576
Risk
(lemmy.ml)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 17 Dec 2025
576 points (94.2% liked)
Memes
54100 readers
951 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
You don’t have faith in the audience’s intelligence?
I do, generally, but I also know that people may not get it not through lack of intelligence, but through neurodivergence. At the bare minimum, if someone asks for clarification it should be given.
How far are you supposed to take the clarification?
Enough that the other party can understand.
Does this apply to authors and artists too?
Should all metaphors have an explanation?
There's a pretty big difference between literature and art, and online comments.
Do neurodivergent people not get to enjoy literature and art?
They do, sure. They also are able to know that what they are consuming is literature and art, and not a random user being deliberately obtuse.
I disagree.
I feel like if you’re able to enjoy literature and art you’re able to read internet comments too.
Have you spoken to neurodivergent people about this? I won't pretend to speak for them, but the idea that tone should be clarified upon request is something I've seen in neurodivergent communities. It harms nobody, if clarifying ruins the joke then the joke wasn't actually funny to begin with.
But if that’s what you’re advocating for why is literature and art exempt?
It isn't exempt, and moreover some art is unfriendly to neurodivergent people. Certainly you can understand the difference between watching a movie and talking to someone, right?
There’s also the fact that my comments are art.
Maybe not at the level of Ernest Hemingway, Britney Spears or E. L. James but definitely on par with someone like Georg Lukács.
Whether or not someone considers what they do to be art doesn't excuse choosing not to clarify your tone when requested, just like you can't just go around using slurs and excuse it by saying your words are art.
Quentin Tarantino would disagree.
I bet he would.
Poe's Law exists for a reason. One person's sarcasm could just as easily be another's genuine take.
Poe's Law isn't even codified in most countries.
Sure, but even the most backwards countries at least have some version of Cole's Law
Are we talking about poeslaw or coleslaw here?
Even though the view you expressed is a joke, there are people whose real life politics are a joke.
They have a point though.
There are some cogent points in there, but the author fails to realize that the problem with capitalism is the capitalists themselves. The issues they complain about are the inevitable consequence of allowing capitalists to own the means of production rather than the people. Capitalists care less about being patriotic and doing good deeds than they do about their capital holdings, and an investment in corruption and cronyism is one of the safest bets capitalists with sufficient power can make.
The question you should be asking is does the audience have enough faith in some random commenter's intelligence.