How does sarcasm work then? By definition, it means '...the use of words usually used to either mock or annoy someone, or for humorous purposes. Sarcasm may employ ambivalence, although it is not necessarily ironic...' So Daviroll's comment is indeed sarcasm. Unless you mean that anything you don't agree with and don't find funny isn't sarcasm?
How does sarcasm work then? By definition, it means '...the use of words usually used to either mock or annoy someone, or for humorous purposes. Sarcasm may employ ambivalence, although it is not necessarily ironic...' So Daviroll's comment is indeed sarcasm. Unless you mean that anything you don't agree with and don't find funny isn't sarcasm?
If you wanna call wikipedia vaguely describing it a "definition", then sure. Actually reading further down the wikipedia article, we see that sarcasm can be direct or indirect. Indirect sarcasm is to say the opposite of what you mean with an inflection that clarifies that you are being disingenuous. Direct sarcasm is to say precisely what you mean with a mocking inflection. Both uses are done to mock or insult someone.
Daviroll here says
Arcsys is totally not stealing Type-Moon alters idea, nono
He added the /s after the fact. If he were being indirect, then that would mean he was implying the opposite of his statement to be true. Except Type-Moon didn't invent dark alter egos, so you can't say Arcsys stole the idea from them. If he's being direct, then he's just making a completely harmless inoffensive statement, since Arcsys can't steal something nobody owns, which is not sarcasm, as the point is to be directly insulting.
If you wanna call wikipedia vaguely describing it a "definition", then sure. Actually reading further down the wikipedia article, we see that sarcasm can be direct or indirect. Indirect sarcasm is to say the opposite of what you mean with an inflection that clarifies that you are being disingenuous. Direct sarcasm is to say precisely what you mean with a mocking inflection. Both uses are done to mock or insult someone.
Daviroll here says
He added the /s after the fact. If he were being indirect, then that would mean he was implying the opposite of his statement to be true. Except Type-Moon didn't invent dark alter egos, so you can't say Arcsys stole the idea from them. If he's being direct, then he's just making a completely harmless inoffensive statement, since Arcsys can't steal something nobody owns, which is not sarcasm, as the point is to be directly insulting.
So then, how is his comment sarcasm?
I was shortening the definition down rather than vaguely quoting it, thanks. Furthermore, Daviroll was being directly sarcastic if we follow your example, as he's saying that from his point of view, Type-Moon was indeed the first popular media that he saw using the concept of dark alter-egos and therefore, he's accusing this picture of being similar to that.
By your definition, he's 'making a completely harmless inoffensive comment' by being directly sarcastic. Which is still sarcasm. Which is used to be insulting/mocking.
I was shortening the definition down rather than vaguely quoting it, thanks. Furthermore, Daviroll was being directly sarcastic if we follow your example, as he's saying that from his point of view, Type-Moon was indeed the first popular media that he saw using the concept of dark alter-egos and therefore, he's accusing this picture of being similar to that.
By your definition, he's 'making a completely harmless inoffensive comment' by being directly sarcastic. Which is still sarcasm. Which is used to be insulting/mocking.
I didn't say you were vaguely quoting it, I said Wikipedia's description was vague.
Now you're just making shit up about Type-Moon alters being his first experience with the concept of dark alter egos. You have no idea if that's true. And it still doesn't make sense as being directly sarcastic because direct sarcasm is just saying insults with a mocking tone. So it can't be direct sarcasm, because it isn't an insult. You can't just say it's direct sarcasm because it's direct sarcasm.
He's either being indirect, or he's not being sarcastic, if we're to believe Wikipedia on this.
I didn't say you were vaguely quoting it, I said Wikipedia's description was vague.
Now you're just making shit up about Type-Moon alters being his first experience with the concept of dark alter egos. You have no idea if that's true. And it still doesn't make sense as being directly sarcastic because direct sarcasm is just saying insults with a mocking tone. So it can't be direct sarcasm, because it isn't an insult. You can't just say it's direct sarcasm because it's direct sarcasm.
He's either being indirect, or he's not being sarcastic, if we're to believe Wikipedia on this.
Technically, I suppose I am making 'shit up', but if inferring his statement and analysing it to come to a reasonable conclusion about his opinion is considered as spewing nonsense then I guess there's no point in arguing with you considering I am not Daviroll so I don't really know his thought process.
I didn't say you were vaguely quoting it, I said Wikipedia's description was vague.
Now you're just making shit up about Type-Moon alters being his first experience with the concept of dark alter egos. You have no idea if that's true. And it still doesn't make sense as being directly sarcastic because direct sarcasm is just saying insults with a mocking tone. So it can't be direct sarcasm, because it isn't an insult. You can't just say it's direct sarcasm because it's direct sarcasm.
He's either being indirect, or he's not being sarcastic, if we're to believe Wikipedia on this.
Wait a second. Then it just means that Daviroll IS being sarcastic because he's being indirectly sarcastic? He's implying the opposite of his sentence which means he's insinuating that Arcsys ripped off Type-Moon's Alters. Objectively, he obviously meant the statement as a sarcastic joke, whether or not it's true Type-Moon invented dark alter-egos is irrelevant. You can not reasonably define his statement as anything other than being sarcastic, no? By what logic do you claim that his statement was not sarcasm, when even you claim that he's using it indirectly?
Wait a second. Then it just means that Daviroll IS being sarcastic because he's being indirectly sarcastic? He's implying the opposite of his sentence which means he's insinuating that Arcsys ripped off Type-Moon's Alters. Objectively, he obviously meant the statement as a sarcastic joke, whether or not it's true Type-Moon invented dark alter-egos is irrelevant. You can not reasonably define his statement as anything other than being sarcastic, no? By what logic do you claim that his statement was not sarcasm, when even you claim that he's using it indirectly?
Hmmm... rereading how this started, I think I'm arguing with the wrong person. You are right, his original comment does work as ironic sarcasm, but his responses afterwards make me think he didn't understand how sarcasm works.
I obviously understood without the /s that his statement was intended to be sarcastic, which is why I pointed out that Type-Moon didn't invent alter egos, because he was insinuating that Arcsys stole a concept that's probably thousands of years old and certainly not something Type-Moon coined. But his next response makes me think he was trying to say he wasn't being serious or something, he was being sarcastic. But obviously I already knew he was being sarcastic, so he didn't tell me anything that actually invalidated my original response.
At which point, his original comment just kind of doesn't make any sense? If he didn't mean it as a serious insinuation, then it just becomes a random "sarcastic" comment that isn't true, isn't humorous, and devoid of any real context. It would've made more sense if he had said, "Arcsys totally stole this from Type-Moon /s"
If it's actually the case that he just misunderstood sarcasm as just meaning you aren't serious, then my claim that that's not how sarcasm works would in fact be true. But this just means this was a rather pointless argument.
Hmmm... rereading how this started, I think I'm arguing with the wrong person. You are right, his original comment does work as ironic sarcasm, but his responses afterwards make me think he didn't understand how sarcasm works.
I obviously understood without the /s that his statement was intended to be sarcastic, which is why I pointed out that Type-Moon didn't invent alter egos, because he was insinuating that Arcsys stole a concept that's probably thousands of years old and certainly not something Type-Moon coined. But his next response makes me think he was trying to say he wasn't being serious or something, he was being sarcastic. But obviously I already knew he was being sarcastic, so he didn't tell me anything that actually invalidated my original response.
At which point, his original comment just kind of doesn't make any sense? If he didn't mean it as a serious insinuation, then it just becomes a random "sarcastic" comment that isn't true, isn't humorous, and devoid of any real context. It would've made more sense if he had said, "Arcsys totally stole this from Type-Moon /s"
If it's actually the case that he just misunderstood sarcasm as just meaning you aren't serious, then my claim that that's not how sarcasm works would in fact be true. But this just means this was a rather pointless argument.
Just for the sake of closing the case, I want to point out that your second statement probably made Daviroll think that you were accusing him of actually thinking he believed his statement and so he went for the 'I was sarcastic' defense to play it off. In my opinion, you took a sarcastic joke a little too seriously because he obviously understood that Arcsys can't steal something Type-Moon has no ownership over. Besides, changing the original comment to something else that has the same intent is just semantics at that point and I think it's better to just take Daviroll's comment at face-value.
I joined this whole thing because I was really curious at how you said that his comment wasn't sarcastic, which it was to me. Now that I understand your thought process, it's just an obvious case of miscommunication and not being able to understand each other's intent over written text.
