My deepest respect for your pointing out the funny within the irony until really wach and everyone can laugh about it. Nothing better than a well explained joke, However the explaining of a single joke when just performed exhaustingly and tediously enough by pedantic characters might become itself a new joke, a form of “metahumour”.
You know guys, the issue here really is that while you can imagine a tone while reading, unless there’s actually an objective indicator as to what it’s supposed to be, there’s going to be mismatches.
I don’t think we give enough credence to the magic of language. We’re looking at essentially a binary table of black and white, the white forming letters, those letters then forming words and those words eliciting specific thoughts. The fact that the tone isn’t conveyed properly is a very minor thing. But we can’t really imagine completely toneless speech, so sometimes neutral seems aggressive and sometimes sarcastic seems obtuse.
Which I grant I honestly took your comment as well for the first 3 seconds. You never know online. You just. Can’t know. No matter how seemingly obvious it seems to be from context. Poe’s law and all that
Well said, however there are universally accepted indicators within litterature that are used to convey such tone. Not to mention they completely lacked any connotative words that would have helped the average person decipher that instantly. My original message “youre being cheeky right?” was litterally questioning “what side are you on?” because without tone or connotation they might actually hold these beliefs. I think we can agree that they could have easily wrote the original message using these litterary devices to convey the message and connotation perfectly
“It used to be pulp literature, cinema, comics, television, Rock’n’Roll and VHS that spoiled our young. Now it’s definitely video games.”
Heck, I sure was as ambiguous as the whole discussion is and always was. Claims of cinema, even theater (even drama in ancient Greece), VHS etc, were a danger to to the general public and specifically to the youth were absolutely real. They even had some point. It’s just the fact that the same blame game has been played again and again with every new medium that emerged that has some intrinsic irony. Obviously communication channels can be used by miscreants to spread ugly stuff. Who might have thought? And still people are acting as if thit was new or unexpected. I didn’t even have to point thar out, just the sheer mentioning of these undoubted historic facts did the job. Make your own conclusions from that, everyone, but don’t be surprised or upset when the next big thing will be used to spoil the youth just again. Because it will happen. It never stopped happening.
I think history kinda shows us they did not in fact have any sort of a point besides being irate about new technology.
The point is text doesn’t convey tone, or even necessarily have any, but texts is read as speech, and speech has a tone. A lot of the times our internal translators just pick the wrong one.
You don’t realize my intention at all. I deliberately was as neutral as possible. Just one simple sentence. Facts. I am on no one’s side, because there’s no side in the more or less chronological ordered line of media being accused to spoil the youth, ruin society etc. The irony lies within. No need for intonation (and as a musician, I know a thing about tone and one more about each, rhythm and tempo). No need to take sides in the actual discussion, because it is the old discussion. Yes, there is irony and yes, I am completely serious. This sort of ambivalence is also what makes the arts what they are. Truth is there’s practically no disambiguity in the real world, the duality we humans see everywhere is just how our minds simplify things, because evolutionarily most descisions are binary: flight or fight, left road or right one, answer or not, eat unknown berry or don’t.
This reply of yours is a perfect example. I have done nothing or taken any tone towards you, yet you have imagined I have imagined a tone for your messages, which then affected the tone you imagine I’m taking.
Because again, while text can be neutral, speech isn’t.
You can read a user manual and the objective texts in it won’t be imagined with any tone. But a personal message like this? You have already imagined what tone of voice, I’m using and with what sort of rhythm and tempo as well.
No need to take sides in the actual discussion
I haven’t. Perhaps you’ve imagined that based on imagining a negative tone to a completely neutral reply? Almost as if humans had a tendency to do that. Weird how no-one has brought it up. Oh wait, right, I have, that’s what we are discussing.
Doth thou cranium contain the capacity for sarcasm? If so, you certainly did not display such characteristics in your original message. For it seems you lack the basic litterary skills to portray such complexities in your work. I suggest doing away with your frail attempts at humor aswell, seeing as only you would find these morsels humorous. Finally on your ramblings of metahumor, you attempt to imply that I would become the posterier to your musings of comedy. However you fail to understand one thing, My original message too was a but a aggitator of sorts designed to invoke a reaction, quickly youve responded with an attempt to disparage me. My tactics were dastardly but you proved yourself the dastard In this exchange.
WOW Finally! An award always wanted one of these!
See how I make it obvious that im being sarcastic? Coulda done that the first time.
My deepest respect for your pointing out the funny within the irony until really wach and everyone can laugh about it. Nothing better than a well explained joke, However the explaining of a single joke when just performed exhaustingly and tediously enough by pedantic characters might become itself a new joke, a form of “metahumour”.
You know guys, the issue here really is that while you can imagine a tone while reading, unless there’s actually an objective indicator as to what it’s supposed to be, there’s going to be mismatches.
I don’t think we give enough credence to the magic of language. We’re looking at essentially a binary table of black and white, the white forming letters, those letters then forming words and those words eliciting specific thoughts. The fact that the tone isn’t conveyed properly is a very minor thing. But we can’t really imagine completely toneless speech, so sometimes neutral seems aggressive and sometimes sarcastic seems obtuse.
Which I grant I honestly took your comment as well for the first 3 seconds. You never know online. You just. Can’t know. No matter how seemingly obvious it seems to be from context. Poe’s law and all that
Well said, however there are universally accepted indicators within litterature that are used to convey such tone. Not to mention they completely lacked any connotative words that would have helped the average person decipher that instantly. My original message “youre being cheeky right?” was litterally questioning “what side are you on?” because without tone or connotation they might actually hold these beliefs. I think we can agree that they could have easily wrote the original message using these litterary devices to convey the message and connotation perfectly
“It used to be pulp literature, cinema, comics, television, Rock’n’Roll and VHS that spoiled our young. Now it’s definitely video games.”
Heck, I sure was as ambiguous as the whole discussion is and always was. Claims of cinema, even theater (even drama in ancient Greece), VHS etc, were a danger to to the general public and specifically to the youth were absolutely real. They even had some point. It’s just the fact that the same blame game has been played again and again with every new medium that emerged that has some intrinsic irony. Obviously communication channels can be used by miscreants to spread ugly stuff. Who might have thought? And still people are acting as if thit was new or unexpected. I didn’t even have to point thar out, just the sheer mentioning of these undoubted historic facts did the job. Make your own conclusions from that, everyone, but don’t be surprised or upset when the next big thing will be used to spoil the youth just again. Because it will happen. It never stopped happening.
I think history kinda shows us they did not in fact have any sort of a point besides being irate about new technology.
The point is text doesn’t convey tone, or even necessarily have any, but texts is read as speech, and speech has a tone. A lot of the times our internal translators just pick the wrong one.
You don’t realize my intention at all. I deliberately was as neutral as possible. Just one simple sentence. Facts. I am on no one’s side, because there’s no side in the more or less chronological ordered line of media being accused to spoil the youth, ruin society etc. The irony lies within. No need for intonation (and as a musician, I know a thing about tone and one more about each, rhythm and tempo). No need to take sides in the actual discussion, because it is the old discussion. Yes, there is irony and yes, I am completely serious. This sort of ambivalence is also what makes the arts what they are. Truth is there’s practically no disambiguity in the real world, the duality we humans see everywhere is just how our minds simplify things, because evolutionarily most descisions are binary: flight or fight, left road or right one, answer or not, eat unknown berry or don’t.
I realise your intention perfectly.
This reply of yours is a perfect example. I have done nothing or taken any tone towards you, yet you have imagined I have imagined a tone for your messages, which then affected the tone you imagine I’m taking.
Because again, while text can be neutral, speech isn’t.
You can read a user manual and the objective texts in it won’t be imagined with any tone. But a personal message like this? You have already imagined what tone of voice, I’m using and with what sort of rhythm and tempo as well.
I haven’t. Perhaps you’ve imagined that based on imagining a negative tone to a completely neutral reply? Almost as if humans had a tendency to do that. Weird how no-one has brought it up. Oh wait, right, I have, that’s what we are discussing.
Made me laugh, thank you.
Okay pops I can match this energy hold on. Ehem.
Doth thou cranium contain the capacity for sarcasm? If so, you certainly did not display such characteristics in your original message. For it seems you lack the basic litterary skills to portray such complexities in your work. I suggest doing away with your frail attempts at humor aswell, seeing as only you would find these morsels humorous. Finally on your ramblings of metahumor, you attempt to imply that I would become the posterier to your musings of comedy. However you fail to understand one thing, My original message too was a but a aggitator of sorts designed to invoke a reaction, quickly youve responded with an attempt to disparage me. My tactics were dastardly but you proved yourself the dastard In this exchange.