this post was submitted on 10 Jun 2026
281 points (94.0% liked)
me_irl
7818 readers
2934 users here now
All posts need to have the same title: me_irl it is allowed to use an emoji instead of the underscore _
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Man, infantilizing, condescending, and missing my entire point. Real hat trick, ya got there.
Thinking /s is telling people to laugh at your joke or a demand that they view it as funny is entirely on you and has nothing to do with the tag. The tag is there so that there isn't confusion about what you're saying. People telling others to use the tag usually comes from them being massively misunderstood and then saying "I was being sarcastic".
"But that ruins the joke for me". Question, do you deliver all of your sarcasm straight? Never use a tone when saying something sarcastic? Cause that is a thing, but it really only works if the audience knows who you are. The humor coming either from juxtaposing the idea against your nature, or from people knowing that most of the stuff coming out of your mouth is sarcastic. Most of the rest of the time, people use vocal tone to indicate their sarcasm. The tag is a stand-in for the tone. If the tone doesn't ruin the joke, then the tag doesn't either.
No joke, that's how 4chan brought the nazis back. Chucklefucks thought it was hilarious to talk like nazis, and they made a safe space for nazis by doing so. Not everything is serious, but you don't know where others are at in their lives. How does clarifying where you stand detriment anyone?
Firstly, apologies about the first two, honestly not my intention. And perhaps you're right about the last
Yes I understand that, however especially with humour like sarcasm, it somewhat hinges on the ambiguity. If you remove the ambiguity, it kinda just becomes a non sequitur or contrarian. To add the tag removes something fundamental about it
More subjective on this one, but frankly for jokes that don't rely on that ambiguity, they shouldn't need signposting as jokes if they're any good anyway. Though I'm actually less bothered about them in that circumstance, they're more like canned laughter, which still has a negative impact IMO but doesn't take away something fundamental from a lot of humour.
Anecdotal of course, but in my experience it's more often down to it being unfunny or just shitty. I'd say seen "I was being sarcastic" much more often as a cop out than any kind of genuine misunderstanding. i.e. they should probably have just not made the joke/quip
Tbf, yeah as best I can when trying to be earnestly (lol) sarcastic. If I'm trying to be ironically sarcastic then I'd probably ham up the sarcastic stereotypes.
Maybe this is also something of a cultural clash too as someone else mentioned. Dry sarcasm based humour has been something of a key pillar in the gamut of humour throughout my life so far. It was a big faux pas growing up to laugh at your own jokes, that's probably gonna impact my views on this if we're gonna do an armchair psychoanalysis
A funny jump and technically a slippery slope fallacy, but also kinda a fair point. I didn't mean it in a black and white sense, but I guess that kinda is the problem. I don't think we can really include bad actors in a discussion about something they would simply just mimic to continue doing what they already do.
Hopefully elaborated above enough to answer that, but basically after thought there's more nuance than that question asks for. Some humour kinda hinges on ambiguity that is destroyed by flagging it, other cases it kinda dents it IMO but I guess I have much less of a fundamental issue with it in those cases