Talk:Sarcasm

Gods of Sarcasm

I highly suggest we make a section in the article listing some of the most sarcastic people that are famous. Or, per se, characters in movies/books that are famous for their witty sarcasm. House, from House MD, would be an example. NOTE: I don't necessarily want this melodramatic title to be used. 173.80.233.191 (talk) 13:04, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Vocally Goblin?

You're kidding me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.235.89.73 (talk) 10:53, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone remember

When sarcasm itself was seen as an inherently funny concept, and used on sitcoms in the late 80s/early 90s in that capacity? Several Simpsons episodes have someone simply saying "I'm being sarcastic" and that's the entire joke.. similar to 'well duh.'

Or that Kids in the Hall sketch where Dave Foley talks with a sarcastic drawl, sarcastically claiming that he has a 'speech impediment' which prevents him from talking in a 'normal way' leaving the viewer, and straight man Kevin Mcdonald, wondering if he's telling the truth or actually being sarcastic. While interesting to discuss, I can't see how this applies to the article. --Thaddius 18:15, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

'nooo i was being sincere' - Bart Simpson —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elcaballooscuro (talk • contribs) 01:51, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

"Double Sarcasm" or "sarcastic sarcasm"

I am surprised that this hasn't been better defined here. Perhaps we use it without noticing it. A good example of this would be: John is obviously working very, very hard, the obvious sarcasm would be "Hey John, stop slacking" Since this is too obvious a sarcasm to get any laughs or even be interesting, I might say instead "Hey John, Don't work too hard" with a heavy sarcastic tone as if I am using sarcasm to imply he is slacking, but since it is all too obvious that he isn't, this is a sarcasm used sarcastically. This of course only works if we understand the intent of the person using the double sarcasm, otherwise it just becomes confusing. Rules for double sarcasm: 1. Single sarcasm very obvious 2. Intent must be obvious —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hymie67 (talk • contribs) 07:33, 19 February 2007 (UTC).

That's an excellent idea! << (double sarcasm?) Nimur 22:59, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Sarcasm in other languages

I would be interested in seeing more information about sarcasm in other languages in this article if anyone has any info. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Spunkymcpunk (talk • contribs) 05:12, 29 March 2007 (UTC).

Dumbing down

I'm removing

This has been a recent development and is sign-posted as a dumbing down of literature by many within the British canon.

If anyone wants to unweasel-word it, fine.--Grimboy (talk) 01:44, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

This article could use some improvement

There are a bunch of problems with this article. I've corrected one I believe I should do without consultation: Sarcasm is mostly associated with the technique of substituting an intended meaning with the expression of its opposite; thus I've changed the introductory paragraph to better reflect this.

Secondly, if the article is titled 'Sarcasm,' I don't think the first section should also be titled that – it should present something distinctive.

Regarding the content of the second paragraph: I think that this is misrepresentative of most well-recognised literature. Certainly, web-speak and e-mail have presented a need to visually discern sarcasm, but skillful writers haven't traditionally required such a device and consequently the majority of sarcasm in well-known literature doesn't use italics and such because it doesn't need to. Shakespeare is definitely not a mere exception to the rule (as the article implies). Even though what I'm critical of in the article isn't sourced, I can't provide a source for my opinion so I won't edit it. But I reckon I'm right, so it would be good to look into that.

Anyway, surely there's more interesting things to say about sarcasm (in literary tradition) in addition to a couple of comments about its common employment in internet dialogue. The article as it is is a little bit trite by wikipedia standards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Et Amiti Gel (talk • contribs) 02:57, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

This article is non neutral

The quote represents a reactionary argument against a claim something along of the lines "Sarcasm is the tool of the weak and pathetic".

If a person cannot confront an opposing argument or wishes to falsely accuse someone of something, sarcasm allows them to fake confrontation. The target of the sarcastic remark is not clear on what is being said because by it's very nature it makes little or no sense to someone that doesn't already agree with it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.252.158.32 (talk) 03:03, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I think this article should be revamped to NPOV policies. :) Kausill (talk) 08:44, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Am I Crazy?

I was heavily under the impression that sarcasm was simply a harsh, acidic comment meant to show disdain or give pain (if you're sarcastic towards a situation, it probably won't feel anything). However, the general concensus is that sarcasm is just saying the opposite of what is meant. I believe that is actually irony. While sarcasm is often associated with irony and satire, I contend that it is a very different concept and that this article is extremely misleading and probably furthers the misconceptions that many people have about the concept of sarcasm and its relationship with irony and humor.

I believe it must be derisive

I believe it does not have to be (though it can be) ironic, humorous, or satirical.

Example:

To look a girl straight in the eye and say, "That dress you're wearing is hideous," is a sarcastic comment. The opposite of the meaning would be that the dress is attractive, which is probably a positive thing, so it's safe to say that the comment is not ironic. In this example, sarcasm exists where irony does not. It's also not particularly humorous, but you could make an argument about that, I suppose.

I believe that this should be addressed. Perhaps a separate section explaining the relationship between irony and sarcasm or humor and sarcasm can be included, but it should be made clear that they are separate concepts.

I think that this should be looked into thoroughly.

-6/4/08 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.185.126.68 (talk) 00:41, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I attempted to address this some time ago (see archive), postulating about the 'degrees' of sarcasm, from playful to cutting, but no one (including me) seems to have the knowledge or inclination to add to the article in that kind of way. You'll also note a few users commenting on the quality of the article... --Thaddius (talk) 15:35, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you're crazy (you did ask for it...) ;) From one of the citations: '[sarcasm is] a verbal form of irony'. Sarcasm has to be verbal (perhaps written, at a push); on the other hand, irony can be found in situations (for example). I recently read about an anti-gun activist who was stabbed to death. I found that pretty ironic, but it couldn't be sarcastic. Also, the example you gave isn't sarcasm, just an insult. Bridies (talk) 15:55, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• Sarcasm means a cutting taunt, metaphorically tearing the flesh. Irony is often used for this purpose and so the two are confused. I have rewritten the lede from a good source to clarify this. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:43, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

What about the (!) symbol?

I remember that there used to be an article, or a section in Sarcasm that explained the usage of (!) to denote sarcasm in subtitles, and now that is gone. Is there a reason? I think it is an important piece of history; I think it should be put back in the article. Zhukant (talk) 02:13, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

But, according to my understanding of its usage "(!)" itself does not mean sarcasm, and yet when you search for that it redirects here. I think that redirection should be deleted, or else, a source cited to explain why it exists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BishopOcelot (talk • contribs) 14:11, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Flippant

The link to flippant is directed at pedia, when it's now at http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/flippant. No idea how to insert an outside link as a blue word, so if someone could that would be dandy. VonBlade (talk) 22:31, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

In other languages

This article could use a section on sarcasm's prevalence in various languages. In English, the sarcastic "oh, great" is ubiquitous, but I've studied two Slavic languages where sarcasm is rarely if ever used. 76.204.92.180 (talk) 15:58, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I feel I should mention

This is my new favourite Wikpedia article.

MichaelKeefe 00:21, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Obviously people who don't understand Sarcasm really need wikipedia to explain it to them 212.69.61.195 (talk) 14:31, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

No, really?~ Steneub (talk) 17:54, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Sarcasm in the Bible

The Bible records many uses of sarcasm, including that by God (Judges 10:14 & Job 38:4), and Elijah (1 Kings 18:27). 216.117.194.58 (talk) 05:42, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Rewrite

I have been through this article and most of it does not stand inspection - the sources are mostly dead or poor and much of the content has been tagged as OR. I shall therefore rewrite, retaining the good bits and discarding the rest. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:18, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

That's done now. The biggest issue seems to be the "lowest form of wit" crack. This was attributed to Wilde in the previous version but this attribution doesn't stand up. Any definite attribution will require an excellent source because the phrase has been passed around so much that its true source now seems obscure. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:40, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Is Gulliver's Travels considered Sarcasm, or merely Satire and Parody? Do the defintions and usage provide an answer to such a question? Perhaps there are scholars who have asked answered such a question. --Firefly322 (talk) 16:00, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

No doubt there's some sarcasm in there but I know it more for its satire on the current affairs of the time. We must be careful in starting to list examples as they may become a laundry list of modern examples such as Blackadder. To maintain a scholarly tone, I would prefer classical examples such as Socrates and the biblical examples mentioned above. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:13, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Is it appropriate to "maintain a scholarly tone"? Would it not be an achievement to create a explanation of Sarcasm that is itself an example of the subject it is explaining? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.69.61.195 (talk) 14:37, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I notice that you give a criticism of the quote by Wilde, but you keep it in your own edit anyway. I don't understand why you would do this. Are you questioning the remark on the full quote being "Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit, but the highest form of intelligence"? Also, what was wrong with the examples of sarcasm that were included in the previous version? As long the examples can be considered sarcastic, they can be used without a reference. I need a clarification regarding their removal.Dburak (talk) 00:38, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

• I have kept that which can be supported by good sources. I looked hard for sources for the quote you give but could not find one which seemed adequate. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:04, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

• I removed the alleged Wilde quote. I was going to change it to: "A phrase apocryphally attributed to Oscar Wilde is that "Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit", although a variant is that "Sarcasm is the lowest form of humour, but the highest form of wit"." but I really couldn't find good sources for this. Fences&Windows 18:22, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Merge

Sarcasm mark was prodded. Instead, I think it should be merged here. Thoughts? Fences and windows (talk) 01:58, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Sarcasm as a debate fallacy

Sarcasm often implies you have something to say about a situation or idea, but that you conveniently cannot be bothered to share what it is. It is often used by people with a poor understanding of the situation or idea to express disagreement without opening their point of view to scrutiny (or even inquiry). However the purpose of communication is for people to compare ideas and decide which one is the best (ie communicate), so hostile sarcasm is fallacious. (In addition to being petty and childish) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.32.188.25 (talk) 15:40, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

OK. Do you have a source for this? How should we add this to the article? Fences&Windows 22:23, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Sarcasm tags on message boards

[/sarcasm] is hardly widespread or an Internet norm. I think it should be remove.d —Preceding unsigned comment added by Failspy (talk • contribs) 19:55, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Sarcasm is actually a gramatical device to make one feel better. We dwell in a sarcastic world; filled with sarcastic promotions, television programs, people and slogans. Basically in this world there is no between; meaning either you are or you are not something. We live in a constant battle of who is the top dog. Everywhere we are bombarded by rude sarcastic stereotypes which never end. Always a sarcastic remark for no established reason. Him vs her, them vs them, he vs all those people. Yes sarcasm is used to control the eager one just in case he becomes the famous one. It's a terrible shame how insecure many people are that they have to make sure you don't succeed by blasting your will to survive and enhance yourself with ugly sarcastic comments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.150.128.43 (talk) 11:45, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

New SarcMark

Hmm... I dont't yet know if it's Wikipedia-worthy, but some company is trying to redefine sarcasm with the "SarcMark" and selling unlimited print and digital use of it for 1.99 $USD. Soooo... It's really up to the rest of you. I don't mess with this stuff. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Argo117 (talk • contribs) 05:27, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Karl Marx sarcasm

The article states that Karl Marx used [!] but in the text I've read it is (!). See examples here:
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch05.htm
http://www.econlib.org/library/YPDBooks/Marx/mrxCpA5.html#Part%20II,%20Chapter%205
http://books.google.com/books?id=TvfrAAAAMAAJ&dq=karl%20marx%20Capital%3A%20a%20critique%20of%20political%20economy&pg=PA180#v=onepage&q=&f=false
Is this just a slight translation difference from reprinting the original text? Is there any text examples of Marx using brackets? I think the article should change [!] to (!) in reference to Karl Marx. 75.92.228.61 (talk) 20:10, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Broken Link

The reference No.3 , to http://www.apa.org/journals/releases/neu193288.pdf , "The Neuroanatomical Basis of Understanding Sarcasm and Its Relationship to Social Cognition", instead brings up a '404' page A Google search for that title brings up http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15910115 as the first result, it's only the abstract but its better than a 404 page... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.117.176.19 (talk) 20:16, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Sarcasm and irony

The difference between these is not simple. In the Wiki world I read that irony can be sarcasm and that sarcasm uses irony. I have always followed the Usage and Abusage rule:

Irony consists in stating the contrary of what is meant. ... Irony must not be confused with sarcasm, which is direct: sarcasm means precisely what it says, but in a sharp, caustic, ... manner.

Wiki seems to disagree with this, which suggests to me that things are not as cut and dried as we may think. Myrvin (talk) 20:08, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

In particular, the introduction says that sarcasm is the use of irony. It cites the OED in support of this. As the footnote says, the OED has (in part): "A sharp, bitter, or cutting expression or remark; a bitter gibe or taunt. Now usually in generalized sense: Sarcastic language; sarcastic meaning or purpose." It does not mention irony in its definition, and should not be used to bolster the idea that sarcasm is only the use of irony. Please read the discussion pages and article on irony. Myrvin (talk) 13:53, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

The change to the intro by Jcrabb has removed my quotation and citation and replaced it with the uncited "psycholinguists generally agree now". I am reverting this. Also the word 'traditionally' is vague. As it happens, the removed quote is probably more 'traditional' - being older - than the Partridge one.

If there are psycholoinguistic sources to quote saying that irony is always involved in sarcasm - which I doubt - they can be included in the body of the article. The intro does not preclude this. Myrvin (talk) 06:27, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Sarcasm HTML/XML

Many times, the opening tag is omitted, due to the HTML tagging often being an afterthought.

This may be true in some cases, but I believe the general reason for the missing starting block is because many message boards will attempt to interpret the string as HTML. Not recognizing the tag, they simply remove all the text between the start and end tag. Excluding the opening tag prevents this behavior. 63.197.247.13 (talk) 18:09, 16 June 2010 (UTC)