There are some cogent points in there, but the author fails to realize that the problem with capitalism is the capitalists themselves. The issues they complain about are the inevitable consequence of allowing capitalists to own the means of production rather than the people. Capitalists care less about being patriotic and doing good deeds than they do about their capital holdings, and an investment in corruption and cronyism is one of the safest bets capitalists with sufficient power can make.
I do, generally, but I also know that people may not get it not through lack of intelligence, but through neurodivergence. At the bare minimum, if someone asks for clarification it should be given.
No one has tried pure capitalism before so this argument isn’t in good faith.
I myself prefer unholy capitalism in lieu of pure capitalism
I really think sarcasm needs to be properly marked in text formats.
You don’t have faith in the audience’s intelligence?
Even though the view you expressed is a joke, there are people whose real life politics are a joke.
They have a point though.
There are some cogent points in there, but the author fails to realize that the problem with capitalism is the capitalists themselves. The issues they complain about are the inevitable consequence of allowing capitalists to own the means of production rather than the people. Capitalists care less about being patriotic and doing good deeds than they do about their capital holdings, and an investment in corruption and cronyism is one of the safest bets capitalists with sufficient power can make.
I do, generally, but I also know that people may not get it not through lack of intelligence, but through neurodivergence. At the bare minimum, if someone asks for clarification it should be given.
How far are you supposed to take the clarification?
Enough that the other party can understand.
Does this apply to authors and artists too?
Should all metaphors have an explanation?
There’s a pretty big difference between literature and art, and online comments.
Do neurodivergent people not get to enjoy literature and art?
The question you should be asking is does the audience have enough faith in some random commenter’s intelligence.
Poe’s Law exists for a reason. One person’s sarcasm could just as easily be another’s genuine take.
Poe’s Law isn’t even codified in most countries.
Sure, but even the most backwards countries at least have some version of Cole’s Law
Are we talking about poeslaw or coleslaw here?
Reverse italics would work so well.
However I feel like to be truly good sarcasm, it needs to fly over someone’s head.
Sarcasm doesn’t need to decieve, it needs to make a point IMO.
Making it obvious with a /s or similar takes a away from that I feel
/s doesn’t take away from the point, it’s just an indicator. In this day and age, it’s legitimately impossible to tell otherwise sometimes.
I’ve always been a fan of using an asterisk, which I refer to as starcasm
That works too!
We change our vocal intonation when delivering it verbally to help make it obvious. Text lacks those subtleties, so it needs a more direct signifier.
I can see it being important in some cases, but the vast majority are fine
underrated comment; got a good chuckle
You’re an actual idiot.