How do you write sarcastically without people taking you literally

How do you write sarcastically without people taking you literally?

In the present politically pretentious/correct climate, the fact that there may be an exacerbated tendency of people to misconstrue (what to many “should obviously be recognized as sarcasm”) is part of the unavoidable context for all “charged speech.
” Some people choose to take things literally.
You as a writer cannot control that.
One possible technique is to make the sarcasm so extreme that most people “get it.

Like humor in general (of which sarcasm is presumably a category), it’s easy to misfire when trying to use sarcasm.
A significant part of using any humor (sarcastic or not), is how it plays with the (intended) audience—as well as (given the nearly-infinite/instant reach of the WWW) the real possibility that it will also reach ‘unintended audiences’ (like the writer’s staunch opposition—which may be historically tone-deaf, meaning likely to misconstrue and ‘be offended’ by what on its face might best be described as silly or ridiculous).
Again, if you put it out there, don’t be surprised if people fail to see your point(s).
What I meant in the preceding paragraph was there’s an indistinct line between being funny and being offensive or simply crass and careless.
People willing to jump to harsh conclusions about a given writer’s output (typically based upon some sort of ill will for whatever reason—like their political leanings) and/or their intentions are usually quick to criticize even a fully preposterous bit of sarcasm as cruel or insensitive, or as if it was meant as a mocking personal or categorical attack.
It may also be inferred speculatively that if the writer can joke about a serious subject, they lack sufficient moral authority to justify their positions.
Generally, sarcasm is an attempt to portray an idea or statement as ridiculous, to discredit it.
When I write sarcastically, it’s usually meant to show the speaker or narrator as ridiculing some other person’s remarks or some ‘popular [mis]coneption’ that in theory (even if only in my view) lends itself to ridicule.

In my opinion, sarcasm tends to lose its sheen when it gets personal:
and while I may deviate from this philosophy at times, I generally avoid sarcasm, because as a writer, one remains subject to the possibility that the reader “doesn’t realize it’s meant” as sarcasm.

Sorry for the late response! The Quora website was acting up for 2 whole days and would not let me type in the dialogue box.
People will not take you literally if you are outrageous enough.
A few months ago the The New York Times published an op-ed stating that the #MeToo movement had gone too far—that it was not discriminating enough in the degree of outrage delivered for each misdeed and that some offences were worse than others.
This comment seemed reasonable enough, and it was followed by other reasonable comments and then a few nasty statements against women.
Over 50% of the comments attacked the author for her insensitivity.
I saw her byline, recognized her as a comedian who occasionally publishes in the NYT, and understood that she was trying to be ironic.
Some of the other 40–45% or so got the joke and congratulated her.
I wrote a very long comment (wish I had saved it now as I will never find it again) instructing this author to write as Jonathan Swift does in A Modest Proposal and make statements that are too outrageous to talk seriously—such as that by selling their babies for English tables, the Irish would have a good source of income and no extra mouths to feed.
The eaasy includes baby recipes “for fine gentlemen of discerning taste.
” Today’s equivalent would be to say we can solve the problem of incarcerated immigrant children the same way.
Swift assumes the persona—or speaking mask—of a cold-blooded person who runs numbers past us to show us why this program would be efficient to solve the problem of the starving Irish oppressed by absentee English landlords.
He says, “They have been eating us up anyway,” and he concludes by saying, “Let me hear of no other expedients such as—” and then listing the policies he recommends.
He says he has been recommending them in vain, so now he will hit on a solution that will get people’s attention.
He says this solution is for one people only, for this situation only.
So Swift provides lots of clues that he is being ironic.
Still, many people were horrified to read his Proposal.
When I used to teach it to undergrads, I learned to introduce it carefully, beforehand, to ask students to look for the clues that Swift didn’t mean what he said.
If I didn’t provide the introduction, there were always students who would say, “That Jonathan Swift is a terrible man! He thinks we should eat babies.

I don’t really know.
I’m actually amused by people taking me seriously when I’m being sarcastic, so while I do correct them if they think I’m serious, I don’t mind then thinking I’m actually being serious so I make very little effort to be less subtle in my sarcasm – it’s as much for me as for other people.
I guess if I’m writing something to someone I don’t know very well, or someone with whom I’ve had no face to face interaction, I minimise the amount of sarcasm I use, or make it very obvious what I’m doing, because I never know when people are going to take me at face value or when they’re going to get the sarcasm.
I’d suggest limiting your use of sarcasm to appropriate exchanges, and perhaps be more obvious about it if you’re very subtle.
I’d also suggest you enjoy the times when people take you literally, that’s sarcasm well done!
Thanks for the A2A.

OP: How do you write sarcastically without people taking you literally?
Sometimes I make it clear by putting tags around what I’m writing.
Even then, there’s no guarantee that everyone will figure it out.
There are people out there who repost articles from The Onion as if they’re real news stories.
Free wisdom: Never underestimate a human being’s ability to take something the wrong way.
I usually don’t worry about it unless I’m dealing with a really delicate situation.

How do you write sarcastically without people taking you literally?
You need avoid being too subtle to not be taken seriously.
Here is an answer that I would not expect anyone to accept literally: Michael Durcan's answer to What do moms call sons in England?
But someone took this seriously at first and explained how airlines have reserve supplies of safety cards: Michael Durcan's answer to Can you take airline safety cards from their aircraft? They later removed their comment, probably after realising that I wasn’t being serious.

I’m not that good a writer to answer this

How do you write sarcastically without people taking you literally?
There’s a knife edge separating humour and offence, and if I ever work out how to stay balanced on it without falling into error, I’ll come back and answer this question again.
No matter how you employ either humour or sarcasm, you will collide with a significant number of people who don’t find it funny.
I should know! I’ve done it often enough.
If you don’t want to offend, it might be better to avoid sarcasm altogether.

That’s especially hard, because many cues we use for understanding tone lack in writing, so misunderstandings are possible.
I’ve seen some people use /s (for /sarcasm) after the sarcastic sentence, but that only works if the reader is aware of that.

“How do you write sarcastically without people taking you literally?”
Be British.
Those folks are the world’s masters of sarcasm so well-handled, artful and subtle that the recipient doesn’t recognize it until the moment, hours later, that he sits straight up in bed in the dark and says aloud, “What?!”

How do you write sarcastically without people taking you literally?
I suggest you don’t try.
It’s really difficult.
You could easily get reported for a BNBR violation because people take it literally.

How do you write sarcastically without people taking you literally?

In the present politically pretentious/correct climate, the fact that there may be an exacerbated tendency of people to misconstrue (what to many “should obviously be recognized as sarcasm”) is part of the unavoidable context for all “charged speech.
” Some people choose to take things literally.
You as a writer cannot control that.
One possible technique is to make the sarcasm so extreme that most people “get it.

Like humor in general (of which sarcasm is presumably a category), it’s easy to misfire when trying to use sarcasm.
A significant part of using any humor (sarcastic or not), is how it plays with the (intended) audience—as well as (given the nearly-infinite/instant reach of the WWW) the real possibility that it will also reach ‘unintended audiences’ (like the writer’s staunch opposition—which may be historically tone-deaf, meaning likely to misconstrue and ‘be offended’ by what on its face might best be described as silly or ridiculous).
Again, if you put it out there, don’t be surprised if people fail to see your point(s).
What I meant in the preceding paragraph was there’s an indistinct line between being funny and being offensive or simply crass and careless.
People willing to jump to harsh conclusions about a given writer’s output (typically based upon some sort of ill will for whatever reason—like their political leanings) and/or their intentions are usually quick to criticize even a fully preposterous bit of sarcasm as cruel or insensitive, or as if it was meant as a mocking personal or categorical attack.
It may also be inferred speculatively that if the writer can joke about a serious subject, they lack sufficient moral authority to justify their positions.
Generally, sarcasm is an attempt to portray an idea or statement as ridiculous, to discredit it.
When I write sarcastically, it’s usually meant to show the speaker or narrator as ridiculing some other person’s remarks or some ‘popular [mis]coneption’ that in theory (even if only in my view) lends itself to ridicule.

In my opinion, sarcasm tends to lose its sheen when it gets personal:
and while I may deviate from this philosophy at times, I generally avoid sarcasm, because as a writer, one remains subject to the possibility that the reader “doesn’t realize it’s meant” as sarcasm.

Sorry for the late response! The Quora website was acting up for 2 whole days and would not let me type in the dialogue box.
People will not take you literally if you are outrageous enough.
A few months ago the The New York Times published an op-ed stating that the #MeToo movement had gone too far—that it was not discriminating enough in the degree of outrage delivered for each misdeed and that some offences were worse than others.
This comment seemed reasonable enough, and it was followed by other reasonable comments and then a few nasty statements against women.
Over 50% of the comments attacked the author for her insensitivity.
I saw her byline, recognized her as a comedian who occasionally publishes in the NYT, and understood that she was trying to be ironic.
Some of the other 40–45% or so got the joke and congratulated her.
I wrote a very long comment (wish I had saved it now as I will never find it again) instructing this author to write as Jonathan Swift does in A Modest Proposal and make statements that are too outrageous to talk seriously—such as that by selling their babies for English tables, the Irish would have a good source of income and no extra mouths to feed.
The eaasy includes baby recipes “for fine gentlemen of discerning taste.
” Today’s equivalent would be to say we can solve the problem of incarcerated immigrant children the same way.
Swift assumes the persona—or speaking mask—of a cold-blooded person who runs numbers past us to show us why this program would be efficient to solve the problem of the starving Irish oppressed by absentee English landlords.
He says, “They have been eating us up anyway,” and he concludes by saying, “Let me hear of no other expedients such as—” and then listing the policies he recommends.
He says he has been recommending them in vain, so now he will hit on a solution that will get people’s attention.
He says this solution is for one people only, for this situation only.
So Swift provides lots of clues that he is being ironic.
Still, many people were horrified to read his Proposal.
When I used to teach it to undergrads, I learned to introduce it carefully, beforehand, to ask students to look for the clues that Swift didn’t mean what he said.
If I didn’t provide the introduction, there were always students who would say, “That Jonathan Swift is a terrible man! He thinks we should eat babies.

Telegraph it.
Tell them what they want to hear.
Then put them at a distance.
So they are not fully suspending disbelief or dropping all defenses.
Which is the point so they are figuring things out for themselves.
Empathic sync is not always all it is cracked up to be either, like if factions hate one another.
Then they could be sounding very reasonable, though it is all a code for very different viewpoints.
But they feel each other, so there’s that.
Cruelty shows they care.
Like heavy metal reviews.
They assume someone is too damaged.
Maybe the culture.
Appeals to the fans.
What is the intention? Like taking on another role.
Leaders make the rules, they are not expected to follow them.
They cannot let on all they know.
Or an anecdote about another time.
They could have spotted the humor already.
By exaggeration.
Straw man.
Or the contradictions.
A non sequitur.
It may be the lesser of evils.
Or a nervous situation for other reasons.
Or a diversion.
Or the next stage of the obstacles.
Things are not quite right anyway so they can tolerate it.
Alternate conclusions to what they may have thought was a solid thing.
Blatant falsehoods.
Ringer.
Put on.
Someone might anyway.
Maybe they could never see outside their own biases and assume everyone else has to be the same way.
If the truth was going to be hard to take without it, then that may be worth the sacrifice.
After they have been through it a million times also, then they might see the logic.
But there are always blind spots so they need to verify the information and not take it at face value.
Each observer has their own posture.
They are all reacting to one another.
This has a ton of synonyms which evolved for a purpose.
Like satire where they have to recognize the form to see the twist.
The antidote may be to see things from the other person’s perspective eventually.
They could not know what was inside someone else’s mind.
Saying anything further is never going to be the final word.
Include an easter egg for a larger issue like the study of language, psychology, or philosophy where they are consciously not shredding the crowd.
Call to action may be a famous example if they wanted to light someone up.

I don’t really know.
I’m actually amused by people taking me seriously when I’m being sarcastic, so while I do correct them if they think I’m serious, I don’t mind then thinking I’m actually being serious so I make very little effort to be less subtle in my sarcasm – it’s as much for me as for other people.
I guess if I’m writing something to someone I don’t know very well, or someone with whom I’ve had no face to face interaction, I minimise the amount of sarcasm I use, or make it very obvious what I’m doing, because I never know when people are going to take me at face value or when they’re going to get the sarcasm.
I’d suggest limiting your use of sarcasm to appropriate exchanges, and perhaps be more obvious about it if you’re very subtle.
I’d also suggest you enjoy the times when people take you literally, that’s sarcasm well done!
Thanks for the A2A.

OP: How do you write sarcastically without people taking you literally?
Sometimes I make it clear by putting tags around what I’m writing.
Even then, there’s no guarantee that everyone will figure it out.
There are people out there who repost articles from The Onion as if they’re real news stories.
Free wisdom: Never underestimate a human being’s ability to take something the wrong way.
I usually don’t worry about it unless I’m dealing with a really delicate situation.

How do you write sarcastically without people taking you literally?
You need avoid being too subtle to not be taken seriously.
Here is an answer that I would not expect anyone to accept literally: Michael Durcan's answer to What do moms call sons in England?
But someone took this seriously at first and explained how airlines have reserve supplies of safety cards: Michael Durcan's answer to Can you take airline safety cards from their aircraft? They later removed their comment, probably after realising that I wasn’t being serious.

I’m not that good a writer to answer this

How do you write sarcastically without people taking you literally?
There’s a knife edge separating humour and offence, and if I ever work out how to stay balanced on it without falling into error, I’ll come back and answer this question again.
No matter how you employ either humour or sarcasm, you will collide with a significant number of people who don’t find it funny.
I should know! I’ve done it often enough.
If you don’t want to offend, it might be better to avoid sarcasm altogether.

That’s especially hard, because many cues we use for understanding tone lack in writing, so misunderstandings are possible.
I’ve seen some people use /s (for /sarcasm) after the sarcastic sentence, but that only works if the reader is aware of that.

“How do you write sarcastically without people taking you literally?”
Be British.
Those folks are the world’s masters of sarcasm so well-handled, artful and subtle that the recipient doesn’t recognize it until the moment, hours later, that he sits straight up in bed in the dark and says aloud, “What?!”

How do you write sarcastically without people taking you literally?
I suggest you don’t try.
It’s really difficult.
You could easily get reported for a BNBR violation because people take it literally.

How do you write sarcastically without people taking you literally?

In the present politically pretentious/correct climate, the fact that there may be an exacerbated tendency of people to misconstrue (what to many “should obviously be recognized as sarcasm”) is part of the unavoidable context for all “charged speech.
” Some people choose to take things literally.
You as a writer cannot control that.
One possible technique is to make the sarcasm so extreme that most people “get it.

Like humor in general (of which sarcasm is presumably a category), it’s easy to misfire when trying to use sarcasm.
A significant part of using any humor (sarcastic or not), is how it plays with the (intended) audience—as well as (given the nearly-infinite/instant reach of the WWW) the real possibility that it will also reach ‘unintended audiences’ (like the writer’s staunch opposition—which may be historically tone-deaf, meaning likely to misconstrue and ‘be offended’ by what on its face might best be described as silly or ridiculous).
Again, if you put it out there, don’t be surprised if people fail to see your point(s).
What I meant in the preceding paragraph was there’s an indistinct line between being funny and being offensive or simply crass and careless.
People willing to jump to harsh conclusions about a given writer’s output (typically based upon some sort of ill will for whatever reason—like their political leanings) and/or their intentions are usually quick to criticize even a fully preposterous bit of sarcasm as cruel or insensitive, or as if it was meant as a mocking personal or categorical attack.
It may also be inferred speculatively that if the writer can joke about a serious subject, they lack sufficient moral authority to justify their positions.
Generally, sarcasm is an attempt to portray an idea or statement as ridiculous, to discredit it.
When I write sarcastically, it’s usually meant to show the speaker or narrator as ridiculing some other person’s remarks or some ‘popular [mis]coneption’ that in theory (even if only in my view) lends itself to ridicule.

In my opinion, sarcasm tends to lose its sheen when it gets personal:
and while I may deviate from this philosophy at times, I generally avoid sarcasm, because as a writer, one remains subject to the possibility that the reader “doesn’t realize it’s meant” as sarcasm.

Sorry for the late response! The Quora website was acting up for 2 whole days and would not let me type in the dialogue box.
People will not take you literally if you are outrageous enough.
A few months ago the The New York Times published an op-ed stating that the #MeToo movement had gone too far—that it was not discriminating enough in the degree of outrage delivered for each misdeed and that some offences were worse than others.
This comment seemed reasonable enough, and it was followed by other reasonable comments and then a few nasty statements against women.
Over 50% of the comments attacked the author for her insensitivity.
I saw her byline, recognized her as a comedian who occasionally publishes in the NYT, and understood that she was trying to be ironic.
Some of the other 40–45% or so got the joke and congratulated her.
I wrote a very long comment (wish I had saved it now as I will never find it again) instructing this author to write as Jonathan Swift does in A Modest Proposal and make statements that are too outrageous to talk seriously—such as that by selling their babies for English tables, the Irish would have a good source of income and no extra mouths to feed.
The eaasy includes baby recipes “for fine gentlemen of discerning taste.
” Today’s equivalent would be to say we can solve the problem of incarcerated immigrant children the same way.
Swift assumes the persona—or speaking mask—of a cold-blooded person who runs numbers past us to show us why this program would be efficient to solve the problem of the starving Irish oppressed by absentee English landlords.
He says, “They have been eating us up anyway,” and he concludes by saying, “Let me hear of no other expedients such as—” and then listing the policies he recommends.
He says he has been recommending them in vain, so now he will hit on a solution that will get people’s attention.
He says this solution is for one people only, for this situation only.
So Swift provides lots of clues that he is being ironic.
Still, many people were horrified to read his Proposal.
When I used to teach it to undergrads, I learned to introduce it carefully, beforehand, to ask students to look for the clues that Swift didn’t mean what he said.
If I didn’t provide the introduction, there were always students who would say, “That Jonathan Swift is a terrible man! He thinks we should eat babies.

Telegraph it.
Tell them what they want to hear.
Then put them at a distance.
So they are not fully suspending disbelief or dropping all defenses.
Which is the point so they are figuring things out for themselves.
Empathic sync is not always all it is cracked up to be either, like if factions hate one another.
Then they could be sounding very reasonable, though it is all a code for very different viewpoints.
But they feel each other, so there’s that.
Cruelty shows they care.
Like heavy metal reviews.
They assume someone is too damaged.
Maybe the culture.
Appeals to the fans.
What is the intention? Like taking on another role.
Leaders make the rules, they are not expected to follow them.
They cannot let on all they know.
Or an anecdote about another time.
They could have spotted the humor already.
By exaggeration.
Straw man.
Or the contradictions.
A non sequitur.
It may be the lesser of evils.
Or a nervous situation for other reasons.
Or a diversion.
Or the next stage of the obstacles.
Things are not quite right anyway so they can tolerate it.
Alternate conclusions to what they may have thought was a solid thing.
Blatant falsehoods.
Ringer.
Put on.
Someone might anyway.
Maybe they could never see outside their own biases and assume everyone else has to be the same way.
If the truth was going to be hard to take without it, then that may be worth the sacrifice.
After they have been through it a million times also, then they might see the logic.
But there are always blind spots so they need to verify the information and not take it at face value.
Each observer has their own posture.
They are all reacting to one another.
This has a ton of synonyms which evolved for a purpose.
Like satire where they have to recognize the form to see the twist.
The antidote may be to see things from the other person’s perspective eventually.
They could not know what was inside someone else’s mind.
Saying anything further is never going to be the final word.
Include an easter egg for a larger issue like the study of language, psychology, or philosophy where they are consciously not shredding the crowd.
Call to action may be a famous example if they wanted to light someone up.

I don’t really know.
I’m actually amused by people taking me seriously when I’m being sarcastic, so while I do correct them if they think I’m serious, I don’t mind then thinking I’m actually being serious so I make very little effort to be less subtle in my sarcasm – it’s as much for me as for other people.
I guess if I’m writing something to someone I don’t know very well, or someone with whom I’ve had no face to face interaction, I minimise the amount of sarcasm I use, or make it very obvious what I’m doing, because I never know when people are going to take me at face value or when they’re going to get the sarcasm.
I’d suggest limiting your use of sarcasm to appropriate exchanges, and perhaps be more obvious about it if you’re very subtle.
I’d also suggest you enjoy the times when people take you literally, that’s sarcasm well done!
Thanks for the A2A.

OP: How do you write sarcastically without people taking you literally?
Sometimes I make it clear by putting tags around what I’m writing.
Even then, there’s no guarantee that everyone will figure it out.
There are people out there who repost articles from The Onion as if they’re real news stories.
Free wisdom: Never underestimate a human being’s ability to take something the wrong way.
I usually don’t worry about it unless I’m dealing with a really delicate situation.

How do you write sarcastically without people taking you literally?

In the present politically pretentious/correct climate, the fact that there may be an exacerbated tendency of people to misconstrue (what to many “should obviously be recognized as sarcasm”) is part of the unavoidable context for all “charged speech.
” Some people choose to take things literally.
You as a writer cannot control that.
One possible technique is to make the sarcasm so extreme that most people “get it.

Like humor in general (of which sarcasm is presumably a category), it’s easy to misfire when trying to use sarcasm.
A significant part of using any humor (sarcastic or not), is how it plays with the (intended) audience—as well as (given the nearly-infinite/instant reach of the WWW) the real possibility that it will also reach ‘unintended audiences’ (like the writer’s staunch opposition—which may be historically tone-deaf, meaning likely to misconstrue and ‘be offended’ by what on its face might best be described as silly or ridiculous).
Again, if you put it out there, don’t be surprised if people fail to see your point(s).
What I meant in the preceding paragraph was there’s an indistinct line between being funny and being offensive or simply crass and careless.
People willing to jump to harsh conclusions about a given writer’s output (typically based upon some sort of ill will for whatever reason—like their political leanings) and/or their intentions are usually quick to criticize even a fully preposterous bit of sarcasm as cruel or insensitive, or as if it was meant as a mocking personal or categorical attack.
It may also be inferred speculatively that if the writer can joke about a serious subject, they lack sufficient moral authority to justify their positions.
Generally, sarcasm is an attempt to portray an idea or statement as ridiculous, to discredit it.
When I write sarcastically, it’s usually meant to show the speaker or narrator as ridiculing some other person’s remarks or some ‘popular [mis]coneption’ that in theory (even if only in my view) lends itself to ridicule.

In my opinion, sarcasm tends to lose its sheen when it gets personal:
and while I may deviate from this philosophy at times, I generally avoid sarcasm, because as a writer, one remains subject to the possibility that the reader “doesn’t realize it’s meant” as sarcasm.

Sorry for the late response! The Quora website was acting up for 2 whole days and would not let me type in the dialogue box.
People will not take you literally if you are outrageous enough.
A few months ago the The New York Times published an op-ed stating that the #MeToo movement had gone too far—that it was not discriminating enough in the degree of outrage delivered for each misdeed and that some offences were worse than others.
This comment seemed reasonable enough, and it was followed by other reasonable comments and then a few nasty statements against women.
Over 50% of the comments attacked the author for her insensitivity.
I saw her byline, recognized her as a comedian who occasionally publishes in the NYT, and understood that she was trying to be ironic.
Some of the other 40–45% or so got the joke and congratulated her.
I wrote a very long comment (wish I had saved it now as I will never find it again) instructing this author to write as Jonathan Swift does in A Modest Proposal and make statements that are too outrageous to talk seriously—such as that by selling their babies for English tables, the Irish would have a good source of income and no extra mouths to feed.
The eaasy includes baby recipes “for fine gentlemen of discerning taste.
” Today’s equivalent would be to say we can solve the problem of incarcerated immigrant children the same way.
Swift assumes the persona—or speaking mask—of a cold-blooded person who runs numbers past us to show us why this program would be efficient to solve the problem of the starving Irish oppressed by absentee English landlords.
He says, “They have been eating us up anyway,” and he concludes by saying, “Let me hear of no other expedients such as—” and then listing the policies he recommends.
He says he has been recommending them in vain, so now he will hit on a solution that will get people’s attention.
He says this solution is for one people only, for this situation only.
So Swift provides lots of clues that he is being ironic.
Still, many people were horrified to read his Proposal.
When I used to teach it to undergrads, I learned to introduce it carefully, beforehand, to ask students to look for the clues that Swift didn’t mean what he said.
If I didn’t provide the introduction, there were always students who would say, “That Jonathan Swift is a terrible man! He thinks we should eat babies.

Telegraph it.
Tell them what they want to hear.
Then put them at a distance.
So they are not fully suspending disbelief or dropping all defenses.
Which is the point so they are figuring things out for themselves.
Empathic sync is not always all it is cracked up to be either, like if factions hate one another.
Then they could be sounding very reasonable, though it is all a code for very different viewpoints.
But they feel each other, so there’s that.
Cruelty shows they care.
Like heavy metal reviews.
They assume someone is too damaged.
Maybe the culture.
Appeals to the fans.
What is the intention? Like taking on another role.
Leaders make the rules, they are not expected to follow them.
They cannot let on all they know.
Or an anecdote about another time.
They could have spotted the humor already.
By exaggeration.
Straw man.
Or the contradictions.
A non sequitur.
It may be the lesser of evils.
Or a nervous situation for other reasons.
Or a diversion.
Or the next stage of the obstacles.
Things are not quite right anyway so they can tolerate it.
Alternate conclusions to what they may have thought was a solid thing.
Blatant falsehoods.
Ringer.
Put on.
Someone might anyway.
Maybe they could never see outside their own biases and assume everyone else has to be the same way.
If the truth was going to be hard to take without it, then that may be worth the sacrifice.
After they have been through it a million times also, then they might see the logic.
But there are always blind spots so they need to verify the information and not take it at face value.
Each observer has their own posture.
They are all reacting to one another.
This has a ton of synonyms which evolved for a purpose.
Like satire where they have to recognize the form to see the twist.
The antidote may be to see things from the other person’s perspective eventually.
They could not know what was inside someone else’s mind.
Saying anything further is never going to be the final word.
Include an easter egg for a larger issue like the study of language, psychology, or philosophy where they are consciously not shredding the crowd.
Call to action may be a famous example if they wanted to light someone up.

I don’t really know.
I’m actually amused by people taking me seriously when I’m being sarcastic, so while I do correct them if they think I’m serious, I don’t mind then thinking I’m actually being serious so I make very little effort to be less subtle in my sarcasm – it’s as much for me as for other people.
I guess if I’m writing something to someone I don’t know very well, or someone with whom I’ve had no face to face interaction, I minimise the amount of sarcasm I use, or make it very obvious what I’m doing, because I never know when people are going to take me at face value or when they’re going to get the sarcasm.
I’d suggest limiting your use of sarcasm to appropriate exchanges, and perhaps be more obvious about it if you’re very subtle.
I’d also suggest you enjoy the times when people take you literally, that’s sarcasm well done!
Thanks for the A2A.

OP: How do you write sarcastically without people taking you literally?
Sometimes I make it clear by putting tags around what I’m writing.
Even then, there’s no guarantee that everyone will figure it out.
There are people out there who repost articles from The Onion as if they’re real news stories.
Free wisdom: Never underestimate a human being’s ability to take something the wrong way.
I usually don’t worry about it unless I’m dealing with a really delicate situation.

How do you write sarcastically without people taking you literally?
You need avoid being too subtle to not be taken seriously.
Here is an answer that I would not expect anyone to accept literally: Michael Durcan's answer to What do moms call sons in England?
But someone took this seriously at first and explained how airlines have reserve supplies of safety cards: Michael Durcan's answer to Can you take airline safety cards from their aircraft? They later removed their comment, probably after realising that I wasn’t being serious.

I’m not that good a writer to answer this

How do you write sarcastically without people taking you literally?
There’s a knife edge separating humour and offence, and if I ever work out how to stay balanced on it without falling into error, I’ll come back and answer this question again.
No matter how you employ either humour or sarcasm, you will collide with a significant number of people who don’t find it funny.
I should know! I’ve done it often enough.
If you don’t want to offend, it might be better to avoid sarcasm altogether.

That’s especially hard, because many cues we use for understanding tone lack in writing, so misunderstandings are possible.
I’ve seen some people use /s (for /sarcasm) after the sarcastic sentence, but that only works if the reader is aware of that.

“How do you write sarcastically without people taking you literally?”
Be British.
Those folks are the world’s masters of sarcasm so well-handled, artful and subtle that the recipient doesn’t recognize it until the moment, hours later, that he sits straight up in bed in the dark and says aloud, “What?!”

How do you write sarcastically without people taking you literally?
I suggest you don’t try.
It’s really difficult.
You could easily get reported for a BNBR violation because people take it literally.

Updated: 01.07.2019 — 6:37 pm

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *