…the noyau, an animal society held together by mutual animosity rather than co-operation
Robert Ardrey, The Territorial Imperative.
[to work around page bug]
…the noyau, an animal society held together by mutual animosity rather than co-operation
Robert Ardrey, The Territorial Imperative.
[to work around page bug]
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Well KN and Alan might have been setting phoodoo up for a bit of situational irony or dramatic irony. Y’know, parts 1 and 2 of the three part Ted-Ed series you linked to.
Although, ironically, it was keiths who took the bait. (Hence my ‘trolling’ comment above…)
Sez keiths.
Tim Conley disagrees, and he wrote a book on the subject…
LOL
*sigh*…I think your irony meter might need some adjusting Keith…I didn’t say or imply it wasn’t a form of irony. In fact, I was being…wait for it…sarcastic. Hence the “/snark”.
DNA_Jock:
LOL, indeed. Tim Conley doesn’t disagree. You were in such a frantic rush that you didn’t notice that Conley was citing a list of misuses of the word.
Here’s Conley:
He’s mocking your meaning, not endorsing it!
You see why I keep urging you to slow down? When you’re agitated, it’s just one mistake after another.
Robin,
People make that mistake — saying “It’s not irony, it’s sarcasm” — all the time. Why should I have assumed you were immune, when your words indicated the very opposite?
Yes, he’s lamenting its expanded use.
keiths sez “That isn’t irony”
Tim Conley and Philip Howard disagree, saying “Sadly, these days (i.e. since 1978), it is.”
Or are you perhaps a member of the prescriptive school?
Oh! I, err, hadn’t realized.
I’ll get me coat.
Jock, you’re a hoot.
Conley is a prescriptivist:
The whole paragraph is a screed against misuse.
You righteously cited Conley as an expert, but he thinks your meaning — what you mistakenly called the “Conley sense” — is a misuse of the word “ironic”. Oops.
Is there anything that can get you to admit such an obvious error?
Jock,
I enjoy sparring with you. It’s too bad you aren’t a better sport about your mistakes.
keiths,
What does Conley say about ‘sardony’? IIRC, jock’s initial claim was about your weakness in deciphering THAT.
Anyhow, I love how the debate about whether Alan meant what he said literally has descended into a semantic quibble about how one ought to use the word ‘ironic.’ You guys are just so awesome sometimes.
walto:
That was just DNA_Jock’s attempt to change the subject. Alan’s claim was that I had missed the irony in his statement, not the sardony.
In fact, the exchange with Jock has consisted mostly of his increasingly desperate attempts to expand the definition of “ironic” in a way that somehow, in some way, encompasses Alan’s statement. Otherwise DNA_Jock is wrong, and that simply cannot be tolerated!
It hasn’t worked out very well for him, as you can see. Proudly pointing to an expert in support of your meaning, and then discovering that the expert thinks your meaning is a complete misuse of the word in question, is not the way to make your case. It was entertaining, though.
walto:
So are you, walto! Your contribution really carried the debate:
walto:
keiths:
walto:
Rich:
Thanks, Rich. Even Bender knows what “irony” means!
I present an attempt at combining irony with truth in a statement.
I agree. That is an astute observation.
Here
@ DNA Jock, Allan, Robin.
Risky! You’re on his list, now! 😉
ETA, and walto (I think you were there already!)
Alan,
Care to tell us what the point is that I’m supposedly missing?
Hi Rich
I appreciate your attempt at collegiality.
Just check back and see how this started. KN writes a “straight-bat” comment, whose intention is to direct snark at phoodoo but stands on its own making good points that I agree with.
I comment, also employing the “straight bat’.
Keiths points and laughs, assuming I’ve missed the point of KNs comment.
I comment, saying no I didn’t.
Keiths calls me a liar.
What I’d like to ask you, Rich, is do you think, based on the exchange, Keiths’s accusation of lying is a fair one?
Keiths
Upthread you made another false accusation. I said I wouldn’t bother to argue with you. I (2 hours later – thanks for saving me the trouble of looking that up) I posted a comment that was neither an argument nor addressing you.
Square that one.
Not following. Where have I written that you are missing another point?
Alan,
It isn’t just that you missed the snark in KN’s comment.
In an attempt to cover up your mistake, you claimed that your comment was ironic. Then you turned around and told KN that it was absolutely sincere!
Alan,
Don’t play dumb, Alan. It isn’t necessary.
BTW, I would have responded earlier but I can’t respond effectively when out-and-about on a smartphone and we were hosting a gathering to celebrate the summer solstice yesterday evening.
Yes, I know it was a day late.
No, I didn’t think to get signed statements from guests.
Yes, I did manage to steer the conversation to irony at one point.
keiths, Do you stand by your latest accusation of lying? If so your mindpowers are as faulty as WJMs.
keiths,
Yes, and I stand by that. If you tell me that it is impossible to make a true statement ironically, I disagree. But as I said, I’m not going to argue that point with you.
Do you think your latest accusation of lying is justified?
Alan:
Of course.
Do you stand by this statement…
…even though it’s demonstrably false?
Alan,
No, that’s not what I’m saying. Why not just read my comments? I’ve already explained all of this.
In fact, I wrote this just a handful of comments ago:
keiths,
You can’t support your latest accusation because you can’t in reality know whether I overlooked thé fact that KNs comment or not. Thé plain fact is I didn’t. I’m interested to hear what Rich has to say in response to my questions.
Alan,
That doesn’t quite parse. Could you try again?
ETA: Did you mean to put “was ironic” between “KNs comment” and “or not”?
keiths,
Dumb and dumber?😊
As I said, I’m not going to argue with you about that. I’m disappointed but not surprised that you continue to claim my plain statement that I had not overlooked thé point of KNs comment is a lie.
keiths,
Ah thé ETA. Fat fingers small screen. Later.
Alan,
You just did!
I do it because it’s true and because it’s part of a larger pattern in your behavior. You have a lying problem, as you yourself have twice admitted, and it’s a big one.
You might not believe this, but I actually feel some sympathy for you. It can’t feel good to be battling these sorts of problems at this point in your life. However, I’m also pissed that you keep inflicting your problems on everyone else here at TSZ instead of dealing with them — all the while sanctimoniously proclaiming that you “care about the aims of TSZ” (as if the rest of us didn’t) and criticizing others for tiny bits of snark that you routinely exceed, such as this comment of mine, spoken of Mung’s failed attacks on Weasel:
Which would you rather have? Someone writing
…or lies, abuses of moderation privileges, and a childish refusal to admit mistakes?
Motes and beams, Alan.
Also, you keep avoiding the fact that this isn’t just about KN’s statement, it’s also about yours.
Again:
My ‘actual issue’ was maybe not the same as yours? Unlike Jock, I hadn’t realized that Alan was kidding when he said you cause him to lie here sometimes. That seemed like a odd remark to me. However, when he said that was a joke, it was clarified for me. Jock’s discussion clarified it further.
I know–you take the position that Alan’s first, odd-if-not-a-joke remark was true, and that his later statement was a lie. I just point out that nobody on this site agrees with you about that, in spite of your tireless efforts to convince them for maybe a year. Your interpretation is, to put it charitably, sui generis–the theory, one might less charitably suggest, of an utter dipshit with serious problems.
As to whatever the hell you’ve managed to shift the debate to and have been able to get people to argue with you about instead for the last couple of days here, I couldn’t care less. In a site that is chock full of peurile arguments (so often led by you!), this one may take the cake.
Soooo, we’ve established that keiths is a prescriptivist (which explains a whole helluva lot, I feel kinda dumb for not grokking this earlier), and that keiths claims that Tim Conley is also a prescriptivist (which claim he based on Conley’s use of the word “misuse” to describe Alanis Morissette’s ‘Ironic’. WTF? By that standard, I’m a prescriptivist!).
Cool and somewhat interesting in its own right, but not in fact relevant to the matter at hand.
Keiths’s accusation of lieing rests on his claim that a statement cannot be both ‘ironic’ and sincere, viz:
So what matters here is Alan’s linguistic philosophy. Was HE perhaps using the term ‘ironic’ in the “You and I know, of course, though other less intelligent mortals walk benighted under the midday sun” sense, which sense has been acknowledged (and lamented) since 1978, as keiths has helpfully pointed out?
Simply put, due to his rule-fixation, keiths has great difficulty understanding subtle use of language; it often goes straight over his head.
ET change spelling of singer’s name to prescribed version 😉
Sure, people make such statements. But I didn’t. And I didn’t intentionally. I even set it up that way – all the noise about sarcastic and facetiousness and the Ironic song. Oh…and the “/snark”. And hey…I get it…Tone doesn’t come through across the Intertubes really well, so it’s easy to miss when someone’s being tongue-in-cheek sometimes. But then who’s making the mistake?
It’s very simple. If I say my intended meaning was X, and I am posting at TSZ, exeryone is required by the rules to accept X as my intended meaning.
Not as much as you seem to think, iMO. I believe there are other factors in play which will, no doubt, all be covered by keiths’ promised OP. What I think is funny is that it’s apparently not only the case that someone has written a book on what irony is, but that more than one person here has looked at it. Awesome indeed!
Simple until I explain that when I called him a lying fuckhead I really meant that he is the most decent person with the greatest honesty that I have encountered.
There are real problems with rules that require that you treat what is actually one thing as if it were another. It’s a major loophole to be exploited, and it often is.
Glen Davidson
Exactly.
GlenDavidson,
You’re right that at some point it looks like we have translation problems. But I think a rule requiring a ‘principle of charity’–at least for starters–is a good thing.
It isn’t really a book on irony per se, it’s a book on Joyce’s use of irony. Conley’s written three books on Joyce, which might lead one to think that he’s in the descriptivist camp, but here (for once) keiths might be right: Conley might be a prescriptivist who wrote three books on Joyce. Think on that for a minute…
I never said he or his book were any good. To me, he sounds like Gregory. keiths failed to detect the sardony in “he wrote a book on the subject”.
Oh well…
High praise indeed!
DNA_Jock tries to back away from Conley, a little too late:
Riiiiight.
You brought Conley into the conversation out of the blue. You kept mentioning what you (mistakenly) called the “Conley sense” of “ironic”, urging me to consider it. When I pointed out that the (non-)Conley sense wasn’t irony, you responded:
Problem was, Tim Conley doesn’t disagree. You looked at an entire page of text and missed its point entirely. You saw what you wanted to see, failing to notice that Conley was mocking misuses of the word, including the one you latched onto, rather than endorsing them.
Now that you recognize your screwup and understand that Conley doesn’t actually support your position, you’re suddenly lukewarm on him:
Seriously, Jock, is there anything in the world that could get you to admit your mistake?
keiths:
Robin:
You think that italicizing a word or two makes a sentence ironic? (Read that question again before answering.)
Which you put at the end of your comment, nowhere near the statement in question, and with no indication of where the snark was supposed to begin.
You make plenty of mistakes, Robin. Why should I have assumed you were incapable of making this one, when there was nothing in your sentence — including the italicized words — to indicate that you didn’t mean what you wrote?
DNA_Jock,
The answer is no, which is obvious if you’d just slow down and think this through.
The reason Alan posted this disclaimer…
…was because he realized that his comment, if taken ironically, inverted the compliment to KN, turning it into an insult. Alan didn’t want that, so he walked the irony back, not realizing that he was shooting himself in the foot by doing so.
If Alan had meant “irony” in the bizarre sense that you propose, then there would have been no need for the disclaimer, because the compliment would not have been inverted.
So yes, Alan does understand the meaning of “irony”, and no, he wasn’t misusing it in the goofy way you claimed.
You aren’t doing Alan any favors by painting him as a goofball who has no idea what irony is (some “defense”!), or as someone so inept that he tries to insult phoodoo but ends up inadvertently taking a dig at KN instead.
But of course, your chief goal here is not to defend Alan, but to deny, no matter how implausibly, your own mistake.
It’s the DNA_Jock cri de coeur:
Mistakes must never be admitted!
DNA_Jock,
Here’s another obvious point that you overlooked.
After Alan made his blunder, I explained how I knew he had lied:
If Alan had meant “ironic” in the goofy sense you’re proposing, he would have immediately objected that there was no contradiction between his comment being sincere and its being ironic.
He didn’t do that. Why would he? He already recognized that he’d been caught in a contradiction, and it didn’t occur to him to pretend that he didn’t know the meaning of “ironic”. That was your ditzy idea.
I’m reassured to see that no other member seems to agree (at least publicly) with Keiths bizarre allegation that my objection to his “point-and-laugh” was a lie. And thanks to those above who expended time and effort in trying to communicate with Keiths.
Nonetheless, it’s frustrating to see the allegation repeated notwithstanding the fact that only I can know whether or not I noticed KNs snark when making the comment Keiths “pointed-and-laughed” at.
Perhaps Keiths should try an OP on irony.
Regarding what Glen says about a loophole, this came up a couple of times before with other members. I reckon the rules already exist. I suggest an unsupported allegation, repeated often enough, is tantamount to spamming the board.
Anyway, I have little time these days to look in or comment, so I’ll try putting Keiths on ignore.
Alan,
How many people have stepped forward to (try to) explain how your statement could be sincere and ironic at the same time? One. That’s it. One.
And his argument, which fails anyway (see comments above), depends on your being a doofus who doesn’t know what irony means and is too inept to do an insult right, aiming it at phoodoo but hitting KN by accident.
You must be overwhelmed by the support.
You’re clinging to that like a lifeboat, yet it wouldn’t help you even if it were true, because that wasn’t your only lie. You also claimed that your statement was ironic, and then you claimed it was sincere. It can’t be both.
Stop avoiding the issue.
That wouldn’t help you. My allegation is supported, and neither you nor anyone else has been able to rebut it.
I agree that your best strategy is not to comment. Like many liars, you’re having a hard time keeping your story straight, and your confusion has already caused you to incriminate yourself. If you keep talking, you’re likely to do it again.
Also, what could you say to explain how your comment was both sincere and ironic at the same time? That’s a challenge you simply can’t meet, It’s a nonsensical claim.
See this definition and this video.
Even a robot gets it. (Thanks, Rich.)
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ComicallyMissingThePoint
Which would then…I don’t know…perhaps…you know…to most people…imply that maybe…just maybe…the poster was signifying that the entire post was a snark. Maybe.
Seriously Keith… *rolls eyes*
Why assume anything in this context? Why not just respond to the words actually printed? Who knows…maybe the meaning the author intended is in there. If not…if it’s unclear…it’s not like you can’t ask. It’s not like you’re immune to making mistakes, so really…assuming you know better than the author is just plain ol’ arrogance. This entire exchange really only serves to support Alan et al’s points that you are incapable of admitting when you are mistaken.
WHAT?!?!? He’s like the total EXPERT on NEVER doing that!!! X>{