking us to pretend they don't, just for a lark, may well be harmless in itself, but it builds and strengthens neural pathways that can lead to our complicity with atrocity. That is where the liklihood of offending large groups of people matters for protecting even the smallest group: if this doesn't offend many people, it's a very worrying sign of what they might allow.

He's not a monster, either, which in a strange way makes this all the more important, but that was a monstrous thought, with monstrous implications, and that deserves to be called what it is loudly and clearly. Maybe I'm alone in thinking that; it's looking increasingly like I am, at least on here, in the minority in respecting the innate capacity for atrocity resident in our neuroplasticity. Honestly, I hope that I am laughably wrong, but history and present events alike suggest I am not.

And about Kalmaggeddon: I did react the same way, at least behind my screen, but he honestly reads as just part of the background radiation of the Internet at this point, and I'm outwardly numb if not blind to it by now. Sure, I'd rather we not casually threaten our opponents and detractors and those we dislike with physical violence when at least some of them are, statistically, the victims of physical violence, but frankly his comment was so uninspired I didn't fully notice it. Broad, bland threats are just par for the course on these forums now, much as I might find it shameful; even sarcastic advocacy for genocide is a new low, and I guess it crossed my line, particularly coming from someone whose views I am more than normally inclined to respect. That it also carries the potential to do real emotional harm to the very people who are the (unintended) butt of the joke is more immediately but no more importantly repugnant.

I would rather not leave unremarked upon a comment that could go some way to normalizing genocide -- and I would hope that, should I err in similar fashion, someone else would catch my error as well, as has happened in the past and will doubtless happen again. Otherwise, we risk forgetting, and then repeating, some of our worst mistakes.

[Aliquid]

@Trekkin
Don't let your original concern about the autistic audience being unable to understand sarcasm slip as you move into the deeper argument about genocide in general.

I really think that's something that needs to be expressed in a way that hits home with people. I'm going to try to paint an analogy.

Imagine the following scenario:
A group of people are talking and one person says "Blind people are so annoying, we should just euthanize them all", and then he holds up a sign that says "Just joking around here". Some people laugh, some roll their eyes. He then goes on and says, "like this guy here", and then acts out beating up a friend who is pretending to be blind. It *sounds* real, but visually it is obvious they are joking around. Some people in the room play along and shout "yeah! get him good!"

Now imagine a blind person in the room hearing this conversation... all clues that this was a joke are visual... but he can't see. He would have every reason to start feeling nervous.

[Kalmageddon]

And about Kalmaggeddon: I did react the same way, at least behind my screen, but he honestly reads as just part of the background radiation of the Internet at this point, and I'm outwardly numb if not blind to it by now. Sure, I'd rather we not casually threaten our opponents and detractors and those we dislike with physical violence when at least some of them are, statistically, the victims of physical violence, but frankly his comment was so uninspired I didn't fully notice it. Broad, bland threats are just par for the course on these forums now, much as I might find it shameful; even sarcastic advocacy for genocide is a new low, and I guess it crossed my line, particularly coming from someone whose views I am more than normally inclined to respect. That it also carries the potential to do real emotional harm to the very people who are the (unintended) butt of the joke is more immediately but no more importantly repugnant
Oh, come off it, already!
You know I wasn't serious, your know nobody here was advocating genocide, implicitly or explicitly, and you are not impressing anyone by acting all indignant.
I am so beyond sick of this entitled attitude, of this constant call for attention you and plenty of others have over the internet nowadays, this implicitly setting yourself up like your feelings matter more than the rest of us just because you have autism, a non binary sexuality or whatever else makes you a special snowflake.
Do you really, honestly think that crying out foul every time your feelings get bruised over the Internet will change something?
Let me tell you something, I've seen people die before my eyes. When I go to a party that's too loud or too crowded I risk getting to see it all over again. Now think for a moment, for one ****ing moment, how I feel when I read "trigger warning" on this forum, when people claim to get PTSD, something I've been fighting against for the better part of my life, from a forum post of some Internet nobody that simply doesn't know better.
Let me be honest. I fight against the urge of flipping my table over the first world idiciocy the Internet is made of every time I get on my computer. But I don't give in.
Because I understand that most people are just scared or ignorant or alone and if they have to namedrop serious mental illnesses to feel like their pain matters, **** I'll let them. I'm strong enough to face this thing alone. They obviously aren't.
But this is crossing the line. You seriously afraid of someone getting started with a eugenetic program to erase your sad little socially awkward genes from this world? Over a joke?
Come off it.

[2D8HP]

....I would rather not leave unremarked upon a comment...



... but he can't see. He would have every reason to start feeling nervous.


Those are very good points that hit home.

Initially my thought was "This what sarcasm looks like", and it seemed obvious to me.

While I had in mind horrible acts in Asia and the United States, not Europe, but the mention of European atrocities brings to mind:

https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BYTIwNDcyMjktMTczMy00NDM5LTlhNDEtMmE3NGVjOTM2Yj Q3XkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyNjc0MzMzNjA@._V1_SX178_AL_.jpg

A 1942 comedy staring Jack Benny (who my mother met and said "Was really nice"). Now Jack Benny was of Jewish heritage and he was making a comedy about the Nazis while the war was ongoing, Mel Brooks remade the film in the 1980's and made the "gallows humor" aspect even more explicit, "whistling in the face of doom" has long been a way to "laugh to keep from crying".

I grew up on that type of humor (The cast singing "Always look on the bright side of life" while their being crucified in Life of Brian etc.)

My biggest regret about the post is that I did not invert the victims, ala "Those who stoop so low as to commit the vile act of sarcasm should be....", since those who recognize sarcasm would understand, and those who didn't wouldn't feel threatend.

Anyway, it's not the first time I've had to learn some sensitivity as these two stories indicate:



I don't really have any advice, just an anecdote.

My first gaming circle went from about 1978 to 1986, we were born between 1965 (the DM) and 1971 (my little brother), five of us (including me) were white, two black, and one Asian.

IIRC correctly we felt more divided by age than by race, but in retrospect our racial differences did manifest themselves in our tastes in movies, whites liked "Excalibur" (Knights in armor, an all white cast) more, and my two black friends liked "Hamburger Hill" (Vietnam war, with a mixed cast) more. We all liked "Conan the Barbarian" (Arnold Schwarzenegger as Conan, James Earl Jones as Thulsa Doom), and it was a movie that sparked what was the biggest racial friction between me and a friend.

Just as there a lot of movies from the 1990's still being broadcast now, I grew up watching movies from the 1940's and 50".
I was watching an Abbott and Costello movie on television while my friend was over, and there was a scene where the waiters at restaurant (all black) suddenly began to sing and dance. My friend looked at me with a bit of anger and asked, "Is this movie just to make black people look stupid?". I told him, "If you watch more of the movie, you'll see that all the white people seem pretty dumb to". He did, laughed and said, "Your right, they're all stupid".

So was my friend too sensitive?
Probably, but in time I became aware of some reasons why, for example, as much as I liked Conan, there was another Schwarzenegger film "Total Recall" that has a small character and scene that just makes me cringe.

So I guess I have some small advice, don't apologize for what you don't have to apologize for, but also try to see the world through your friends eyes.

Good luck.


....can speak for herself, but there's another option:

One can believe themselves to be biased but try not to be.

One (such as well, me) can believe that all but saints (if they even exist) have conscious and unconscious prejudices, and feelings of greed, lust,.envy, wrath, sloth, etc. that they try to keep in mind not to act on.

Look I know that the Drow are completely fictional (that judging by the illustrations there all shaped like body-builders and/or super-models is a bit of a clue), so yeah the o.p's friend was being silly, and I personally don't have a problem with the Drow, and neither did my black friends of long ago D&D games either judging by how they said "the Drow are badass!", way back when.

But I was real uptight once upon a time about fighting folks just labeled "cultists", because the imaginary cultist had done nothing in the game world to merit being hunted down that I could see.

Was I being silly?

Yeah probably, but we all have different sensibilities.

Once upon a time there was an RPG called "Witchhunt", (basically a fantasy version of colonial Salem), that I was looking at in the store with interest, when a friend said

"Dude put that down, that's just gross."

"What do you mean?", I asked?

"You shouldn't play a game based on the suffering of those women."

"That was over 300 hundred years ago!", I retorted.

"Well how would you like a game called Jewhunt, that was over 30 years ago? "
(This was in the 1980's)

Ouch.

That hit home (my maternal great-grandmother who was from Poland lost all her family who stayed in Europe).

I like pretending to fire arrows at goblins today, but IIRC most of what we pretended to fight were as animated skeletons and giant spiders (unless they have arachnophobia if someone objects to fighting giant spiders than D&D is probably not the right game for them).

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/images/y1mI7b5mEmyjXGpKEav.gif

Probably to emphasise that Elves aren't human the Gray Elves who "live in isolated meadowlands" are paler than Wood Elves who "make their home in shady forests", and the Drow live in a "strange subterranean realm" are dark skinned, which is the opposite of what you'd expect from humans,but if the only problem is someone objecting to the Drow being "dark skinned" that seems like an easy thing to re-flavor.

[Trekkin]

Do you really, honestly think that crying out foul every time your feelings get bruised over the Internet will change something?.

Hey, 2D8HP said he learned something. That's worth it, if you ask me. EDIT, having seen the last post: Yeah, definitely worth it.

And sure, it's not likely to avert some horrible tragedy. I'd still rather encourage more empathy and respect and awareness than do the reverse, given that it costs me as little to type my posts as it would to be negative.

If not mentioning your troubles give you strength, I'm glad that works for you. Some people feel better by acknowledging them; what does it hurt to let them do so, other than an unproven assumption that they're lying?

And yes, I am scared of that. Every day. I know my history; I'd rather be too scared of that than not enough.

EDIT: Thanks, 2D8HP. Those are good stories, and I'm sincerely sorry if you ever felt that I was calling you a genocidal maniac.

[Kalmageddon]

If not mentioning your troubles give you strength, I'm glad that works for you. Some people feel better by acknowledging them; what does it hurt to let them do so, other than an unproven assumption that they're lying?

Believe me, from where I'm standing, it's anything but unproven.
As for what it hurts, it hurts me. It hurts to see that my problems are being trivialized and turned into the new fashon trend of this age. It hurts that people basically don't give a **** about your issues if you are not labeling yourself as a minority of some kind these days. It hurts that whenever I have to come foward and talk about what I believe to be right or wrong, I basically have nobody standing up for me beacuse it's not the fashonable thing to do. It hurts that being strong enough to handle my own issues well enough to be productive member of our society and not being a burden on anybody automatically means that my feelings matter less than those that are behaving as if their life was in danger when someone makes a joke over the Internet.
And I'm just going to say this to your virtual face, I don't believe that your primary fear each day is being the victim of a genetic purge. Can't prove it of course, but it's such an overblown, ridiculous claim, coming from someone that obviously lives in a privileged enough context as to be able to regularly post on a forum about tabletop games, that it has to be exaggeration dictated by intellectual dishonesty.
Also, just for context, this is coming from someone who's grandfahter was in a concentration camp and lost two brothers there.

You know what, I'm derailing this thread. I'm going to let this drop now. I'd say it would be about time to discuss these things in the open, in an appropriate thread but seeing how it would be decidedly counter-culture, I don't think it would work. So I'm just going back to my silence, to tolerating people that can't tolerate when someone even breathes at them funny.

[Mikemical]

To quote Sword Art Online Abridged:

Yulier: That wonderful man gave that bastard the benefit of a doubt, only to walk into a trap. It's quite ironic.
Yui: No it is not.
Yulier: Huh?
Yui: That is not at all what irony is. I believe the turn of events you just described would be best classified as completely expected.
Yulier: Wha... what are you talking about?
Yui: Irony, noun: A state of affairs or an event that seems deliberately contrary to what one expects, and is often amusing as a result. Example: Your leader is named Thinker, yet he appears to be something of a dullard.

[Aliquid]

Oh, come off it, already!
You know I wasn't serious, your know nobody here was advocating genocide, implicitly or explicitly, and you are not impressing anyone by acting all indignant.nobody is saying you were serious. You are arguing a point that nobody has made.


I am so beyond sick of this entitled attitude, of this constant call for attention you and plenty of others have over the internet nowadays, this implicitly setting yourself up like your feelings matter more than the rest of us just because you have autism, a non binary sexuality or whatever else makes you a special snowflake.I'm not sure how you change "my feelings matter too" into "my feelings matter more"


Let me tell you something, I've seen people die before my eyes. When I go to a party that's too loud or too crowded I risk getting to see it all over again. Now think for a moment, for one ****ing moment, how I feel when I read "trigger warning" on this forum, when people claim to get PTSD, something I've been fighting against for the better part of my life, from a forum post of some Internet nobody that simply doesn't know better. here I agree with you 100%. People who cry "trigger warning" don't have a clue about how PTSD works, or what it is. They trivialize a major issue by pretending their perfectly normal "bad feelings" associated with an event are anything like going through PTSD. There is a big difference between feeling sad when reminded of something and suddenly fully reliving something tragic.


Let me be honest. I fight against the urge of flipping my table over the first world idiciocy the Internet is made of every time I get on my computer. that is trivial compared to the hate and bigotry spread by trolls.

You seriously afraid of someone getting started with a eugenetic program to erase your sad little socially awkward genes from this world? Over a joke?
Come off it.and are you getting this worked up just because people are asking you to show a bit of empathy? Wow you are hard done by. I can understand if you roll your eyes, but wirh all the crap going on in the world, this is the subject that you feel the need to rant on? Your right to be offensive?

[2D8HP]

Is it ironic that I find all of these statements funny/witty?:



Look at us helping Alanis....



But we can all agree that people that say they are being ironic when they are being sarcastic or even just generally humorous need to be beaten down with sharp sticks, right?



It's like "goldy" and "bronzy" only it's made out of iron.



...If irony were strawberries, we'd be drinkin' a whole lotta smoothies.




...I'm in the minority for not seeing the innate thigh-slapping humor in references to Aktion T4..



...sorry if you ever felt that I was calling you a genocidal maniac.


Is it also ironic that those who I've seen most employing sarcasm and dark/black/gallows humor are pre-teenage boys (my son's age) who have seen so little of life/death, and the nurse's at General Hospital (on Potrero Avenue), who have seen so much?

Come to think of it, the newest of my co-workers is a young (compared to me) ex-Marine, who reminds me of both.

[Gravitron5000]

I would argue, though, that humor is qualitatively different. Jokes necessarily assume, a priori, that their audience is comfortable enough with their subject to find it a harmless absurdity -- and, even if only a little, they encourage us to find it so, lest we "not get it" and so be left out. This can help people deal with tragedy, but it can also lighten its arguably necessary impact and forestall our normal reaction to unacceptable events. Consider, say, jokes about prison rape. There are people out there who will argue they're funny, even as they assert that rape totally isn't; unstated but assumed is the implication that the incarcerated are "other" enough that it somehow doesn't register..

Although some subjects may not be funny, that does not preclude jokes about those subjects being funny, depending on the joke and the audience.


I'm not calling 2D8HP a Nazi. I am saying, however, that making genocide funny is complicit in making it acceptable, and then making it happen, and it is possible to turn a blind eye and say the line hasn't been crossed yet and encourage rational discussion until the opposition is filling mass graves, all without anyone involved realizing what's happening. I would rather argue, strenuously, that people are people even when they don't or can't look or sound or think like us and therefore deserve the full measure of our compassion and empathy no matter how much they might annoy us. Implicitly asking us to pretend they don't, just for a lark, may well be harmless in itself, but it builds and strengthens neural pathways that can lead to our complicity with atrocity. That is where the liklihood of offending large groups of people matters for protecting even the smallest group: if this doesn't offend many people, it's a very worrying sign of what they might allow.

I can see humour going both ways in this respect. Sure, making a joke about a subject can be used to normalize a way of thinking and draw you down the slippery slope of condoning the subject matter behind the joke, but it can just as easily highlight how absurd that way of thinking is which has quite the opposite effect.


I would rather not leave unremarked upon a comment that could go some way to normalizing genocide -- and I would hope that, should I err in similar fashion, someone else would catch my error as well, as has happened in the past and will doubtless happen again. Otherwise, we risk forgetting, and then repeating, some of our worst mistakes.

If we can joke about a subject, that subject is in our mind's eye, and has not been forgotten.

[fire_insideout]

I, perhaps in error, do find it ironic that a thread about explaining irony ends up with people misunderstanding the use of irony and becoming upset.

[Donnadogsoth]

For example "It's like raaaaaain on your wedding day"
What if your wedding day was deliberately scheduled in a desert during the dry season... and it rained anyway. Would that push it away from "crappy luck" to irony?

Only if you're a meteorologist.

[Scarlet Knight]

Just watched Becoming Jane last night ...yeah, I know, don't judge me.

Anyway... this quote came up: “Irony is the bringing together of contradictory truths to make out of the contradiction a new truth with a laugh or a smile.” – Jane Austen

[The Eye]

And so it ends the way it began. With pointless whining.

LOL, this is a good exemple.

[Donnadogsoth]

Just watched Becoming Jane last night ...yeah, I know, don't judge me.

Anyway... this quote came up: “Irony is the bringing together of contradictory truths to make out of the contradiction a new truth with a laugh or a smile.” – Jane Austen

Aside: what does this expression mean? I've seen people slip it into their writing and don't quite understand. Is there a rash of judgement going on? Are there entertainment choices that it is not popularly acceptable to "judge" people over, and other choices in which "judging" is acceptable? Who decides the acceptability or non-acceptability of judgement?

[Aliquid]

LOL, this is a good exemple.I agree. I almost posted something on that thread, but I couldn't... that had to remain the final post.

[2D8HP]

LOL, this is a good exemple.
I agree. I almost posted something on that thread, but I couldn't... that had to remain the final post.


Is it ironic that I, who spend most of my waking hours wearing dirty tool filled overalls, was hoping that that thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=22013090#post22013090) would've morphed into a fashion advice thread?


...Are there entertainment choices that it is not popularly acceptable to "judge" people over, and other choices in which "judging" is acceptable? Who decides the acceptability or non-acceptability of judgement?


Well... I can easily imagine that someone upon finding that the television show I most look forward to watching each week is:

Victorian Slum House (preview video) (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gLTgtuhgdFg)

....may judge that enjoy watching suffering, which is hardly flattering!

[The Eye]

Is it ironic that I, who spend most of my waking hours wearing dirty tool filled overalls, was hoping that that thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=22013090#post22013090) would've morphed into a fashion advice thread?


Wait, you mean you don't know how to dress well? I guess it's expected to be for you to want advice, not ironic at all.

[2D8HP]

Wait, you mean you don't know how to dress well? I guess it's expected to be for you to want advice, not ironic at all.


The irony is that I know, but just don't (not practical for my work, besides I'm seeking neither romance nor status).

[Scarlet Knight]

Aside: what does this expression mean? I've seen people slip it into their writing and don't quite understand. Is there a rash of judgement going on? Are there entertainment choices that it is not popularly acceptable to "judge" people over, and other choices in which "judging" is acceptable? Who decides the acceptability or non-acceptability of judgement?

Not a rash of judgement; just normal human nature via popular opinion.

I use it when I do something unpopular or commonly looked down upon; usually to say "yeah I know already, I like it anyway" humorously.

In this case, it was meant in the vein of: "Yeah, I'm a guy watching a Chick-flick. No need to mock, I already know."

[2D8HP]

...In this case, it was meant in the vein of: "Yeah, I'm a guy watching a Chick-flick. No need to mock, I already know."


Welcome to the club.

I'm a blue-collar man, and I like "girly" films like The Princess Bride, and The Hotel Budapest more than my wife, and she likes television shows such as Game of Thrones, and especially 24 much more than me.

I'm way more squeamish about torture scenes than she is.

But we have similar dark senses of humor.