11 months ago
In the early days of the internet, we used to have this thing called a joke. You would casually say something that was obviously so false it would be impossible, and people would laugh over the shear absurdity of it.
Now, everyone takes everyone else literally, and we have this weird situation where people tell a joke and other people think they were being serious.
What is even odder is that some of the people who take things literally repeat those jokes as fact because they don't realize the original absurd statement was a joke.
Now, everyone takes everyone else literally, and we have this weird situation where people tell a joke and other people think they were being serious.
What is even odder is that some of the people who take things literally repeat those jokes as fact because they don't realize the original absurd statement was a joke.
11 months ago
To understand jokes has to do with cultural socialisation I think. Maybe in the early days, people were connected just with people from the same cultural background?
@Ema エマ That does come into play sometimes, but I have seen it between people from the same country or even the same city. So it is more than just that.
Part of it is that people can't detect jokes or sarcasm in text because their are no facial or vocal clues to indicate it was a joke. And part of it is that more people seem to take everything literally. Jokes tend to go over their heads because they simply don't get sarcasm and jokes.
Part of it is that people can't detect jokes or sarcasm in text because their are no facial or vocal clues to indicate it was a joke. And part of it is that more people seem to take everything literally. Jokes tend to go over their heads because they simply don't get sarcasm and jokes.
11 months ago
There are two types of people that are effected by this. You have people who don't understand the joke, and people who take things literally. The smiling face or winking face sometimes helps, but not always.
11 months ago
I just got into a situation recently about somebody who simply doesn't like smilies in posts. In another completely unrelated post I needed to express that I wasn't being serious about something and included a smilie - and since I remembered that it could be an issue - explained why I did so. And the response was "so you did it just to annoy me".
You can't win. But I've been communicating online for a lot of decades and do try and indicate when I've gone off script and tried to crack a joke. Because textual communications are flawed because of said lack of clues to mindset and intention; which often are able to be expressed in direct contact through visual or vocal mannerisms.
You can't win. But I've been communicating online for a lot of decades and do try and indicate when I've gone off script and tried to crack a joke. Because textual communications are flawed because of said lack of clues to mindset and intention; which often are able to be expressed in direct contact through visual or vocal mannerisms.
11 months ago
...Which leaves us wondering how serious the "just to annoy me" comment was. It's a miracle that humans can communicate at all.
One problem is the current popularity of this game:
Person A: {says something outrageous}
Person B: "I find that really offensive."
Person A: "It was irony. It was humor. You're a fragile snowflake. I don't have to be politically correct just because you're hypersensitive."
Person B: {becomes more hypersensitive}
Person A: {adds 1 point to their score}
One problem is the current popularity of this game:
Person A: {says something outrageous}
Person B: "I find that really offensive."
Person A: "It was irony. It was humor. You're a fragile snowflake. I don't have to be politically correct just because you're hypersensitive."
Person B: {becomes more hypersensitive}
Person A: {adds 1 point to their score}
@Bill Statler That's why I'm going overboard with content warnings on posts and filter-triggering hashtags on both posts and comments.
More and more people want the whole Fediverse to be adjusted to their personal preferences. What disturbs them must be CW'd. I sometimes have to add long-post-filter-triggering hashtags to comments because the other filter-triggering hashtags inflate them beyond 500 characters. And then I end up with masses of hashtags that disturb people who don't want to see more than 4 hashtags on any Fediverse post, and who don't accept me not putting that particular "post" under an actual CW.
I wonder just how many thousand Mastodon users have already tried to get my instance admin to sanction me by reporting me but ultimately failed only because, unbeknownst to them, Hubzilla doesn't support Mastodon's report system.
(Deliberately without hashtags this time.)
More and more people want the whole Fediverse to be adjusted to their personal preferences. What disturbs them must be CW'd. I sometimes have to add long-post-filter-triggering hashtags to comments because the other filter-triggering hashtags inflate them beyond 500 characters. And then I end up with masses of hashtags that disturb people who don't want to see more than 4 hashtags on any Fediverse post, and who don't accept me not putting that particular "post" under an actual CW.
I wonder just how many thousand Mastodon users have already tried to get my instance admin to sanction me by reporting me but ultimately failed only because, unbeknownst to them, Hubzilla doesn't support Mastodon's report system.
(Deliberately without hashtags this time.)
11 months ago
@Scott M. Stolz Just a lack of basic expression/understanding skills in writing, in combination with higher states of feeling insecure, i guess. "Super sad!"
11 months ago
I think part of it is that people are communicating less in person now. People who are used to hearing sarcasm and jokes in person are more likely to identify them online, whereas people who mostly or only communicate online are unlikely to have a personal conversation to compare the online one to.
Plus, even people who grew up with in person interactions can become out of practice if they stop interacting with people in person.
Plus, even people who grew up with in person interactions can become out of practice if they stop interacting with people in person.
10 months ago
In order to have real high quality humor you need a strong in-group. Because sarcasm, and most importantly self-sarcasm, is a crucial component of it. The weaker a group becomes the less dissent can it afford, even in the form of jokes. Both mainstream and "safe alternative" social media platforms have been banning people for jokes for more than a decade now.
You can see the same effect irl in failing countries that turn ultra petty oppressive the more the central authority loses power.
You can see the same effect irl in failing countries that turn ultra petty oppressive the more the central authority loses power.
10 months ago
Good point. If you are part of the group, there is usually an assumption that you mean well, and other people in the same group will give often you the benefit of the doubt. Whereas outsiders are often seen as distrusted, suspect, and inferior to group members. "Insiders are smart. Outsiders are idiots." That sort of thinking.
A perfect example is when someone in the group says something, and someone outside the group says the same exact thing. You will often see people agree with insider, and attack the outsider, even if they said the exact same words.
So, I can see that happening with jokes too. If an outsider is assumed to be an idiot, then their statement would not be a joke, but instead be some stupid delusion. Whereas if an insider said the same thing, they must be mocking the outsiders who are idiots, so it is funny.
So, some of that may be in play too.
A perfect example is when someone in the group says something, and someone outside the group says the same exact thing. You will often see people agree with insider, and attack the outsider, even if they said the exact same words.
So, I can see that happening with jokes too. If an outsider is assumed to be an idiot, then their statement would not be a joke, but instead be some stupid delusion. Whereas if an insider said the same thing, they must be mocking the outsiders who are idiots, so it is funny.
So, some of that may be in play too.
@Sebastian Taile
I have found that there are three types of people (although #1 and #2 can switch places):
1. Oppressors.
2. The oppressed that want to oppress others themselves.
3. People who truly want to end oppression.
The problem is that even if #1 and #2 swap places, you wind up with a situation where the new boss is the same as the old boss. Just a new oppressor in a long line of oppressors, perhaps with different groups being oppressed this time. The cycle of abuse and violence continuing on until they eventually get overthrown by the people they oppress when then become the new oppressors.
That is why you see a lot of ultra petty oppressiveness when the central authority loses power. Group #2 sees their chance to seize power and become the new oppressors. Of course, they don't look at it that way. "It is justice," they say. But if they are acting just like the oppressors, what does that make them?
And these people can't take a joke because you are either with them or you are against them. And if you are an enemy, anything you say can and will be used against you, even if you meant well.
You can see the same effect irl in failing countries that turn ultra petty oppressive the more the central authority loses power.
I have found that there are three types of people (although #1 and #2 can switch places):
1. Oppressors.
2. The oppressed that want to oppress others themselves.
3. People who truly want to end oppression.
The problem is that even if #1 and #2 swap places, you wind up with a situation where the new boss is the same as the old boss. Just a new oppressor in a long line of oppressors, perhaps with different groups being oppressed this time. The cycle of abuse and violence continuing on until they eventually get overthrown by the people they oppress when then become the new oppressors.
That is why you see a lot of ultra petty oppressiveness when the central authority loses power. Group #2 sees their chance to seize power and become the new oppressors. Of course, they don't look at it that way. "It is justice," they say. But if they are acting just like the oppressors, what does that make them?
And these people can't take a joke because you are either with them or you are against them. And if you are an enemy, anything you say can and will be used against you, even if you meant well.