Combating Sarcasm with Overt Hostility

[Kontra Kommando]

I’m sure some of you have already seen Mike Tyson curse off the Canadian interviewer:

Though, Nathan Downer was not really being sarcastic with Tyson, I find this response would be applicable in a situation where sarcasm is used against you. Why should people have to play into this petty game of words, when you can go straight to the point? If someone were to attack you verbally in an underhanded way, why bury your emotions under some cowardly game of tit for tat. Would it not be more satisfying to say “Fuck you!” right in the face of someone giving you a snarky comment? Growing up, I’ve seen how youth culture has become more inclined to employ sarcasm; creating a generation of passive-aggressive venomous people. It is as if everyone is afraid to truly express themselves. I would consider it becoming of a more honorable individual to speak from their heart.
I will ask you not to make any sarcastic remarks as a response to this. I merely want to discuss why sarcasm seems to be so appealing in today’s culture. Thank you

[Sokoro]

I love to react with hostility to almost anything, and it tends to make me banned or getting custom title or disliked by other people.

There are always people in power, in real life and on the internet, who dont want other people to fight back. That is why people prefer to be passive-aggresive so that they avoid being punished by lawyers or moderators.

[plums]

Was 100% sure this was going to be about other forum threads.

Anyhow, I think sincerity is the best response to sarcasm. Sometimes this can be an aggressive or hostile response, where you direct in showing how you're not going to play a passive-aggressive game. More often I find an empathetic response is better, where you actually take someone seriously and address their comment without hostility. Sometimes it's best to not respond at all. But it's all situational.

[scifista42]

Why should people have to play into this petty game of words, when you can go straight to the point? [...] Growing up, I’ve seen how youth culture has become more inclined to employ sarcasm; creating a generation of passive-aggressive venomous people. It is as if everyone is afraid to truly express themselves.

I don't know, all I say is that I don't like it at all. Sarcastic words easily lead to misunderstandings, and even offense. In an ideal world, I wish nothing like sarcasm, irony or double-meanings existed, and if all people spoken honestly what they think (and how they mean it). It happens too easily that the speaker doesn't express himself as perfectly as he wanted, or that the listener doesn't get it because he doesn't know context or simply doesn't expect irony; or worse, if offense is intentional. That's a general statement of myself, I don't say it's the case here.

Neither hostility, nor sarcasm does appeal to me. Sometimes I find sarcasm just slightly funny, that's when it's really obvious and I know context. In majority of times, I'm unsure if a statement really is a sarcasm or not, or if there's some second meaning or a context that I don't realize.

Shamely, I usually can't express myself very well, often not even in my native language, not to say English. So I better try to speak frankly because I wouldn't want to cause possible misunderstanding or offense at all. I'd rather not speak at all, or (unwillingly) make myself sound like a naive idiot, than that. But enough of this.

I'd probably fail to "combat sarcasm" in any way. I wouldn't have the courage to start being aggressive. In practice, I'm a coward freak and also kind of non-empathetic.
:(

Take what you want from this post. I don't provide any advice, I only say what I think about the proposed problem in general (and nothing about the video in particular).

[Tuxlar]

If you're "combating" sarcasm in the first place, you're already doing it wrong.

[Doomkid]

If someone were to attack you verbally in an underhanded way, why bury your emotions under some cowardly game of tit for tat. Would it not be more satisfying to say “Fuck you!” right in the face of someone giving you a snarky comment? Growing up, I’ve seen how youth culture has become more inclined to employ sarcasm; creating a generation of passive-aggressive venomous people. It is as if everyone is afraid to truly express themselves. I would consider it becoming of a more honorable individual to speak from their heart.

In principle, I agree. However, I think there's more to us not just saying "Fuck you!" right back to them - We want to avoid violence. I know if someone says "Fuck you" to my face, my first urge would likely be to punch them, out of defense as much as anything.

I agree it's far better to say what you mean, and honestly this passive-aggressive sarcastic culture sucks the big one. We live in a world that values sarcasm over the pun - Wazzup wit DAT?!

It is as if everyone is afraid to truly express themselves

It's more or less a crime to truly express yourself, at least for most people (see: invictius getting arrested for expressing himself)

We're taught to fit in. Even we we DON'T fit in we're taught to fit in, in that "not fitting in" kinda way. What a finnicky, bullshitty culture it is, eh? So glad I'm out of school. The working world ain't really like that, at least not here on the bottom.

[fraggle]

Kontra Kommando said:

If someone were to attack you verbally in an underhanded way, why bury your emotions under some cowardly game of tit for tat. Would it not be more satisfying to say “Fuck you!” right in the face of someone giving you a snarky comment?

Depends, I guess. If your goal is just to make yourself feel better by letting your anger out then go for it.

On the other hand, if you care about what others think of you and how you handled the situation, it's probably not such a great response.

Sarcasm is subtler, and essentially, cleverer/wittier than just outright insulting someone. You're essentially using humour to make fun of someone. Usually it's not just sarcasm by itself but the sarcasm instead takes the form of some kind of reference or callback that is funny. It simultaneously makes the person on the receiving end look dumb and the person delivering the sarcasm look clever.

If you just respond to sarcasm with insults then you're basically showing everyone that you're not clever enough to think of a wittier response to respond with. In the Tyson video you linked to, he ends up looking like a dumbass who can't control his emotions.

[Grazza]

fraggle said:

not clever enough to think of a wittier response to respond with

That reminded me of this (old joke, many versions).

[Merry Widow]

Ah, yes, the drama. Got told to shut the fuck up and called a bitch today when I stood up for myself. I try to be a fair person, but this was too much, so I walked away. This whole exchange was stupid. This guy followed me to try to stir up more shit. Didn't work. Just let him know he wasn't worth it. Hostile? Maybe. But that idiot just didn't matter.

[durian]

I suppose I'm of the view that neither aggression nor more sarcasm are the ideal response to sarcasm. It depends on the context I suppose, but certainly in the case of a discussion over a point, neither should be necessary. If I disagree with a point that someone has deployed sarcasm in order to make, I think that - rather than responding in kind - it would be better simply explain, in the clearest possible terms, why I believe their position to be wrong. In cases like these, there's rarely any need to be a dick, and to resort to more sarcasm or aggression - each would be demonstrative of a failure of dialectical imagination on my part.

If I'm the target of sarcastic responses, not in the context of a discussion over a point, but just because someone has decided to be a dick - I get this quite often from one of my siblings - I tend to just ignore them entirely; there's really nothing that they're saying, so there's no need to say anything back.

On the Tyson case, I think he should have kept his cool, but he has long-standing anger problems, so it's no surprise that he reacted in the way that he did, and anyone with the slightest familiarity with Tyson could have predicted that reaction, so I think the interviewer was, at the very least, supremely idiotic.

[AkiraZXE]

The way I see it, you're not restricted to one way of handling an issue. There's no reason you can't be sarcastic, aggressive, and correct all at the same time. Hell, if you're going to bother getting yourself into an argument with somebody who's already being a dickwad, I don't see why you would pull your punches. It's not like people typically walk away from an argument with a different mindset than they entered it with, so really you're either trying to convince third parties that the person you're arguing with is a dickwad (in which case you're probably doing something else), or you're just responding to an asshole with an equal dose of being an asshole. Either way, you already committed, I don't know why you'd bother half-assing it. Put your best effort into everything, even if you're being an ass.

[Captain Red]

Oh look a man who punches people for a living is an aggressive asshole. What a surprise. :P

Kontra Kommando said:

Would it not be more satisfying to say “Fuck you!” right in the face of someone giving you a snarky comment?

As a snarky asshole, if the best you can do is cuss at me I'm going to assume you're as thick as my condescending tone implies. Someone taking durian's approach however, might actually make me reconsider my attitude.

[Kontra Kommando]

Captain Red said:

Oh look a man who punches people for a living is an aggressive asshole. What a surprise. :P


As a snarky asshole, if the best you can do is cuss at me I'm going to assume you're as thick as my condescending tone implies. Someone taking durian's approach however, might actually make me reconsider my attitude.

I could see Durian's approach being effective. It is awkward when someone becomes taciturn when there is dialogue between people. Usually, when someone speaks too much, and is not reciprocated, the talker feels foolish. But as others have said, if you don't care about what the other person thinks; I believe its worth it to go all out.

I go to Brooklyn a lot; the hipster capital of the world. I deal with a lot of snarky people sometimes. Many of these people are subversively belligerent, but they always fold in the face of outright aggression. To be sarcastic as a defensive is fine by me, if one chooses that. Though personally, I don't. But I do not respect people that use it as a tool for belligerence; I consider that cowardly. Ultimately, I do not care what they think, therefore I feel overt hostility is justified on my part. I tend to be frank and assertive; I don't like to waste time. But more often than not, I'm on the defensive. It is usually others that are aggressive. I believe people should respect one another, regardless of differences in opinion. But if someone were to engage people in a belligerent way, subversive or outright, they should consider all of the outcomes. The true fool in the situation is the one who underestimates the capabilities of the person they engage negatively. There are people in this world that will just go straight to violence in response to even a mild insult. Sarcasm is not really what I find so insulting, but rather the person's audacity.

[geekmarine]

The way I see it, I'd rather just confront sarcasm by calling the other person out on it, rather than get hostile. After all, part of the point of sarcasm is to provoke a response. To get angry at it is to play into their game. Myself, I prefer to do the unexpected, to catch them off-guard, see if I can make them fumble in trying to recover from that. Of course, done wrong, it can further increase the hostility from the other person, but you know, sometimes it's worth showing that you're not interested in making verbal jabs, that you'd rather sit down and actually discuss the issue like reasonable people. I've seen far too many debates where sarcasm is used to try to set someone off so that then the sarcastic one can claim the moral high ground and say, "Well obviously your position is wrong because you can't defend it without losing your temper."

[40oz]

"Fuck You" brings in a lot of attention from bystanders who may not have already been eavesdropping, while sarcasm is much more composed, open to interpretation sometimes, and noticeable only by those who care to listen to it.

Have you ever been in a restaurant and had to listen to nasty breakup? Voices are raised, direct insults are thrown, etc. and everyone turns their heads to watch. If a breakup was made entirely with snide rude remarks, it wouldn't necessarily attract as much attention. People don't always want the attention, particularly kids who are young, naive, and spend most of their time under the subordination of parents and school teachers.

[doomgargoyle]

Is it possible to say Fuck You in a sarcastic way? That would mix both methods.

[Grazza]

40oz said:

Have you ever been in a restaurant and had to listen to nasty breakup? Voices are raised, direct insults are thrown, etc. and everyone turns their heads to watch.

It's even funnier when this happens in an idyllic setting. One time we were at one of the fancy restaurants at a fancy resort in Mismaloya, and on a nearby table (this would have been even better...), there was a lengthy exchange of hissed barbed comments, about something that presumably had happened "a WEEK" ago. Yes, a whole WEEK, and he hadn't thought to ... but she should have KNOWN ... I dunno whatever it was, I couldn't quite hear. Apparently Manny, Moe and even fucking Jack had been told about it too.

I don't know if it was an actual break-up, but it didn't sound too good. I suppose in situations like that, the break-up can wait until you're home, since you still have to travel back together.

[Inkie]

If you don't care what they think, then why bother with any response?

[Kontra Kommando]

Inkie said:

If you don't care what they think, then why bother with any response?

Because I care about myself enough to not let someone else belittle me, and get satisfaction at my expense.

Look at it this way, if someone were to belittle a significant other, you would probably feel it necessary to fire back at the antagonist. Perhaps, even 10 fold. To just walk away would probably make you feel as though you're accepting a loss of respect. Moreover, your significant other will probably think less of you. I guess I apply that logic when it comes to myself as well. Its more about what I think, than what the antagonist thinks.

[durian]

Kontra Kommando said:

To just walk away would probably make you feel as though you're accepting a loss of respect.

Not in the least. I don't covet the respect of random strangers, especially if they're manifestly incourteous - they're free to think and say what they like about both me, and my significant other, it matters not. And who knows, maybe they're having a bad day - who am I to hold them to such high standards? Moreover, my significant other would certainly think less of me (and so would I) if I started fussing over something so trivial, let alone blowing up about it.

Still, I can't say I find myself in these situations very often, either that or I'm utterly oblivious to it.

[Kontra Kommando]

durian said:

Moreover, my significant other would certainly think less of me (and so would I) if I started fussing over something so trivial, let alone blowing up about it.

Depends on the girl I guess. I've had girls prevent me from engaging in confrontation, and others expect it.

[Belial]

Kontra Kommando said:

Because I care about myself enough to not let someone else belittle me, and get satisfaction at my expense.

Look at it this way, if someone were to belittle a significant other, you would probably feel it necessary to fire back at the antagonist. Perhaps, even 10 fold. To just walk away would probably make you feel as though you're accepting a loss of respect. Moreover, your significant other will probably think less of you. I guess I apply that logic when it comes to myself as well. Its more about what I think, than what the antagonist thinks.

Are you that insecure as to care what some random guy says?

You sound like the kind of person who likes getting into pointless confrontations.

[dew]

Kontra Kommando said:

Depends on the girl I guess. I've had girls prevent me from engaging in confrontation, and others expect it.

Uh. How do you even get into that many confrontations in the first place?

[geekmarine]

No offense Kontra Kommando, but that kind of attitude is the kind I'd expect to hear from someone who can't even hold down a McJob. The type who believes honor and respect come before all else - but honor and respect aren't gonna pay the bills, or put food on the table. Getting made fun of, even, and not fighting back is no great source of shame, either. In prior times, maybe, but it's not like, oh, they'll find out at your job that you were humiliated, or your landlord hears about what a joke you are and kicks you out. The real world doesn't work that way.

I don't think you take it to that extreme... but I felt the need to say something because I've known too many people who think the world does work that way, and they'll throw their lives away because they think earning respect is worth more than a job, a home, staying out of jail, etc.

[40oz]

There's a reason someone uploaded that interview to youtube, you know. I mean, does Tyson really look like a hero here? The guy who's resume is filled with years and years of beating the shit out of people, biting off ears, having face tattoos and being convicted of rape? Tyson has nothing to lose.

[Kontra Kommando]

geekmarine said:

No offense Kontra Kommando, but that kind of attitude is the kind I'd expect to hear from someone who can't even hold down a McJob. The type who believes honor and respect come before all else - but honor and respect aren't gonna pay the bills, or put food on the table. Getting made fun of, even, and not fighting back is no great source of shame, either. In prior times, maybe, but it's not like, oh, they'll find out at your job that you were humiliated, or your landlord hears about what a joke you are and kicks you out. The real world doesn't work that way.

I don't think you take it to that extreme... but I felt the need to say something because I've known too many people who think the world does work that way, and they'll throw their lives away because they think earning respect is worth more than a job, a home, staying out of jail, etc.

I've actually worked for the same company for the past 10 years. But when it comes to professionalism, a smart person knows when and where to defer.

dew said:

Uh. How do you even get into that many confrontations in the first place?

Have you ever been to the ny metropolitan area? most people here are aggressive assholes. Perhaps i'm a product of my environment.

Belial said:

Are you that insecure as to care what some random guy says?

You sound like the kind of person who likes getting into pointless confrontations.

To answer your question, no, i don't consider myself to be insecure. I'm not implying anything about what you're saying, but I find "insecure" to be one of those disarming words that people use. I believe what I'm saying is viable; one should not have be subjected to verbal assaults with out expressing themselves the way they want in return. It doesn't necessarily have to be a barrage of curing. But rather assertively calling them out on their sarcasm. Basically breaking up the little game of toying with you, and demanding them to stop. But no, i actually dislike confrontation.

40oz said:

There's a reason someone uploaded that interview to youtube, you know. I mean, does Tyson really look like a hero here? The guy who's resume is filled with years and years of beating the shit out of people, biting off ears, having face tattoos and being convicted of rape? Tyson has nothing to lose.

I guess its a matter of opinion. I think he did the right thing by shutting him down, personally. but like i said above, he didn't have to necessarily use profanity. He could have said, "I think you're a terrible person for saying that, I don't want to conduct this interview with a person like you. I do not respect you." If so, I don't think people would consider him to be thick or simple minded. He would just simply be affirmatively ending the verbal abuse.

[Jaxxoon R]

Getting mad and angry and losing one's control has never been a good idea for me ever. One time in a million, after being put into an agitated state by deep phobia of mine (wasps, hornets, bees), I lost my cool.

It's always better to be the sarcastic, calm one. Hostility gives cruel people leverage on you.

[Doomkid]

My approach is always "Say what you mean and don't try to be a dick" - As I said earlier, hostility, even only verbal hostility, makes me very uptight and defensive, and I assume that there's a potential for violence instantly. I hate both hostility and too much sarcasm. I'd say they're both best used liberally, sarcasm is a little overused these days and is often very grating. It annoys me when I'm absent mindedly sarcastic..

I still stand by my statement that a good pun takes more wit!

[Belial]

Kontra Kommando said:

To answer your question, no, i don't consider myself to be insecure. I'm not implying anything about what you're saying, but I find "insecure" to be one of those disarming words that people use. I believe what I'm saying is viable; one should not have be subjected to verbal assaults with out expressing themselves the way they want in return. It doesn't necessarily have to be a barrage of curing. But rather assertively calling them out on their sarcasm. Basically breaking up the little game of toying with you, and demanding them to stop. But no, i actually dislike confrontation.

I guess it depends on how you define confrontation. I (and apparently geekmarine as well) got the impression that you'd be willing to escalate a perceived insult to the point of ending up in jail for seriously hurting someone, a result of either the skewed worldview that geekmarine described or the need to assert yourself for the reason I mentioned.

If I'm not in a situation that requires me to respond to verbal abuse, I simply laugh and leave, so I don't understand the need to engage someone who's already making an ass of themselves.

[40oz]

Kontra Kommando said:

I guess its a matter of opinion. I think he did the right thing by shutting him down, personally. but like i said above, he didn't have to necessarily use profanity. He could have said, "I think you're a terrible person for saying that, I don't want to conduct this interview with a person like you. I do not respect you." If so, I don't think people would consider him to be thick or simple minded. He would just simply be affirmatively ending the verbal abuse.

in that case, yes that seems like a very civil way to go at it. I can find a response like that pretty honorable, because that can be difficult to do in the heat of frustration, but I wouldn't put that under the profile of what your original contention in the OP suggests. Also I don't think that works with kids, as they don't have much credibility against adults or bullies if they are frail, short, and have a high pitched voice, as most of them do. Its a shame but it really helps to be an adult with a deep, forceful and intimidating voice to tell someone something like "Stop it." and for it to actually work.