origins...

[Brian37]

No it’s about the origins of sarcasm. If people recognize any similarities  that is completely irrelevant.  I’m not calling for action or engaging sarcastic comments. Point in fact that My wife and brother -in-law just had an argument 2 days ago.  It came out that she was really upset because his jokingly friendly behavior called her lazy or questioning what size pants she wears made her feel attacked .  We had a very good group discussion on chips and sarcasm and their use in friendly circles.  This is not a friendly circle is group of strangers on our forum. While his intent was not meant to be derogatory just to express his frustration or try and bring levity,  it was about his intentional wording  to cause harm but it was received as an attack.

Sarcasm is for the individual using it or an audience, that’s pretty obvious.
Any repetition of an act also fortified the inherent reasons.
Sarcasm also conveys negative attributes by definition.

The problem is in the reasons for using the sarcasm. Once the words fly out of your mouth  you’re intent doesn’t matter because it is how it’s perceived. you either communicated you intent well or it was misconstrued.

It is bullying in this case because it’s unprovoked aggression. You can’t claim it’s a response to something when it is post 1 and title of various threads, unless you’re positing that you are butt hurt that somewhere else here or in life Christans picked on me first.

This perpetuates a cycle of martyrdom and bullying and actually galvanizes the underlying sides.


I still posit that sarcasm, with its intentional negative, galvanizing effects and when unprovoked are bullying and you’re welcome to disprove its intent, affect or classification.

I don't know how much further I can dumb this down for you.

1. "That was then, this is now" is not bullying, nor is your crappy claim that both sides do it, "galvanizes underlying sides". I am not trying to be a martyr for simply saying the moon isn't made of cheese. You however are trying to be a martyr in attempting to defend old mythology. 

2. "Intentional negative"..... Intentional yes, but YOU assume it is negative because you refuse to consider the cold water we are throwing on your face, is a positive, not a negative. I am glad I no longer believe in Santa at the age of 52. Why should I have a problem with growing up?

How "negative" is it for you to reject Thor as the cause of lightening? 

If you want to view considering you got it wrong as being a "negative" that still does not make both sides equal in evidence. 

I see nothing negative in accepting that there is no super cognition helping us. I do see everything negative to clinging to outdated old claims. Either you want honesty or you dont. But I am going to give you an honest answer, sorry, but not liking my answers is your baggage, not mine.