Matt

Well, OK… I guess it depends upon how they’re used. One may use facts to negate another person’s argument, in the way that politicians do. But, and I LOVE this book, if you’ve ever read Plato’s “Republic” you’ll have found a masterclass in dialectic, where a fact is stated, which leads one in a certain direction, but then a counterproposition, deemed as True as the first fact stated, negates the direction that was first indicated, and leads in another direction, instead (as we’ve done here: I said facts were boring, you countered – proposition and counterproposition, leading towards a point of agreement). I don’t know how good the translation is that I have, but if it’s even close, then the guy was a thinker to rival anybody who has come after.

So, yeah, facts are all very well, and one may defend a position with them, or seek the Truth with them, to be best of one’s abilities. Like anything: facts are neutral, and may be put to any number of purposes, dependent upon the objective of the user.

Matt

“Meaning the opposite of what you said” is not the same as “meaning something other than what you said.”

KATRIN

This is why I LOVE dictionaries!

Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, 11th edition (2004) defines sarcasm as “a sharp and often satirical or ironic utterance designed to cut or give pain.” A usage note contrasts “sarcastic, satiric, ironic, sardonic.” which can overlap, but don’t have to. Note that while sarcasm often does involve irony, it’s not an essential component; the defining feature is that “SARCASTIC implies an intentional inflicting of pain by deriding, taunting, or ridiculing.”

Webster’s New World College Dictionary, 4th edition (2004), defines sarcasm as “a taunting, sneering, cutting, or caustic remark; gibe or jeer, generally ironic.” It too has a usage note contrasting similar terms, saying that “sarcastic implies intent to hurt by taunting with mocking ridicule, veiled sneers, etc. [a sarcastic reminder that work begins at 9:00 A.M.]”

I need hardly point out that the above example of sarcasm given by the dictionary would not have been considered sarcasm by this study, need I?

See also: American Heritage Dictionary, 4th edition; Random House Webster’s Dictionary, 2nd edition. Sarcasm can involve saying something that means the opposite of what you mean. It often does. But it is by no means a requirement.

(To get back to an example cited in this article, while it might depend on the delivery, I’d say “My grandmother can run faster than that” certainly qualifies. [Heck, while not required, it probably even involves an assertion contrary to fact.])

As for facts? Please…they just open the door wider for more discussion, nes pas? And they sure do get in the way sometimes!!!!

Absolutely, but this is a distinction that is not always acknowledged, either by the person directing the comment, or by the person receiving it. In other words, one’s opinions/beliefs and one’s whole self are quite often seen as synonymous (one never knows how fundamental the belief being criticized may be to a person). Also, one never knows what a person’s triggers are – a tiny critique of a person’s preference in music, for example, may take a person back to any number of dark recollections.

I think if one is going to criticize another’s opinion, one has to be clear that one is also only stating an opinion. After all, facts are boring – they end discussions!

Matt