What should be done about the word "moist"?

[Vijay]

I haven't been here as long as any of you, and even I could tell he was being sarcastic.

There were literally no sarcasm markers in Pole's post.

How about a) the fact that the Pole quoted the title of the thread rather than an actual post, b) the fact that he was talking about something as extreme as closing the thread and "every instance" of something implying "a warning from a mod," and c) the fact that this is not the first time he's sarcastically said a discussion was over?

[linguoboy]

ProTip: If you are unfamiliar with a particular poster's default posting style, try viewing a few of their other posts before trying to interpret one of them in isolation.

Lack of sarcasm markers is not a reason to assume sincerity, but it is a reason to be unsure. I personally was inclined to believe that Pole was sarcastic—it would have been much more in line with what I expected from him—but I believe that you were incorrect in chiding Cev for being unsure.

But you thought he was correct to chide others for taking him seriously (or at least appearing to)?

The irony of it all was simply too much for me to bear. If you're going to attempt satire, you have to expect that some people will recognise that and respond in kind.

[ObsequiousNewt]

I haven't been here as long as any of you, and even I could tell he was being sarcastic.

There were literally no sarcasm markers in Pole's post.

How about a) the fact that the Pole quoted the title of the thread rather than an actual post, b) the fact that he was talking about something as extreme as closing the thread and "every instance" of something implying "a warning from a mod," and c) the fact that this is not the first time he's sarcastically said a discussion was over?

These are not sarcasm markers. In fact, did you see the post below that? Methru supported the idea in full earnest! Do you really believe that people don't propose ridiculous things sincerely?

ProTip: If you are unfamiliar with a particular poster's default posting style, try viewing a few of their other posts before trying to interpret one of them in isolation.

Lack of sarcasm markers is not a reason to assume sincerity, but it is a reason to be unsure. I personally was inclined to believe that Pole was sarcastic—it would have been much more in line with what I expected from him—but I believe that you were incorrect in chiding Cev for being unsure.

But you thought he was correct to chide others for taking him seriously (or at least appearing to)?

The irony of it all was simply too much for me to bear. If you're going to attempt satire, you have to expect that some people will recognise that and respond in kind.

Did I say he was correct?

Look, if you don't provide any signals that you're being sarcastic, you can't be surprised when people think that there's a chance you're serious! This applies to everyone!

[Vijay]

These are not sarcasm markers.

Why not?

In fact, did you see the post below that? Methru supported the idea in full earnest!

How do you know? For all you or I know, maybe he meant that sarcastically, too. Not everyone expresses sarcasm in exactly the same way.

Do you really believe that people don't propose ridiculous things sincerely?

No, but when it's ridiculous enough, I consider it highly unlikely that they mean it seriously. That goes double for people who are already known to say things sarcastically.

Did I say he was correct?

If you didn't think he was, why only call out linguoboy and not him?

[Xephyr]

ObsequiousNewt, settle down, this is my mess I'll clean it up.

ProTip: If you are unfamiliar with a particular poster's default posting style, try viewing a few of their other posts before trying to interpret one of them in isolation.

Since you mention it!, I did in fact review Pole's post history before writing my post, and to my frustration could find nothing that indicated to me whether s/he was prone to making comments like that sarcastically or in earnest... (maybe I just didn't look hard enough). With apologies to Pole, I never pay much attention to him/her to know what s/he's like, so I had to choose whether to proceed with the "sarcasm" assumption or the "earnestness" one... and I chose wrong. Oops.

In my own defense, though, (and you may well interpret this as just me backpeddling-- I can't stop that), I wasn't intending to accuse others of not detecting my sarcasm (I think the over-the-top revolutionary rhetoric in my OP was about as obvious as these things can get). Of course I knew you all knew I was joking; what I was more interested in, however, was the fact that the aforementioned Index Prohibitorum so suffuses the lexicon that people who were unfamiliar with the "moist" meme could believe I was referring to an actual anti-gay slur. (You yourself did as well, no?) My misreading of Pole was rightfully embarrassing for me, yes, but it doesn't really affect my point, does it?

EDIT: Of course, maybe it's just a coincidence, and means nothing.

As for whether I "ought" to have known Pole was kidding: well, it's not really important (not as important as the fact that I was wrong), but I've seen people say pretty incredible things, and have seen threads locked for pretty ridiculous reasons, so it wasn't "obvious" to me that it was sarcasm, no. Maybe it was to you; maybe you just think I'm an undiscerning dullard.

Of course I was being sarcastic. Honestly, if it were serious, I would demand much more severe punishment for using the M-word…

Good to know. And don't listen to Newt: "sarcasm markers" are barbarous things.

[Aili Meilani]

sarcasm markers

holy fuck you're serious aren't you

take this safety cube

[mèþru]

I usually make a response to the literal meaning of the Pole's posts, as I cannot understand what position he is endorsing a lot of the time. From what I understand of the Pole's posting style, both literal and sarcastic interpretations are usually meant to some level.

[Pole, the]

I usually make a response to the literal meaning of the Pole's posts, as I cannot understand what position he is endorsing a lot of the time. From what I understand of the Pole's posting style, both literal and sarcastic interpretations are usually meant to some level.

Yay! Finally someone who understands me!


(This post is sarcastic.)


(Or is it?)

[Nortaneous]

zbb.txt

[ObsequiousNewt]

I didn't call out Pole because he wasn't accusatory in the same way Linguoboy was. Honestly I don't know or care who overreacted anymore. I probably did. Speaking of which, my apologies, Cev.

That said, of course there's no such thing as 'sarcasm markers', or whatever you want to call them. People always speak evenly, and the only way you can judge their sincerity is by the content of their communication.

[Sumelic]

I didn't call out Pole because he wasn't accusatory in the same way Linguoboy was. Honestly I don't know or care who overreacted anymore. I probably did. Speaking of which, my apologies, Cev.

That said, of course there's no such thing as 'sarcasm markers', or whatever you want to call them. People always speak evenly, and the only way you can judge their sincerity is by the content of their communication.

Human nature being what it is, if such markers existed their meaning would surely be subverted by some speakers, or people would leave them off. If you're using sarcasm, you're inevitably saying the opposite of what you mean on some level. For what it's worth, according to Mark Liberman

There's no such thing as sarcastic intonation. Not in English, anyhow, and I doubt that any other language has such a thing either. Nor is there sarcastic stress, sarcastic pitch, sarcastic voice quality or any other mode of speech production that means "what I'm saying now is the opposite of what I mean."

Of course, "marker" is definitely a broader category than "mode of speech production," but wouldn't a 100% clear sarcasm marker really just be a form of negation? (Like the technique of completing a sentence and then slapping the word "not" at the end.)

[Salmoneus]

And at least one of you wants to lock the thread as well? Good lord. You people are unbelievable.

Wait, you thought the Pole was being serious?

So that's what it looks like when the master satirist is moistened by his own moutarde.

There were literally no sarcasm markers in Pole's post.

FTR, not only did I think the sarcasm was obvious (that doesn't make Cev a doltard - we all make mistakes sometimes), but I thought it was so brutal that it was overdone.

In fact, I thought the sarcasm was so dripping that initially I assumed this post of yours must itself be sarcastic (your use of 'literally' probably encourages that interpretation).

[linguoboy]

Of course I knew you all knew I was joking; what I was more interested in, however, was the fact that the aforementioned Index Prohibitorum so suffuses the lexicon that people who were unfamiliar with the "moist" meme could believe I was referring to an actual anti-gay slur. (You yourself did as well, no?) My misreading of Pole was rightfully embarrassing for me, yes, but it doesn't really affect my point, does it?

No, I think your point stands.

And you wouldn't believe the range of things I've seen used as anti-gay slurs (or imagined to be) in my time. "Moist" is by no means the least plausible of these. (For reference, the most common colloquial word for "gay" in German, schwul, is cognate with schwül "sultry, muggy". There's a whole obscure network of associations here, based on obsolete 19th-century beliefs about homosexuality being caused by an overactive sex drive and higher-than-normal internal temperature that I don't have time or inclination to go into right now.)

[ObsequiousNewt]

well then I guess I'm just THAT oblivious. great

I didn't call out Pole because he wasn't accusatory in the same way Linguoboy was. Honestly I don't know or care who overreacted anymore. I probably did. Speaking of which, my apologies, Cev.

That said, of course there's no such thing as 'sarcasm markers', or whatever you want to call them. People always speak evenly, and the only way you can judge their sincerity is by the content of their communication.

Human nature being what it is, if such markers existed their meaning would surely be subverted by some speakers, or people would leave them off. If you're using sarcasm, you're inevitably saying the opposite of what you mean on some level. For what it's worth, according to Mark Liberman

There's no such thing as sarcastic intonation. Not in English, anyhow, and I doubt that any other language has such a thing either. Nor is there sarcastic stress, sarcastic pitch, sarcastic voice quality or any other mode of speech production that means "what I'm saying now is the opposite of what I mean."

Of course, "marker" is definitely a broader category than "mode of speech production," but wouldn't a 100% clear sarcasm marker really just be a form of negation? (Like the technique of completing a sentence and then slapping the word "not" at the end.)

There is No Such Thing as sarcasm markers. There is No Such Thing as sarcasm markers. There is No Such Thing as sarcasm markers. People literally never give any clues that they might be joking if there's a chance they might be taken as serious

[jmcd]

you'll just have to call yourself ObliviousNewt now~~

[ObsequiousNewt]

also

sarcasm markers

holy fuck you're serious aren't you

take this safety cube

gee thanks dad I sure hope I don't hurt myself with it !

[Aili Meilani]

I'm not your dad, son.

[ObsequiousNewt]

I don't know how to put this nicely but

if you think that what I want is explicit sarcasm marking on everything, then you can βάλλειν ἐς κόρακας

[Imralu]

Here's a street sign that I came across in Berlin-Pankow a couple of years ago.


Am Feuchten Winkel translates to "on the moist angle" ...

[clawgrip]

Meanwhile, in Japan: