I don’t use that. I think it greatly diminishes the impact of the sarcastic statement to the point where it is no longer worth having made to begin with. Sorta like explaining a joke and thereby killing it. I prefer to take context in to account to make it more obvious that a statement is most likely sarcastic.There’s an irony there that’s not lost on me given I had to make an additional comment to literally explain that the previous one was sarcastic which is arguably worse on the lame scale than a /s would have been but I tend to only follow up like that when I think it necessary. In this instance I spoke sarcastically for a joke that I want to bring everyone in on and not for the sake of malice. This commenter seemed actually confused but was otherwise making a perfectly valid point albeit under misapprehension. Conversely, if I’ve deployed the sarcasm for the sake of malice while annoyed with someone, I don’t care if it goes over their head and if anything it’s more satisfying and in such an instance I wouldn’t bother to help them.
In c/autism you maybe want to make an exception to your weird personal rule about tone indicators. This community is especially populated by people who may significantly struggle to understand tone in text through only context.
Edit:you also replied to OP and not the comment you were trying to reply to so there really isn’t any attached context for your anti-tone indicator rant.
Yeh, you’re right, that’s about as text book a circumstance as ever to suspend this policy. In fact my own rule has the option to just not say whatever it is at all if I’m so sure the sarcasm can’t stand on its own without an indicator so ultimately that’s really what I should have done.
I wouldn’t worry about it, it was a weak explanation of a personal idiosyncracy. I do still prefer not to use /s because again I think it’s akin to explaining a joke and in the process ruining itm I still believe that, but also, by my own explanation I think that sarcastic statements should be clear enough from context not to require a tag and if I’m having to write these long ass screeds justifying that I should probably take that as a sign that maybe I’m not satisfying that requirement and simply not have said anything. Especially, as was pointed out, where that context is in a Lemmy community called “autism”.
I don’t use that. I think it greatly diminishes the impact of the sarcastic statement to the point where it is no longer worth having made to begin with. Sorta like explaining a joke and thereby killing it. I prefer to take context in to account to make it more obvious that a statement is most likely sarcastic.There’s an irony there that’s not lost on me given I had to make an additional comment to literally explain that the previous one was sarcastic which is arguably worse on the lame scale than a /s would have been but I tend to only follow up like that when I think it necessary. In this instance I spoke sarcastically for a joke that I want to bring everyone in on and not for the sake of malice. This commenter seemed actually confused but was otherwise making a perfectly valid point albeit under misapprehension. Conversely, if I’ve deployed the sarcasm for the sake of malice while annoyed with someone, I don’t care if it goes over their head and if anything it’s more satisfying and in such an instance I wouldn’t bother to help them.
In c/autism you maybe want to make an exception to your weird personal rule about tone indicators. This community is especially populated by people who may significantly struggle to understand tone in text through only context.
Edit:you also replied to OP and not the comment you were trying to reply to so there really isn’t any attached context for your anti-tone indicator rant.
deleted by creator
Yeh, you’re right, that’s about as text book a circumstance as ever to suspend this policy. In fact my own rule has the option to just not say whatever it is at all if I’m so sure the sarcasm can’t stand on its own without an indicator so ultimately that’s really what I should have done.
huh?
I wouldn’t worry about it, it was a weak explanation of a personal idiosyncracy. I do still prefer not to use /s because again I think it’s akin to explaining a joke and in the process ruining itm I still believe that, but also, by my own explanation I think that sarcastic statements should be clear enough from context not to require a tag and if I’m having to write these long ass screeds justifying that I should probably take that as a sign that maybe I’m not satisfying that requirement and simply not have said anything. Especially, as was pointed out, where that context is in a Lemmy community called “autism”.