The fuck? This is completely messed up. I cannot agree with the bullshit “facts” stated in this article. 8 billion only netted 8 million terminated unborn lives? Almost $1000 per is definitely not “efficient.”
I’m old enough to have been an adult when the internet was first opened up to the general public. I remember guides to writing email that stressed that you should be careful using irony or sarcasm, that the tone was very difficult to convey. I don’t know what it could be, but there seems to be something about online communication that makes it next to impossible to use such devices.
Sure, but for some reason there doesn’t seem to be the same difficulty in print. I don’t recall any warnings about the use of sarcasm or irony in style guides before the internet era, and no one seemed to feel the need for anything like “/s”.
That’s a really good point. I would guess that this has to do with how the medium of the internet makes it more difficult to detect the author’s intent. Pre-internet, most writing was read from books, newspapers, and magazines. With each of these, the reader usually has a good idea of the author’s tone. Going in, the reader is usually familiar with the subject, and I’m guessing that longer texts give the reader more time and context to detect the tone.
This is all pretty different on the internet, where shorter, user-generated content (mostly written by people who aren’t amazing writers) reigns supreme. When reading comments in a thread or flipping through posts, the reader switches between different authors with their different tones much quicker than in earlier mediums. It makes sense that people would get tripped up more often.
That’s all just ideas, though. I’d love to see some scientific study on this kind of stuff.
Lack of nonverbal queues/tone and lack of context. It’s easier to convey sarcasm through text if you’re chatting with someone you know well. But online, you’re often talking to near strangers, and you don’t know if they’re the type to find this kind of thing hilarious among other beliefs.
This is why “/s” was invented, no matter how silly it might seem.
Because human skulls are thick af.
They’re actually quite thin, like a shark’s smooth skin.
It’s the brain that is smooth tbh, not the skin
I believe it’s actually very scratchy. Like sandpaper.
No no you’re wrong, every surgeon I know said it’s smooth as silk.
I use human brains to finish off my woodworking. They’re very coarse, like sandpaper
Skin as thin as their skulls are thick.
No, they’re thick from all angles.
It’s funnier this way.
After a commentor stated that Planned Parenthood only uses a tiny bit of their budget for abortions, I linked this:
https://www.theonion.com/planned-parenthood-opens-8-billion-abortionplex-1819572640
The number of lemmings who thought I was serious… jesus.
The fuck? This is completely messed up. I cannot agree with the bullshit “facts” stated in this article. 8 billion only netted 8 million terminated unborn lives? Almost $1000 per is definitely not “efficient.”
Lemme know when you get below $100 per.
So far I feel like people here are a tad more gullible than reddit ever was. Didn’t think it was possible.
I’m old enough to have been an adult when the internet was first opened up to the general public. I remember guides to writing email that stressed that you should be careful using irony or sarcasm, that the tone was very difficult to convey. I don’t know what it could be, but there seems to be something about online communication that makes it next to impossible to use such devices.
It’s because sarcasm is usually indicated with vocal intonations, which is lost in text.
Sure, but for some reason there doesn’t seem to be the same difficulty in print. I don’t recall any warnings about the use of sarcasm or irony in style guides before the internet era, and no one seemed to feel the need for anything like “/s”.
That’s a really good point. I would guess that this has to do with how the medium of the internet makes it more difficult to detect the author’s intent. Pre-internet, most writing was read from books, newspapers, and magazines. With each of these, the reader usually has a good idea of the author’s tone. Going in, the reader is usually familiar with the subject, and I’m guessing that longer texts give the reader more time and context to detect the tone.
This is all pretty different on the internet, where shorter, user-generated content (mostly written by people who aren’t amazing writers) reigns supreme. When reading comments in a thread or flipping through posts, the reader switches between different authors with their different tones much quicker than in earlier mediums. It makes sense that people would get tripped up more often.
That’s all just ideas, though. I’d love to see some scientific study on this kind of stuff.
“Oh sure, that’s a great idea.” he said sarcastically.
Lack of nonverbal queues/tone and lack of context. It’s easier to convey sarcasm through text if you’re chatting with someone you know well. But online, you’re often talking to near strangers, and you don’t know if they’re the type to find this kind of thing hilarious among other beliefs.
/s takes any grain of humour of of everything. Ambiguity is an important part of communication.
Well that’s a stupid little take, you must communicate in exhaustive detail while on the internet. It’s in the rules!
I’m pretty sure that /s was outlawed by the internet elders in 2021.