[ux266478]

> sarcasm is simply not a thing in Japan, and people aren't (I'm tempted to say can't be) sarcastic. It doesn't occur to them to be it.

Japanese culture absolutely has sarcasm, it simply manifests in an unfamiliar way. Homegoroshi (killing-compliment) and using a flagrantly inappropriate politeness register are some of the most common forms. Sarcasm, and more broadly humor, are highly contingent on culture and language but they're also cultural universals. They're just usually not that recognizable without familiarity with the culture and strong social skills.

[gsf_emergency_6]

That sounds more like irony than sarcasm

But maybe that's my English-media tainted view of sarcasm as something quite unfunny (and also socially .. deficient?)

Different take from mine here tho :)

https://www.thescop.com/archive/2011/09/irony-vs-sarcasm

>Sarcasm happens when the observed irony does not extend to the speaker.

[ux266478]

> That sounds more like irony than sarcasm

I only mentioned forms. They're sarcasm because they're explicit mockery. I've read plenty of foreigners in Japan who comment on how it's weird they won't get praise from their boss in certain contexts where they expect it. This is a shadow of the killing-complement. Praise isn't issued because in that context a Japanese person would get the same sense that you would if your boss said "Good job!" in a baby voice.

> sarcasm as something quite unfunny (and also socially .. deficient?)

Probably because it's insulting someone to their face without just outright insulting them, often with the desire to cause offense (but varies in degree depending on your relationship with the person and the general situation). It's the same thing here and there, up to and including making everybody else in the room uncomfortable. It's simply manifested in a different shape.

[skolskoly]

>Sarcasm happens when the observed irony does not extend to the speaker.

This seems... dead wrong. In the examples in the article, both comic frames function as sarcasm, because everyone involved has no illusion that anyone is going to die if they don't see the film. The irony is entirely in the speaker's statement, which everyone knows to be false, including them. People treat 'ironic insults' as sarcasm, but this only works amongst good friends who have the shared context necessary to understand the falsity of the insult. But, then socially incompetent see this and attempt it, and fail to achieve the sarcastic humour. Which is probably why people conflate sarcasm with... failed sarcasm, frankly.

[ux266478]

TBH I don't agree with the idea that sarcasm is exclusively the friendly variety. It also serves the role of being patronizing, scornful or even outright provocation.

[anigbrowl]

Sarcasm is never friendly; it's necessarily at the expense of someone else. The simplest example is where someone makes a bold claim and someone else says 'sure, buddy...' to express contemptuous disbelief via the weakest possible form of assent. The claimant here wants to be believed, or at least agreed with.

Irony is imho much more complex and variegated, but a simple example would be any sort of self-deprecating humor, where someone is making fun of the mismatch between their aspirations and their capacity to achieve them. Irony isn't necessarily mean, whereas sarcasm is always a little bit mean even if it's mild.

[coldtea]

>Sarcasm is never friendly; it's necessarily at the expense of someone else

That doesn't preclude it from being friendly. Part of the friend experience is jockingly busting each others balls ocassionally.

[gsf_emergency_6]

Jockingly? Is this meant to suggest that brutal honesty is an adjacent pasttime of jocks?

The man who is brutally honest enjoys the brutality as much as the honesty. Possibly more.

Another thing in the domain of "friendly" that this brings to mind is "fire".

I have oft experienced this metaphorical friendly fire but they never seem to be as therapeutic as well-targeted irony :)

[skolskoly]

To be clear, I don't disagree with you, and to say otherwise wasn't my point. I do think people get confused to the point where they for some reason start labeling all sarcasm as type A or B, and the entire value of the term gets lost.

The way I see it, the non-friendly type shares a lot in common with the concept of shibboleth. Which is to say, you can absolutely make sarcastic insults to the detriment of someone else for your own, or a friend's enjoyment, by relying on shared exclusive knowledge. (In essence, holding that shared context above the other person in contempt) However, you can also just be abrasive for your own enjoyment, and that's something entirely differently. (Sadism, for example, is not inherently sarcastic) People frequently confuse the two, but without ironic context - a knowledge of false belief - it is not ironic, and therefore not sarcasm.