Sarcasm is on the increase because people seem to be running out of decent responses.
In one's personal relations, sarcasm seems to be a device for managing the moment. For instance, there comes a point in discussing alcoholism with an alcoholic that we are moved to say, "Of course. How silly of me to worry in the first place." Rarely are people sincere in that moment, but when the factors of being drunk every day, keeping bottles at the bedside, and refusing to discuss the bar tab define attempts to get a grasp on the situation, there comes a point when you throw your hands up and say, "I see. How foolish of me to worry about it."
Now, whether I or anyone else have gone through enough motions to warrant our exasperation, frustration, or otherwise is its own question.
In this form, sarcasm is a "bad face" on truth because it reflects the truth weaponized. The truth, as such, is ineffective in and of itself, so it is sharpened and honed and laid across the neck with clear intent to slash away:
• "You're right. I'm sorry. I can't believe I was worried about you driving drunk, spending your family into a hole, being incapable of doing anything other than sleeping twelve hours a day and complaining for the other twelve. It was so foolish of me to worry."
There are other occasions, though, when sarcasm doesn't have that edge. If the bombs are falling over _______ (insert city here), one might say, "At least they get to be shocked and awed by the pretty lights before they die."
What strikes me however is that in the written form, people often take such lines seriously. It would not be unreasonable in Sciforums terms to expect at least one person to hold a poster in such a case to their cruelty.
Sarcasm in this sense is a bad face on truth because while it may reflect a true comparison, it is not sincerely clear communication, and in an age when sincerely clear communication is unwanted, it still doesn't make sense to simply go adding to the filth.
In the end, sarcasm reflects the sarcastic and their priorities.
I might say, "Yes, let's kill them all, shall we? Let's drop some bombs and blow some children to shreds and call it a good day in the War Against Terror."
Now who at Sciforums that has ever read more than about five of my war-related posts would come to believe I was genuinely advocating the killing of children?
Which brings to light the third bad face of sarcasm: It is unsympathetic to the illiterate.
We cannot expect our neighbors to understand our sarcasm. We have no basis for such an expectation of comprehension.
Sarcasm is one of those cases when people would reserve to themselves what they deny others. Thus we must watch what we say, because there's always at least one idiot out there waiting for a chance to give somebody--anybody--a headache by proving the declining state of reading comprehension and writing skills on the internet.
Spoken sarcasm is an interesting thing. One can encounter a very strange three-point response:
• Harsh sarcasm must necessarily be cruelly-intended
• Lighthearted sarcasm must necessarily be cruelly-intended
• No sarcasm indicates a lack of humor
I mean, I actually know people like this. Their whole purpose is to bitch about how oppressed they are because nobody around them has a sense of humor. Yet, if any of those folks show it ... they must necessarily be cruel.
Sarcasm doesn't put a bad face on the truth when everybody in a communicative circle is "in" on that truth. There are still places in the world in which I can say what I want and people are smart enough to figure out sarcasm and other forms of intended humor.
Sarcasm, like anything else, derives its value from its beholder.
If I said "Bush is the best American president ever," I would have a hard time convincing anyone I wasn't being sarcastic, except those who already believe it and have never absorbed the content of other political posts of mine.
It's in the eye and ear of the beholder.
