[SilasX]

Maybe it’s just me, but I fundamentally disagree with the mentality that we should prioritize the “feeling of being special” among those who already get the joke (and corresponding point) at the expense of those who have yet to appreciate the message.

You can still laugh at the joke with the section there, you’ll just have fewer confused people to correct, and be in one less elite club.

[GuB-42]

The thing is, the last part does not just explain the joke, it is a very angry rant, and it ruins it for me because of the change of tone.

Imagine in real life, someone starts making a joke, and then suddenly starts cursing and yelling. I wouldn't be comfortable with what feels like a lack of self-control and I will try to move away before things get violent.

Either do the "joke" style or the "angry rant" style, not both. The joke can be explained calmly if there is a need to.

[SilasX]

>The thing is, the last part does not just explain the joke, it is a very angry rant, and it ruins it for me because of the change of tone.

The original criticism I wasn't objecting to wasn't making this distinction, and so this is a different argument. I wasn't defending the angry tone, only the existence of a section, "if you didn't get it, here's the point".

>Imagine in real life, someone starts making a joke, and then suddenly starts cursing and yelling. I wouldn't be comfortable with what feels like a lack of self-control and I will try to move away before things get violent.

Okay, now it seems like you're saying the section would be bad even with a calm, non-angry tone, in which case my point about the need for a non-joke section applies.

In any case, the standard of "what if this were real life" is a bad one to use. An internet post is not an in-person interaction, and it optimizes for different things. You might as well object to footnotes on the grounds that, "hey, in real life, you wouldn't go on all these tangents because that's distracting".

If you already got the point, by the time you got to the rant, and don't need the explanation, you can (and should) stop reading there. It's not relevant to you. It's supplemental information for anyone who didn't get the point. You know, the ones you don't think deserve the same level of understanding as you, the ones who weren't elite enough, like you, to get the reference.

[dullcrisp]

Sure, but the point of critical thinking club isn’t really its exclusivity. In this case if you don’t know which specific header this is parodying that’s completely understandable. But if you really think this is about computers stabbing people and can’t laugh at yourself about it when you find out that it isn’t then I don’t think we will be able to engage on this topic in a mutually rewarding manner.

[SilasX]

I don’t think it’s about computers stabbing people, but that’s not relevant. The issue is your willingness to keep people in the dark so you can feel good that you got a reference without it being explained.

[dullcrisp]

I wasn’t accusing you of not getting the joke, I was speaking in general. But thank you for demonstrating how it’s difficult to have a conversation with someone who takes everything literally.

[SilasX]

>I wasn’t accusing you of not getting the joke, I was speaking in general.

But you were -- you just hid it under a veneer of snark, innuendo, and plausible deniability so I'd be tainted by the implication, while still allowing you to (right on cue) insist that's not what you meant.

Maybe now you're starting to understand why ambiguity in writing is a double-edged sword. But then, if you were that conscientious, I wouldn't have to make the original point in the first place.

[dullcrisp]

If you actually got that from what I wrote I’d apologize but I don’t think you’re engaging in good faith.