The Bon Mot

So why do wisecrackers keep their bons mots coming at the risk of alienating others? Though they may not be aware of it, sarcasm is their means of indirectly expressing aggression toward others and insecurity about themselves. Wrapping their thoughts in a joke shields them from the vulnerability that comes with directly putting one's opinions out there. "Sarcastic people protect themselves by only letting the world see a superficial part of who they are," says Steven Stosny, a Washington, D.C.-based therapist and anger specialist. "They're very into impression management."

OK, I have my flak jacket it on and I will respond to every post.

Moss

Alright.

In this world of overly PC-ness, it is oft'times "offensive" to say what you think. Hence, you wrap it in the form of a joke... Most people of a somewhat like-mind will giggle, others will dismiss you as a bad/poor-taste comedian.

Frankly, most people are afraid to speak as they think.

I recall noticing this most-of-all upon my return to the UK last year.

I'm not racist, nor homophobic, nor sexist, nor any of those sorts of things; but I last lived in "civilisation" 10 years ago or more, and we had a way of speaking, that I have carried with me over years, and perhaps expanded upon with fellow ex=pats/

Upon returning to the UK and making new friends, everybody seems very touchy feely about certain (to me, harmless) expressions.

Perhaps people read the papers and follow "trends" here....

In this world of overly PC-ness, it is oft'times "offensive" to say what you think.

to be fair, it was oft times offensive, back in the day, too.

Hence, you wrap it in the form of a joke...

There is Irony and then there is Sarcasm, oft times the same thing, one is cutting and funny, the other is just a joke.

Frankly, most people are afraid to speak as they think.

There is a , ' A Right Way of Saying Things', and ' A Way of Saying Things Right ',

everybody seems very touchy feely about certain (to me, harmless) expressions.

Well, depends on the harmless expression, I guess, sometimes you have to feel your way through certain situations, say for example, if someone called me an, 'Irish ejit ' etc I would take its meaning within the context of the situation, if you said it, I would respond with typical non-derogatory dialogue, however, if others were to respond with similar diatribe, I would respond accordingly.

Perhaps people read the papers and follow "trends" here....

BTW, mines the Independent, what's yours?

Moss

Sarcasm is for poofs!

Yeah, right ........ duh.

(was that a good example Moss?)

I prefer straight talk whenever you are in argument with somebody - that way people know exactly where they stand.

Also leads to the occasional Friday night brawl.

Sarcasm is for poofs!

I thought you might get it

Yeah, right ........ duh.

(was that a good example Moss?)

Abso-flaming-lutely

Also leads to the occasional Friday night brawl.

Who needs an argument

Moss

There is a , ' A Right Way of Saying Things', and ' A Way of Saying Things Right ',

PC = Pernicious crap.

Mite be a bit strong, neva care.

I say wot I think, may qualify it in certain situations.

PC is killing fun chats these days, at the pub, online where ever.

There is a , ' A Right Way of Saying Things', and ' A Way of Saying Things Right ',

PC = Pernicious crap.

Understanding what the term actually means, would help, I guess.

Moss

On the whole, over a number of years, things have changed for the better. Don't read the Daily Mail!

There is a , ' A Right Way of Saying Things', and ' A Way of Saying Things Right ',

PC = Pernicious crap.

Understanding what the term actually means, would help, I guess.

Moss

Don't read the Daily Mail!

I neither have, nor will, however, my point was implying that it is better to explain someone's Ejocity, rather than shout Ejit, where ignorance in the non-explanation is plain to see by all.

Moss

Most 'problems' are caused by ignorance and people making 'assumptions'!

There is a , ' A Right Way of Saying Things', and ' A Way of Saying Things Right ',

PC = Pernicious crap.

Understanding what the term actually means, would help, I guess.

Moss

—Synonyms 1. harmful, detrimental, deleterious, destructive, damaging, baneful, noxious, malicious.

PC = Pernicious crap.

Understanding what the term actually means, would help, I guess.

Moss

—Synonyms 1. harmful, detrimental, deleterious, destructive, damaging, baneful, noxious, malicious.

Before we both cross the Rubicon, I feel you have missed my point, your explanation was of your word, we all know what that means! my statement means something altogether different

There is a , ' A Right Way of Saying Things', and ' A Way of Saying Things Right ',

let me know if you understand this.

Moss

PC = Pernicious crap.

Understanding what the term actually means, would help, I guess.

Moss

—Synonyms 1. harmful, detrimental, deleterious, destructive, damaging, baneful, noxious, malicious.

Before we both cross the Rubicon, I feel you have missed my point, your explanation was of your word, we all know what that means! my statement means something altogether different

There is a , ' A Right Way of Saying Things', and ' A Way of Saying Things Right ',

let me know if you understand this.

Moss

I totally understand, I was not critisising your...........

There is a ,

' A Right Way of Saying Things', and ' A Way of Saying Things Right ',

Nothing truer, I was deriding........... P.C.

I understand what both sides are saying. I think PC-isms have sometimes run away with themselves until they become senseless and bar all kind of factual and open discussion. People often use it as a form of leverage or manipulation. As I often see the terms "racism" or "misogyny" used on this forum by people who have no interest in the concepts except when it concerns their own position in an argument.

However, underneath and before the PC-isms, there were real attitudes and ways of thinking that were highly discriminatory and abusive. I don't think PC-isms have eliminated these attitudes, but I think many now think about another position relative to their own.

For example - and just for the sake of example - I want to bring something up that I was very quiet about previously. I didn't bring it up because I didn't want to start anything over it, but it stuck in my mind. I think it was a perfectly innocent comment, but it may have been considered offensive if the other point-of-view was considered. So, I am not trying to be PC, because if I was I would've said something. I just want to pose this as a question:

I'm sorry, Kayo, I mean no offense, but:

Would you refer to a new girlfriend in front of a crowd of men that she doesn't know as "booby juice" in front of her face? Why would you refer to a woman like that at all, if you are getting to know her? I find it incredibly dehumanizing to refer to an individual that you are getting to know solely in reference to a body part, especially with others who can see who she is, and are in on this naming of her as a body part, but she doesn't know or may agree.

Now, is that PC or not? I've merely told you what an experience of naming a woman after a body part could potentially feel like from that perspective. Is that somehow taking away your personal rights? What would it be like if she showed your photo around as the new ATM (as an example, not as a possibility)?

Anyway, these are just questions. I put it out there because it came up, in the spirit of discussion.

I never said anything, and I do like Kayo, but that was in the back of my mind.

edit: typos

Anyway, these are just questions. I put it out there because it came up, in the spirit of discussion.

I never said anything, and I do like Kayo, but that was in the back of my mind.

Have you got a link to thread, so that we can see the full picture and put it into context?

No, I don't, but maybe Kayo does. You commented on the thread, so maybe you remember.

Did i

Give me a clue before i start to search. Bedlam or open forum?

In response to Moss's OP, I like being able to use sarcasm, or is it irony - I'm never sure. It can be incredibly useful to say something which has a straightforward meaning & an underlying subtext, particularly on forums. Being confrontational, without being confrontational is something that I'm getting better at, and it actually gets a better response than the in-yer-face responses I used to give. Is that sarcasm, or is there a better word for it?

In response to Moss's OP, I like being able to use sarcasm, or is it irony - I'm never sure. It can be incredibly useful to say something which has a straightforward meaning & an underlying subtext, particularly on forums. Being confrontational, without being confrontational is something that I'm getting better at, and it actually gets a better response than the in-yer-face responses I used to give. Is that sarcasm, or is there a better word for it?

I would say that sarcasm is intended to hurt the person being the butt of the comment, whereas irony has no such barb - although it is still liable to sting.

By the way - welcome back to Bedlam.

In response to Moss's OP, I like being able to use sarcasm, or is it irony - I'm never sure. It can be incredibly useful to say something which has a straightforward meaning & an underlying subtext, particularly on forums. Being confrontational, without being confrontational is something that I'm getting better at, and it actually gets a better response than the in-yer-face responses I used to give. Is that sarcasm, or is there a better word for it?

I agree that irony is a better tool than, in yer face agression, but sometimes there is no recourse but to ante up and go for it, and I agree, good to see you back.

I would say that sarcasm is intended to hurt the person being the butt of the comment, whereas irony has no such barb - although it is still liable to sting.

By the way - welcome back to Bedlam.

That is a fairly good reasoning, I'd say, I alluded to my interpretation earlier, but I will add, that irony is a barb that is meant to be a lot more subtle, it still hurts, but usually doesn't inspire total redicule, Sarcasm is just a blunt force, with little subtlety and leaves nothing for interpretation and its intention is to hurt and not be funny in the least. That is my take on it.

Moss

Did i

Give me a clue before i start to search. Bedlam or open forum?

I really can't be bothered to find the link. I've laid out the scenario here anyway, so the link really isn't that important. I used the example for discussion purposes anyway, and nothing else.

There is a , ' A Right Way of Saying Things', and ' A Way of Saying Things Right ',

let me know if you understand this.

Moss

To be honest I'm not sure that I do, are you explaining the difference between how a subject is approached vs how one should actually verbally convey that message?

I usually say what I think, or nothing at all. I cant be bothered with tip toeing around a subject. If people don't like what I say, they'll just have to learn how to deal with it.

I usually find that people appreciate my direct approach, I suppose they find that refreshing from an estate agent

That is a fairly good reasoning, I'd say, I alluded to my interpretation earlier, but I will add, that irony is a barb that is meant to be a lot more subtle, it still hurts, but usually doesn't inspire total redicule, Sarcasm is just a blunt force, with little subtlety and leaves nothing for interpretation and its intention is to hurt and not be funny in the least. That is my take on it.

Moss

Excellent! What I was trying to say, but couldn't - because there were people in the office disturbing me by talking about W@RK! (Are we allowed to use four-lettered words in Bedlam?)

PC = Pernicious crap.

Understanding what the term actually means, would help, I guess.

Moss

—Synonyms 1. harmful, detrimental, deleterious, destructive, damaging, baneful, noxious, malicious.

Before we both cross the Rubicon, I feel you have missed my point, your explanation was of your word, we all know what that means! my statement means something altogether different

There is a , ' A Right Way of Saying Things', and ' A Way of Saying Things Right ',

let me know if you understand this.

Moss

Interesting thread, Moss. I must be a thickhead because I find it difficult to discern the difference between the statement that there is a ' A Right Way of Saying Things', and the following one that there is ' A Way of Saying Things Right'. What is all the more confusing is that the cornerstone of effective communication is clarity of meaning. These words are evidently intended to be lessons in effective communication but for the life of me, I cannot determine any difference between the two expressions. A 'right way of saying things' would seem to suggest that a message can be delivered in more than one way, and the delivery of that message should have regard to the person receiving it (emotions, language difficulties, intellect, etc). To me, 'A way of saying things right' seems to mean no more nor less than the first statement. My initial thoughts were that it may have been better for the second expression to be stated as 'the right things to say', but when you analyse it, it really raises the same deontological issues as those raised by the first option. Therefore, I really would appreciate reading the definition (or post a link to it).

I was also amused by your comment to Zpete that he had missed the point and to let you know if he understood your two expressions. Funnily enough, it could be construed as being sarcastic. I suppose that the difference between irony and sarcasm is founded upon the forseeable outcome (rather than merely the initial intent) of the communication; is an outcome intentionally hurtful, unintentionally hurtful or unhurtful? If it is not hurtful, it is better described as irony, otherwise it may be better described as sarcasm. (This assumes that you take the wider definition of irony as not being a literal opposite of the actual intent of the comment.)

For example, if you say to someone down the pub, 'Is it going to rain today?' and they laughingly reply 'Yep, with that cloudless sky it's bound to p!ss down!', it is probably irony. If they respond, 'Well, it's bound to p!ss down now that you've walked in', it is clearly sarcasm. What about all of those examples in between? But then there is the case where we say something that we intend as unhurtful humour but the person is offended nonetheless. For example, the standard joke to a man's wife that 'You must be Jack's daughter?' could be hurtful to Jack. The trouble with reproving sarcasm is that you are going to also have to take the stick to a large slice of irony, and 'voila', we have PC. In the final analysis, if you are not intending to be hurtful and do not use expressions that a reasonable person should appreciate could be hurtful, then not much more can be expected. If you need to tell someone that you have an issue with them or with something they say, the better approach would be to tell them directly. Probably the worst thing you could do is to package sarcasm in a clever retort with the intent that all but the offended party will understand the meaning - because that will bring people (including the offended party) to consider you arrogant.

I understand what both sides are saying. I think PC-isms have sometimes run away with themselves until they become senseless and bar all kind of factual and open discussion. People often use it as a form of leverage or manipulation. As I often see the terms "racism" or "misogyny" used on this forum by people who have no interest in the concepts except when it concerns their own position in an argument.

However, underneath and before the PC-isms, there were real attitudes and ways of thinking that were highly discriminatory and abusive. I don't think PC-isms have eliminated these attitudes, but I think many now think about another position relative to their own.

For example - and just for the sake of example - I want to bring something up that I was very quiet about previously. I didn't bring it up because I didn't want to start anything over it, but it stuck in my mind. I think it was a perfectly innocent comment, but it may have been considered offensive if the other point-of-view was considered. So, I am not trying to be PC, because if I was I would've said something. I just want to pose this as a question:

I'm sorry, Kayo, I mean no offense, but:

Would you refer to a new girlfriend in front of a crowd of men that she doesn't know as "booby juice" in front of her face? Why would you refer to a woman like that at all, if you are getting to know her? I find it incredibly dehumanizing to refer to an individual that you are getting to know solely in reference to a body part, especially with others who can see who she is, and are in on this naming of her as a body part, but she doesn't know or may agree.

Now, is that PC or not? I've merely told you what an experience of naming a woman after a body part could potentially feel like from that perspective. Is that somehow taking away your personal rights? What would it be like if she showed your photo around as the new ATM (as an example, not as a possibility)?

Anyway, these are just questions. I put it out there because it came up, in the spirit of discussion.

I never said anything, and I do like Kayo, but that was in the back of my mind.

edit: typos

You're right Kat. I did do exactly what you say, and t'isn't the most gentlemanly behaviour/ BoJ, I said that of my Danish GF when I first "introduced" her to you guys and gals here on bedlam (i think it was somewhere in the Housemate Dilemma thread)

For what it is worth, though, t'wasn't meant in a derogatory or offesive manner. I liked the girl a lot, was proud to be able to announce her to my friends on here, and I just enjoyed the term. Thought it was, ermm.. bouncy* .

* Balls... I've done it again, haven't I?

Well in that case Kayo, you are nothing but a cad. And a young lady should put you over her knee and .......oh wait a minute

Well, you're a young man, with many good qualities, and hopefully much more to learn, like the rest of us.

I only brought it up to illustrate the differences between PC-ness, and truly considering different angles with equal relevance, and to ask a sincere question: Would that objection be considered unfavorably PC or not?

This thread has had many interesting twists!