• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    262 years ago

    A politically motivated attack on the greatest president America has ever seen, better than Lincoln even, to uphold the principles of democracy!

    • Tedesche
      link
      fedilink
      English
      252 years ago

      You should probably edit your comment to include a /s tag if you are indeed being sarcastic.

        • Tedesche
          link
          fedilink
          English
          222 years ago

          I don’t see how. Sarcasm is supposed to be obvious.

            • Tedesche
              link
              fedilink
              English
              102 years ago

              …Alright, whatever then. Don’t complain about your downvotes, as many of them might be due to confusion.

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                English
                62 years ago

                He isn’t complaining. It’s not the be-all and end-all for some people. I’d much rather be misunderstood than go ‘loooooool JK don’t downvote guyz!!!’ after a joke, which is exactly what ‘/s’ reads like.

                  • @[email protected]
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    12 years ago

                    By looking at the what, when, where, whys of it you can garner enough context to tell. You can look at his other comments for one thing

    • Froyn
      link
      fedilink
      62 years ago

      Who’s going after George Santos now? /s

        • Tedesche
          link
          fedilink
          English
          272 years ago

          Given the prevalence of trolls and truly unhinged assholes on the internet these days, I think a /s tag is probably in order.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          82 years ago

          Body language and inflections are nuances that are lost in text but contribute heavily to sarcasm.

          Also, it’s been really difficult these last few years to determine the difference between a blatant joke and someone’s perceived reality, which is downright terrifying if you think about it too long.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          52 years ago

          The idea that someone would genuinely believe that isn’t very far fetched at all. If they’re being sarcastic, they’re not very good at it.

          • dual_sport_dork 🐧🗡️
            link
            fedilink
            12 years ago

            The comparison to Abraham Lincoln didn’t do it for you?

            Anyway, I checked that poster’s comment history briefly and he doesn’t seem like a Trumper to me.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            12 years ago

            It’s Poe’s Law in action. In this age of unreality it can be almost impossible to tell the difference between satire and honestly held opinions.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              12 years ago

              It’s not psuedoscience, it’s simply the observation that, as this thread shows, it can often be difficult to tell the difference between satire and honestly held opinions. I question your understanding of the word “psuedoscience,” if you think it applies to Poe’s Law.

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                English
                12 years ago

                That’s not what it means firstly, and secondly sociology is science, semiotics is science, and this waffle is masquerading as similar. Calling it a ‘law’ and wheeling it out as evidence contributes to that, convincing impressionable nerds that they need to backhand their jokes to avoid the dreaded downvote