Post #3631631

2026-07-06 15:57 UTC

@nycki@critters.gay I disagree with this oversimplification of sarcasm. I still use sarcasm (a little) and always in this context: I wish to state what seems to me the only logical consequence of my interlocutor's ridiculous assertions, I wish to make what is a valid logical inference based on a reasonable interpretation of their words, and yet I wish to signify that I do not myself believe in the inference. "It's just lying" where did that come from exactly?

Replies (1)

@nycki@critters.gay 2026-07-06 16:01

@mxchara@seattle.pink I'm using "lying" here to mean "saying something you know is false, on purpose". Normally when people say lying they mean "saying something false, on purpose, with the intent of being believed", so I'm clarifying here that sarcasm is like lying but without the intent of being believed. A lot of autistic people I've met are afraid of "saying falsehoods" in any context, because "that's lying", which is why I bothered to mention autistic people in this post clarifying the difference. I would argue that a reducto ad absurdum, as you've described it, is definitely sarcasm, and it's sarcasm for the same reason as I'm describing: taking an absurd conclusion as true would require a large update to my priors.

Open ##3631630