| > there is no such rule that "sarcasm is not allowed" on Hacker News Has anyone claimed this? You are beating a strawman. > if someone suggests that sexism is essentially in someones mind in a real life conversation, sarcasm would certainly be appropriate in response to a statement so thoughtless. I disagree, it's your opinion that a comment is without merit, and you are constructively responding to it rather than engaging - this is not mere "sarcasm", it's sarcasm employed as a punishment for comments you dislike. HN does discourage these kinds responses, whether implemented using sarcasm or otherwise, for being argumentative and unconstructive: > if someone suggests that sexism is essentially in someones mind If this is obviously incorrect, it should be easy to state why, rather than resorting to insults. The rules state "Be civil", there is no stated exception "unless you are replying to a post that is itself civil, or otherwise offends you". The rule "reply to the argument instead of calling names" is in the same spirit. > continue to lecture and "correct" me on something Your original post was not civil, something that is in the guidelines (and of which sarcasm is a form). Why do I continue to "lecture" you? Because this reply continues to be uncivil, down-votes or no - plus you are apparently unrepentant (or at least unapologetic), and your thoughts on the matter imply you will continue to do so. > I don't actually need your guidance on why my comment got -4 points I don't know how many point it did, or will, have; nor take it into account. I don't believe it was grayed at the time I responded. > That's not particularly relevant... full context: >> Sarcasm is an effective and appropriate communication tool > In domains of importance, like law, is is notably absent meaning, it means on what you are trying to achieve - if you are trying to effectively and unambiguously communicate, it is not effective. |
> Has anyone claimed this? You are beating a strawman.
you did:
> Your original post was not civil, something that is in the guidelines (and of which sarcasm is a form).
> Why do I continue to "lecture" you? Because this reply continues to be uncivil, down-votes or no - plus you are apparently unrepentant (or at least unapologetic), and your thoughts on the matter imply you will continue to do so.
so you are trying to harass me into "repentance"? is this something you think is appropriate on hacker news ?