Baffles me that people think sarcasm is a good way to communicate on the internet. You are begging to be misunderstood, either accidentally, or maliciously.
It's not really sarcasm (which usually connotes contempt or mockery, which I suspect the blog writer didn't intend). It's irony, and irony has been widely used in written communication since we stopped using writing exclusively for record-keeping.
It can and does work on the internet, provided (i) the writer is prepared to accept that a subset of readers won't "get it"; they'll fail to pick up on contextual clues that signal irony and (ii) you have to be a good enough writer to include those clues so that at least your intended audience knows not to take it literally.
EDIT: To clarify, in this case, irony was a bad idea because it was badly executed. The context that would allow readers to interpret "The solution is trivial" as ironic was only available to people who were privy to the original conversation, while the blog post was intended to be read and understood by a much wider audience who lacked that context.
Irony should not really be used in technical communication at all, though. The goal of technical writing is that as many readers "get it" as possible. Therefore, any rhetorical technique for which you have to "accept that a subset of readers won't 'get it'" is a bad technique for technical writing.
Writing is hard. Writing for a multi-lingual audience is harder. Writing in your non-native tongue is harder still.
> EDIT: To clarify, in this case, irony was a bad idea because it was badly executed.
That was exactly how I felt reading it. Had it been the last statement of a long and complex explanation, it would have landed differently and warranted a chuckle.
A number of creators, especially cosplayers, have recently shared posts encouraging their use.
I don't know how widespread it is, because TikTok and IG both tend to feed you content relating to your niches. So I may be seeing a disproportionate number.
(I had to Google what NBH was about, it means "This isn't aimed at anyone specific reading this".)
Gosh this seems like a brilliantly effective next step in the TikTokers’ campaign to drain life of any and all colour and playfulness and spontaneity. As an autistic person, I’d cast my vote for ‘occasionally misunderstand things’ over ‘have ridiculous sarcasm warnings on everything so that you can’t actually be sarcastic, or anything but grimly solemn and annoyingly earnest 100% of the time’.
(Also, Lord save me from people who call themselves “allies”. It’s just called being a normal decent person, but that doesn’t let you brag about it or use autistic/black/etc people as fashion accessories, so I s’pose that’s off the menu..)
I think it's about writing for one's audience, and being inclusive.
I've got autistic friends who struggle with open questions. They strongly dislike opening greetings without quickly taking the conversation somewhere.
They often miss stuff that's implied in conversation. It has to be explicitly stated.
They suck at gauging tone and intent in written language. They worry about the feelings and opinions of others. It can be upsetting and stressful for them.
But they're smart, capable, fun, artistic and creative, kind, thoughtful and inclusive.
They are certainly not lacking in colour or playfulness. (Possibly lacking in spontaneity to a degree, but I don't think that's a deal-breaker.)
And it's great that you're comfortable enough with misunderstanding things for it to be preferable to an alternative.
I choose to change my language to suit them. If using /s and /nbh or whatever helps them to correctly parse what I write, and assists in me communicating, why would I choose not to do that?
When using spoken language, I denote sarcasm through tone of voice. Does that render it pointless? If not, why would using /s?
> Poe's law is an adage of Internet culture stating that, without a clear indicator of the author's intent, every parody of extreme views can be mistaken by some readers for a sincere expression of the views being parodied.
The internet lends itself to immediate/premature responses. People read headlines without reading the article. People stop reading in the middle as soon as they feel they have something to say about what they’ve read. People don’t take the time to think about what they’ve read before responding.
And that’s before you even get to the internet’s tendency to read what’s written in the least generous way possible in order to score internet points with a response to something wholly divorced from what the author intended.
Now add sarcasm to that mix. Pulling sarcasm out of context often leads to quick-draw responses to the exact opposite of the point the author was making.
If you limit your communication online to a subset that cannot be willingly or unwillingly misunderstood, then you will say nothing at all. People's capacity to misread is infinite.
"It's generally not good communication to use intentionally ambiguous language" != "It's only good communication if you literally can't misunderstand it"
Re-read what you just wrote and break down what you said:
> Baffles me that people think sarcasm is a good way to communicate on the internet.
The subtext here is that the idea of using sarcasm on the internet should be obviously stupid to everyone, thus you're stating anyone who exercises it is stupid. That or you're clearly smarter than everyone else.
> You are begging to be misunderstood, either accidentally, or maliciously.
Thus, if you're using sarcasm you're either stupid or evil.
Was your intent to insult people?
Sarcasm and irony can be effective means of communication, the same as exaggeration. Communication is hard and people posting on the internet don't() invest much thought most of the time.
It can and does work on the internet, provided (i) the writer is prepared to accept that a subset of readers won't "get it"; they'll fail to pick up on contextual clues that signal irony and (ii) you have to be a good enough writer to include those clues so that at least your intended audience knows not to take it literally.
EDIT: To clarify, in this case, irony was a bad idea because it was badly executed. The context that would allow readers to interpret "The solution is trivial" as ironic was only available to people who were privy to the original conversation, while the blog post was intended to be read and understood by a much wider audience who lacked that context.