Ask Lemmy
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com.
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
6) No US Politics.
Please don't post about current US Politics. If you need to do this, try !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world or !askusa@discuss.online
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
view the rest of the comments
OP wasn't claiming to be sincere. You are.
Since you don't see how the link is relevant, I'll take the time to explain. The character played by David Foley in the Kids in the Hall sketch is not being intentionally sarcastic, but his affect is so sarcastic-seeming that the character played by Kevin MacDonald in the sketch is offended and leaves, despite Foley's good intentions and desire for human contact.
In the same way, your post, by your own declaration, is not meant to be sarcastic or condescending, but was certainly taken that way by me and probably by a large number of the folks who downvoted it. I hope this simple answer has bought it into your range of understanding.
I'm not claiming op was being sincere. I read him as sincere. It appears others are not. So he is insincere that this is beyond him. Rather that everything I wrote is understandable to him and he chose to be insincere. I imagine it's for some reason I don't understand. Do you understand?
Thank you for taking time to explain this to me. It is now in my range of understanding. I do not know why people have downvoted me. I think they disagree with me. I do not know why people upvoted me. I think they agreed with me.
I'm not sure if you take me at face value any more. I think you think I'm being condescending and sarcastic. Are you being insincere?
I am not being insincere.
Fair enough. I believe you. I don't think you're being sarcastic, but, even upon re-reading, your original response more readily comes across as sarcastic to me than sincere. I don't think you were being sarcastic, I'm just saying what the choice of words conveys to me. Again, I think that tone can get lost in online conversations and I understand that this is not what you were trying to convey.
Well thank you.
I reread it and I'm not seeing it. Can you point to any specific sentence that was particularly sarcastic? Elsewhere someone said the last sentence. I think I can see that. When I wrote it, I felt like I was helping.
I read Gorilladrums statement:
"It’s truly beyond me how people have the energy to keep with celebrities"
as being sarcastic. I find it difficult to see it any other way. I read it as Gorilladrums expressing exasperation with cultural obsession with celebrity. I didn't read it as him asking for someone to explain it to him. I'm pretty sure that's the last thing he wanted. In that view of his post, which is the view that I assumed most folks reading his post would have, your response of explaining it to him in simplistic terms comes across as sarcasm and condescension. I understand now that this is not the context that you were viewing his post in.
Given my understanding of his post as an expression of exasperation with the culture of celebrity that does not expect or invite a response, I'd say both your first and final sentences come across as deliberate condescension, because both of them seem to imply that Gorilladrums didn't understand something, and required an explanation, when it seemed clear to me that he didn't expect or want. Therefore a response providing an explanation seemed like a teasing or a taunting in defense of celebrity culture that he was really just railing against. Again, I understand now that condescension was not your intention, and you were sincerely trying to assist.
A sincere question: is English your first language?