[pushfoo]

TL;DR: This is intentional hyperbole and satire

1. "ludic" means playful[1].

2. The blog's tagline implies this is satire:

> "Wow, if I was the leader of this person's company I would immediately terminate them." [2]

It seems like most of the comment thread failed to pick up on this.

That's understandable. The post's humor is a style which won't make sense if you're not fluent in both English and online culture.

Even if you understand the style, you also might not like it.

1. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ludic

2. https://ludic.mataroa.blog/

[JasonSage]

> It seems like most of the comment thread failed to pick up on this.

At that point, is it a problem of most of the comment thread, or the way it was written?

I may say something that comes across really snarky to my coworker. Just because I didn't mean it to be snarky does not mean that it won't be interpreted that way.

Also, I have a feeling a lot of the comment thread are fluent in both English and online culture. This doesn't come across as a good-faith argument.

It's like I say something that comes across as snarky, my coworker confronts me about it, and I say "oh don't worry about it, if you came from low-context culture you would understand." It's very demeaning. Not to mention unsympathetic.

[pushfoo]

> At that point, is it a problem of most of the comment thread, or the way it was written?

Maybe OP's fault for posting it here, then. It's angry cathartic humor, so you're right not everyone will appreciate it.

> This doesn't come across as a good-faith argument.

It was meant to be, but you're also right that it no longer seems to be true:

* the aggressive knee-jerk stuff is getting flagged quickly

* more comments have been posted

> It's very demeaning.

I see your point given the way the thread is evolving. However, the posts I was referring to were implying OP is a schizophrenic[1] or bipolar.

[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40734705

[JasonSage]

I take your points here, and I agree.

[intended]

Many people think satire or similar humor is serious, it happens in real life as you mentioned. There are many times the Onion has been quoted as a source.

However, since we are talking about people being rational, then the points and links above that show this is satirical should lead people to make their own decision.

Hopefully, this doesn’t become a place for people to draw lines in the sand.

[kelnos]

> I may say something that comes across really snarky to my coworker. Just because I didn't mean it to be snarky does not mean that it won't be interpreted that way.

I think the difference is knowing your audience. You probably have a decent handle on which of your coworkers will appreciate and understand your snark, and which won't. You'll change your tone and what you say accordingly. Sometimes you'll get it wrong, because you're human, and we all get things wrong sometimes. In those instances you might briefly apologize for creating confusion or causing offense, and you both quickly move on with your day.

But if you're writing a blog post, you don't really know your audience. If you have a regular audience, that audience probably exists because they "get you" and like what you write and how you write it. So in a way you do know your audience: by definition, they've self-selected to be people who get your writing.

But then you decide to submit one of your blog posts to a community of varied individuals like HN. Some people on HN are like your existing audience, and will like it. Some people on HN are not going to get it, or not going to like it.

That's... just life. So I think "is it a problem [with] the way it was written?" is the wrong question. There really can't be a problem with how it was written. Certainly there are (mostly subjective) standards for how well something is written, regardless of the way it's written, but you can't really say the author was wrong to write in the combative, extreme style that they've chosen as their entire online shtick. Because it's meaningless to be "right" or "wrong" about that; those terms aren't defined for that. It's only what someone may like or dislike, and the author should (rightly, IMO) not be particularly concerned about that in this context.

I personally didn't enjoy the article that much; I don't find joking about violence to be funny, and it even makes me a little uncomfortable. I read through the whole thing because I found the topic interesting and his opinions on it worth reading. But that's just my own personal subjective take, and it's both fine for me to feel that way, and fine for others to enjoy the humor more than I did.

[busterarm]

There's so much about this guy's work that just flies over most peoples' heads, but that's fine by me. Most people don't get it, regardless of what _it_ is.

This is the only blog that I actively look forward to reading.

[aakresearch]

> won't make sense if you're not fluent in both English and online culture.

I am not fluent in either and I'm in love with his style and substance!

[theGeatZhopa]

I also good read.

[jsnell]

> The post's humor is a style which won't make sense if you're not fluent in both English and online culture.

Oh, please. That's like saying that only native speakers with a university degree can understand a 6 year old's fart jokes.

The humor in this article is juvenile shock-jocking. It starts from the trashy clickbait headline, and is never elevated past that. There's no particular sophistication needed to understand it. It's just not particularly funny or insightful; it's just taking some rote complaints about AI and the hype cycle, and threatening to kill people in various graphic ways. Hilarious.

[metabagel]

At least you understood that it was an attempt at humor. Humor is subjective.

[theGeatZhopa]

It's called ironic/satirical, actually. And irony can't be understood if there's not the same knowledge about a thing. So understanding the irony and humor in this means the thinking expressed in the post is aligned to the reader's. If one can understand it, one already shows the same thinking patterns about the topic (corresponds to having the same knowledge..)

[ThrowawayR2]

"'t ain't funny, McGee." The author isn't talented enough to pull off the humor angle so it just comes across as what kids these day refer to as "cringe".