Not being sarcastic

[jack]

There's a title I didn't expect to use :)

I've always enjoyed sarcasm: not as a put-down, but as crafting just the perfect thing to say. And I still do, when I'm not arguing with the person I'm talking to. If I'm expressing frustration, or ranting, or humorously exaggerating, or doing anything where I don't expect someone to disagree, I often express things sarcastically if I find it funny.

But inspired by ciphergoth, I've recently been noticing that I often have an impulse to be sarcastic when someone says something I massively disagree with, but it usually means that I'm very certain, but I *don't* have any facts to hand which will be convincing to *someone else*. (It may be effective to onlookers who aren't already entrenched against what I think, but not at persuading someone who disagrees.)

If I think, "how would I phrase the basic point I'm making in a non-sarcastic way", it's generally something like, "I think that's really wrong", but without much specifics. And I've been making an effort to say nothing, or say the straight-forward version.

Comments

[seekingferret]

Hmm... I think I do something similar in cases where I disagree strongly but don't want to argue- I say something that can be interpreted either as vague acknowledgement of the statement without strong comment, or as sarcastic disapproval not backed by any argument, and I say it in a neutral tone to try to slip it past the person I'm disagreeing with. Something like "I've never heard it put like that before." It's a sop to my conscience in times when either, as you say, I don't have the facts to convince, or also when I don't think convincing them is something I want to take the time or effort to do. Sometimes I think you just have to let wrong things slip past, but I'm not comfortable with being silent when I do that.

[jack]

I know what you mean, and I think it can be useful and certainly something I do a fair bit.

But I'm also not sure if that actually works best; if you want to register disapproval visible to some people not others, being indirect risks being understood by the wrong people and not the right ones.

I guess it's also the case that I think *on average* I need to be less antagonistic, but probably in some minority of cases I *should* be antagonistic and should make sure I am.

[seekingferret]

being indirect risks being understood by the wrong people and not the right ones.

Is this something you've experienced or something you worry about? I haven't really had it be a problem- possibly the sarcasm acts as a high-pass filter that weeds out the people without the self-awareness to be worth arguing with. Also, most of the time when I use this tactic, the 'right ones' already know my opinion and are thus primed to recognize the sarcasm.

[jack]

Hm, just speculation, but at least for me, I've generally found my instincts for when to dodge a question not very well aligned with with when it's actually useful to do so (eg. the temptation to give literal-but-misleading answers instead of lying).

[damerell]

Well, I am not very nice, but often the deficiency in an ill-considered proposal can be pointed out effectively by sarcasm.

[jack]

Definitely so, but what I'm wondering is, is saying "good job we don't have to worry about X" actually more effective than saying "that wouldn't work because X"?

[mtbc]

I would guess less effective but possibly more entertaining.

[mtbc]

I find that I do the unfortunate optimization of researching an issue, coming to an opinion on it, then remembering the opinion but forgetting the research (after all, it's now served its purpose!).

[jack]

Yeah.