[dmix]

It's pretty much an unwritten rule that a sarcastic joke on the internet with sufficient exposure will get a response by someone who didn't get it. Using /s really kills the fun (and whole point) of using sarcasm so it's a trade off to accept these comments will happen.

I'm impartial to downvoting as to reply literally doesn't usually add to the conversation, which is generally the point of downvoting. Losing karma shouldn't hurt your feelings.

[shangxiao]

Known as Poe's Law [1]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe%27s_law

[hinkley]

I will don't understand why it's called Poe's Law if he said it in 2005. This phenomenon was well documented on Usenet by the early nineties.

[sqeaky]

If we called everything that was first described on Usenet as "Usenet's Law" then everything would be Usenet's law, probably even a couple of things in physics.

[tripzilch]

Also known as Usenet's Law [1].

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14561801

[qb45]

Known as Stigler's law.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stigler%27s_law_of_eponymy

[Dylan16807]

Poe's Law is when extreme views seem to self-parody. That's different from someone missing the joke on mundane sarcasm.

[derekp7]

Could also be that the reply is also an attempt to play the into the joke (kind of like a vaudeville straight man).

[Roodgorf]

Do you mean partial to? As in, you favor downvoting over commenting to point out their mistake? Don't mean to be nitpicky, just genuinely confused if that was a mistake or I'm misunderstanding.

[dmix]

I meant that as I'm indifferent to whether or not they get downvoted but I see there could be a justification for doing so.

[skinnymuch]

Yeah but we are human. Most people's feeling probably are hurt when their [non-malicious] comments are downvoted. But besides that I mostly agree with what you wrote.

[okreallywtf]

Yeah, I guess. If the person didn't catch the sarcasm they probably won't catch why they are being downvoted, at least 1 person has to tell them.