Douyin account of the altruist: 小唐在美国 https://www.reddit.com/r/NewsWithJingjing/comments/1slili1/a_young_man_from_sichuan_china_goes_to_skid_row/ A young man from Sichuan, China goes to "Skid Row" ...
Context is the most useful clue. If a take sounds absurd there’s a fairly high chance it’s meant to be interpreted exactly that way.
e.g. “Man, I can’t wait to get bombed!”
Does this sound like something a normal person would say? No, it sounds too outlandish to be believable. Could someone believe this unironically? Sure, but the odds aren’t likely. Most people don’t want to be bombed - never mind be excited at the prospect.
Word choice also matters. Notice the choice of the first word: “man” being used as a casual expression, followed immediately by something horrific. It’s too nonchalant.
Nobody enjoys being bombed, nobody wants to be bombed, and nobody would be so chill with the idea of being bombed. This isn’t behavior you’d see from normal people; so it’s easy to conclude that there are only two possibilities:
The person saying this is actually insane.
They’re being sarcastic.
The latter is statistically more likely and tends to be the safest bet.
This isn’t an exhaustive list of how to convey sarcasm through text but generally all you have to do is follow the basic logic of taking a serious topic and applying a non-serious take to it. The real trick is figuring out how outlandish what your saying sounds. Some things sound crazier to some people more than others, which is why it’s generally best to sound as silly as possible lest you be misunderstood - as happened here.
Tbh, though I appreciate your effort to explain how to make it clearer (it’s a solid breakdown on language use), I tend to be of the view that unless you really know your audience (ex: you’re speaking to a close friend who you can trust knows you and knows your tells for joking and serious) it’s almost always better to say outright whether you’re joking.
One point made in this thread is that not doing so makes it more difficult for people on the autism spectrum. But it’s not only that. There’s a reason Poe’s law become an adage on the internet:
The observation that, on the Internet, without a clear indication of the author’s intent, it is impossible to tell the difference between sincere extremism and a parody of extremism.
In particular, in ideological spaces, there’s real risk that parody of reactionary views can be used as a means of laundering real reactionary views through irony poisoning:
Irony poisoning is the process or altered state wherein one has a diminished capacity for distinguishing between one’s own genuine beliefs and ironic beliefs through an overuse of irony. This can manifest in either an inability to state one’s beliefs in a genuine way or genuinely echoing provocative sentiments they once held only ironically.
Or through a process like that of what is sometimes called “Schrodinger’s douchebag”:
Someone who is a jerk and decides whether they were joking or not based on how people reacted.
I’ve been wanting to write a longer post on this subject for some time, but never quite got around to it. In general, it seems to me that the common western view on parody and satire, that it’s somehow more clever/valuable/compelling if it is not explicitly and openly called attention to as such, is rooted in elitism rather than effectiveness (e.g. the idea is that there are the ones who are “clever enough of mind” to get it and the ones who aren’t, and the ones who aren’t are supposed to be left out - otherwise, why not say what it is?). Sans elitism, the “why not specify” could have some validity in theory. For example, I could imagine a scenario where speech is so criminalized that using satire to speak in code may have some value. However, that’s generally not what people are dealing with on the western English-speaking internet; either speech is not criminalized to such a degree or when it is, satire doesn’t help as “code” because of how easily it can be mistaken for the real thing and the anonymity means you won’t generally speaking to people who know you in order to decipher your true meaning.
Honestly, it seems like being vaporized may be the more merciful unchosen option, although that decision is not in the average hands, alone; but I get your meaning. Thanks.
Context is the most useful clue. If a take sounds absurd there’s a fairly high chance it’s meant to be interpreted exactly that way.
e.g. “Man, I can’t wait to get bombed!”
Does this sound like something a normal person would say? No, it sounds too outlandish to be believable. Could someone believe this unironically? Sure, but the odds aren’t likely. Most people don’t want to be bombed - never mind be excited at the prospect.
Word choice also matters. Notice the choice of the first word: “man” being used as a casual expression, followed immediately by something horrific. It’s too nonchalant.
Nobody enjoys being bombed, nobody wants to be bombed, and nobody would be so chill with the idea of being bombed. This isn’t behavior you’d see from normal people; so it’s easy to conclude that there are only two possibilities:
The latter is statistically more likely and tends to be the safest bet.
This isn’t an exhaustive list of how to convey sarcasm through text but generally all you have to do is follow the basic logic of taking a serious topic and applying a non-serious take to it. The real trick is figuring out how outlandish what your saying sounds. Some things sound crazier to some people more than others, which is why it’s generally best to sound as silly as possible lest you be misunderstood - as happened here.
Tbh, though I appreciate your effort to explain how to make it clearer (it’s a solid breakdown on language use), I tend to be of the view that unless you really know your audience (ex: you’re speaking to a close friend who you can trust knows you and knows your tells for joking and serious) it’s almost always better to say outright whether you’re joking.
One point made in this thread is that not doing so makes it more difficult for people on the autism spectrum. But it’s not only that. There’s a reason Poe’s law become an adage on the internet:
In particular, in ideological spaces, there’s real risk that parody of reactionary views can be used as a means of laundering real reactionary views through irony poisoning:
Or through a process like that of what is sometimes called “Schrodinger’s douchebag”:
I’ve been wanting to write a longer post on this subject for some time, but never quite got around to it. In general, it seems to me that the common western view on parody and satire, that it’s somehow more clever/valuable/compelling if it is not explicitly and openly called attention to as such, is rooted in elitism rather than effectiveness (e.g. the idea is that there are the ones who are “clever enough of mind” to get it and the ones who aren’t, and the ones who aren’t are supposed to be left out - otherwise, why not say what it is?). Sans elitism, the “why not specify” could have some validity in theory. For example, I could imagine a scenario where speech is so criminalized that using satire to speak in code may have some value. However, that’s generally not what people are dealing with on the western English-speaking internet; either speech is not criminalized to such a degree or when it is, satire doesn’t help as “code” because of how easily it can be mistaken for the real thing and the anonymity means you won’t generally speaking to people who know you in order to decipher your true meaning.
Also tagging @Bronstein_Tardigrade@lemmygrad.ml because I think it’s worth you considering this perspective on the subject.
Honestly, it seems like being vaporized may be the more merciful unchosen option, although that decision is not in the average hands, alone; but I get your meaning. Thanks.