Drama

[technopatra]

In the 7 months since I came on as the main admin here, I have read and participated in some of the most enlivening, stimulating, and bonding conversations I've ever had, online or in the physical world. Some of the best writing, insightful comments, and hilarious comedy ever written.

At the same time, I truly agonize over the preponderance of incredibly negative, personally abusive, repetitively antagonistic garbage. I wonder, not just at people's ability, but their willingness to enter into such puerile behavior.

Forgive the naivete of the question, but can anyone tell me why?

Why do intelligent, sensitive people engage in such fruitless, aggressive, and frequently painful dialogue?

Why do people continue with lines of debate that upset them so much they are willing to give up the ample friendly conversations that abound here?

Why can folks not just walk away from a conversation? Why do they give their perceived enemies the power of their response?

I understand the motivations of the enemies of our community and their trash talking. What I don't understand, even the tiniest bit, is why people within our community seem not only to want to harm others here, but seem to be willing to throw their own selves on the spikes after them.

For me, Burning Man means exactly the opposite. It means eschewing the unproductive negativity that keeps me from connecting with other people.

It means not lying on train tracks waiting for my legs to be cut off by a passing locomotive.

It means giving other people the benefit of the doubt.

It means understanding that the last word has no power.

It means focusing my energy on supporting other people, even as a means of helping myself.

It means understanding the inertia I create, and making a conscious decision that that inertia moves in a direction I really want to go.

Why is it that when folks are offered friendship, support, wisdom and care, they instead choose drama?

[technopatra]

btw - these are not rhetorical questions. I really would like to hear your insight, opinions, experiences, and conclusions.

[Panther]

btw - these are not rhetorical questions. I really would like to hear your insight, opinions, experiences, and conclusions.

I think you are having a bowel movement.

Panther

[DVD Burner]

[Alpha]

Ego.

[Zephryus]

In my experience, most people are very self protective. In my experience, it is also very difficult for most poeple to distinguish between themselves and something they have invested their ego in, be it an institution, a relationship, or a persona. In my brief time here, I have seen all three batted around like a pigskin.
Also, in my experience, most people tand not to notice or care when they push other people out of their comfort zones, but immediately care when those people push back and force them out of their own comfort zones. I have seen this happen with both positive and negative intentions, and on these boards I have seen it happen in more than one flame war. It's all fun and games until someone pushes a button (and then keeps pushing it like a crack addled monkey).
What I see most of is a critical separation between the intent with which an action is made and the way others percieve the intent based on the action itself. Simply, most people have no idea what effect thay are having on others. This is not unnatural. We're all individuals, and there will always be differences. The problem as I see it is that when two or more people realise that there is a misunderstanding, they attempt to remedy the situation by forcing their subjective reality on everybody else. I'm right and you're wrong. This doesn't work, but not for lack of trying.
What's needed is a little understanding. And not that pansy hypocritical condescending "I'm going to humor you by pretending that your ideas have merit" shit. No, I mean assuming for a few (difficult) moments that the person you're disagreeing with is a sensible human being with a reasonable point of view and valid wants and needs, and then addressing that person in that frame of mind. And that means letting go of the ideas you hold that seem mutually incompatable with theirs. (Quite often I find that those ideas aren't actually contradictory, just different expressions of the same need.) When I post to someone(s) I disagree with, I generally delete the post if I'm thinking "Yeah, bitch, that'll learn you" and write something along the lines of "I see where you're coming from. Can you see where I'm coming from?" If at any point I can't convince myself that my popst will have a positive effect on the debate, or if it seems to me that the other side is, in fact, a crack addled monkey who will keep spouting the same dumbshit regardless of what I say, I shut the hell up and walk off. Let 'em masturbate. I have, in fact, done this with my very first post to a preexisting argument on more than one occasion.
[At this point I should note that I am not not not immune to egotistical or negative impulses. I ain't as guilty as some, but I'm not scot free, and I fully own up to that.]
Also, having dedicated my life to, er, drama, I feel I can state with authority that people love a good conflict. Let's face it, every flame war starts off fun, and every time I post something really fucked up, it feels good to know I just scored a hit. To quote Stuart: "Why do you care? This is MY dysfunctional relationship and I'll have it if I want. Clearly you are getting something out of it or you would not be here commenting. Clearly I am getting something out of it or I would not be here arguing." This is something I've learned since coming here: While I like people to agree and I really like people to act in harmony with one another, if all parties agree to have a good ol' fashioned shitstorm, it isn't my place to tell them not to. (And no, I am not yet sufficiently experienced enough to tell between a fun shitstorm and an angry shitstorm.)
In the end, it all helps me understand people a bit better, makes for entertaining reading, and doesn't preclude me from having other, more agreeable discussions. But I really hate to see people unhappy, even if those people are figments of my imagination based on words on my screen.

[III]

sheesh. good post, z.

my one comment, in addition, would be that tp's questions seem to sum up to "why do you let your buttons be pushed?"

my experience is that disabling those buttons is a long process, with many difficult steps.

ranger training recognizes this by only requiring the very first of those steps - recognizing the button. after that, you're expected to simply remove yourself from the situation (and allow someone without that particular button to take over). that's good for being an on duty ranger - it's not so useful as a general societal tool. this is what badger & precipitate have recently done, and i think the community is poorer for it.

as much as i decry mainstream culture, the standards and etiquette it has evolved serve a purpose - they act as a social lubricant, allowing people to interact on a day to day basis with out chafing each other. the repercussions for violating those standards in real life are generally more serious than they are in a virtual environment, so it's small wonder both that people are not adept at managing it when it happens to them, and that places such as this serve as magnets for those who exhibit behavior at odds with those moires.

[Guest]

an interesting analysis of the topic

[Guest]

Why do intelligent, sensitive people engage in such fruitless, aggressive, and frequently painful dialogue?

Why do people continue with lines of debate that upset them so much they are willing to give up the ample friendly conversations that abound here?

i think the link above does a does a very good job on the implied "why do the instigators instigate?" side of the question. TP, however, to your points...i think two strong motivators from the positive members of the community are:

point #1: actively wanting to keep the community positive
if there is something caustic in the community, the positive members want it to go away. thus, they actively do things to drive toward that goal. this may be based on...

point #2: a core-level belief that "rational" behavior should/will always win over irrationality.

with such a belief system in place (that i would posit that a great number of members of this community possess), it seems logical to counter an argument with a counter-argument. when dealing with other rational individuals, a rational, openminded opponent will say "yup...you're right!" when a logical point is made.

the fallacy comes in when the person on the other side of the discussion is not rational. no matter how much logic is put forth, the person on the other side will not see rational points, even when clearly pointed out to them. in this case, the only action that a rational person has left is to walk away, before their head explodes from the dissonance between what should happen in a rational case, and what happens when the other party has no use for reason.

[LeChatNoir]

Zephyrus, your words have great merit my friend. You continue to earn my respect.

Simply put, most people have no idea what effect thay are having on others.

I make a continuous, conscious effort to think a couple steps ahead and ask myself, “How will this comment be perceived? Is it stated in such a way as to politely show my point of view with respect, even If I feel none was shown to me?” Most times I think I accomplish this, sometimes I fall short. As Zephryus so deftly stated, we all do.

But I really hate to see people unhappy, even if those people are figments of my imagination based on words on my screen.

I completely understand and share this point of view. It causes me concern if I feel I’ve unintentionally upset someone until I’ve addressed it with that person.

And on the other side of that, I always try to remember that there are no negative words that can be said (or typed) that really make any difference. Someone can call me names or make some shot-from-the-hip comment and it may upset me. But when I walk back into my shop, I still have metal laying around, my tools are still there, I am still the person that I was a few minutes before the comment was made. Those words didn’t change a thing in my life. But.... I also try to remember that the person who made that comment may not see things in this light and if I were to fire some hurtful reply back at them, I may well have a big impact on their feelings. I want to leave things better than I found them, not worse.

Now on to Technopatra’s questions:

At the same time, I truly agonize over the preponderance of incredibly negative, personally abusive, repetitively antagonistic garbage. I wonder, not just at people's ability, but their willingness to enter into such puerile behavior.

Forgive the naivete of the question, but can anyone tell me why?

Unless you’ve been a part of the negativity you mention, I feel you owe me no apology. As to the reasons, perhaps it’s a combination of some people not thinking about the words they say combined with a form of communication that is faceless. By that I mean you don’t have to look each other in the eyes. Body language alone can make a huge difference in how a comment is perceived. Not to mention the change an inflection placed two words down in the sentence can make. After tempers get flared, sometimes its hard to cool them down when sitting in front of a computer screen by yourself. We’ve no others around us to gauge how silly our reactionary behavior really is.

Why can folks not just walk away from a conversation? Why do they give their perceived enemies the power of their response?

People seem to always want to get others to act the way they think they should act. "If I just say it one more time, they'll get it." You have to let go of this point of view, but damn... its hard, since I think we’re subconsciously wired to do it. For instance:

Your boyfriend/girlfriend (whom you love deeply) no longer wants no longer wants to be with you. What’s your first reaction? “Please don’t go, I need you”. We’ve all been through this and I’ve no doubt that there isn’t any of us who’ve not begged and pleaded to someone at some point in our lives. Yes, your significant other’s decision hurts and just plain sucks, but it is what they want to do. And they are going to do what they want (or need) to do regardless or what you say. Accept this simple truth and your burden just got a little lighter. The same goes for points of view in an eplaya discussion. Some folks have a hard time realizing that they can type until their fingers fall off and not change what another is thinking. During a discussion, I try to state my point of view or opinion only once. If I feel that I must reiterate, then I will try to word it differently on the chance that a different angle could make a clearer statement. After that, its to no avail. Perhaps after several days, weeks, months, or years they will assimilate your point of view (or you will assimilate theirs) and then they will understand what you were trying to say. But until then it is, as I stated before, beating a dead horse.

For me, Burning Man means exactly the opposite. It means eschewing the unproductive negativity that keeps me from connecting with other people.

I agree... and for Christ’s sake, folks, don’t get started on this debate again. What “IT” means (even to only one person) seems as multi-faceted as there are grains of sand on a beach. This is just one of them and I agree with it completely.

Why is it that when folks are offered friendship, support, wisdom and care, they instead choose drama?

Personal insecurities? Ego? Id? Inferiority issues? Lots of things I could think of. Many of them may well be unknown even to the person who acts on them. Some folks are attracted to drama. Without it they don’t feel secure. Perverse, yes, but one has to only look around them to see its true.

In another thread, I alluded to a simple comment stopping a suicide. This was referencing a true story. In a nutshell... a woman went to her local Mission to get some toys for Christmas gifts for her children... at least this was her front. Her true intentions were to trade or sell these toys for whatever drugs she could in order to overdose that same night. While she was there getting the toys, someone sincerely asked her, “How are you doing?” This simple statement became an intervention that saved this woman’s life. She now runs several missions of her own. Now tell me, what would have been the result of this story if the comment would have been “Get a job, you lazy ass.”?

I believed very much in the effects a few simple words can have on someone who is vulnerable prior to this story coming to my attention. After hearing it on NPR, this belief instantly became a fundamental in my life.

I’ve been a part of some good conversations on the eplaya. I’ve been turned off some too, but all in all, I’m really enjoying it. I like the range of personallities and varying lengths of posts. Jeez... if everybody posted the way Zephyrus and I do, there’d be nobody here but me and him... Blah, BlahBlah, Blah Blah (Sorry, guys... its just this format of “Jump in, Drop a lot of information, Jump out” that makes me go on this way. In person I’m really not a big wind bag).

So tell me, Technopatra... Now I have a question for you: How’s my eplaya etiquette? Have I contributed positively or no? I also ask this sincerely, so that I can better my actions for all of you should I need to do so. Post here, or PM if you wish.

Meow...

[theCryptofishist]

A lot of what seems to set me off is people who cannot "Agree to disagree." And the fringe members who joined specifically to stir up s**t and don't even have the basic respect to go on some level "Well these people care and are real and I'll catch more flies with honey than with vinegar." I've also taken a lot of bullying in my life and have gotten bored of my passive acceptence of such.
I don't know how much I was in Technopatria's mind when she posted. I know I've done some dumb crap here. I also do make efforts to apoligize when I have the space to find it warrented and I really try and give good feedback when someone impresses me. Not that that gets me off the hook, but it's my attempt not to become a bully.
Plus the negative threads tend to slow down action on the positive ones. Either people stop logging on, or they put their energy where the sparks are.

[LeChatNoir]

Zephyrus, your words have great merit my friend

As do yours also, genghis... My post simply feel after yours...

[Zephryus]

In my experience, most people are very self protective. In my experience, it is also very difficult for most poeple to distinguish between themselves and something they have invested their ego in, be it an institution, a relationship, or a persona. In my brief time here, I have seen all three batted around like a pigskin.
Also, in my experience, most people tand not to notice or care when they push other people out of their comfort zones, but immediately care when those people push back and force them out of their own comfort zones. I have seen this happen with both positive and negative intentions, and on these boards I have seen it happen in more than one flame war. It's all fun and games until someone pushes a button (and then keeps pushing it like a crack addled monkey).
What I see most of is a critical separation between the intent with which an action is made and the way others percieve the intent based on the action itself. Simply, most people have no idea what effect thay are having on others. This is not unnatural. We're all individuals, and there will always be differences. The problem as I see it is that when two or more people realise that there is a misunderstanding, they attempt to remedy the situation by forcing their subjective reality on everybody else. I'm right and you're wrong. This doesn't work, but not for lack of trying.
What's needed is a little understanding. And not that pansy hypocritical condescending "I'm going to humor you by pretending that your ideas have merit" shit. No, I mean assuming for a few (difficult) moments that the person you're disagreeing with is a sensible human being with a reasonable point of view and valid wants and needs, and then addressing that person in that frame of mind. And that means letting go of the ideas you hold that seem mutually incompatable with theirs. (Quite often I find that those ideas aren't actually contradictory, just different expressions of the same need.) When I post to someone(s) I disagree with, I generally delete the post if I'm thinking "Yeah, bitch, that'll learn you" and write something along the lines of "I see where you're coming from. Can you see where I'm coming from?" If at any point I can't convince myself that my popst will have a positive effect on the debate, or if it seems to me that the other side is, in fact, a crack addled monkey who will keep spouting the same dumbshit regardless of what I say, I shut the hell up and walk off. Let 'em masturbate. I have, in fact, done this with my very first post to a preexisting argument on more than one occasion.
[At this point I should note that I am not not not immune to egotistical or negative impulses. I ain't as guilty as some, but I'm not scot free, and I fully own up to that.]
Also, having dedicated my life to, er, drama, I feel I can state with authority that people love a good conflict. Let's face it, every flame war starts off fun, and every time I post something really fucked up, it feels good to know I just scored a hit. To quote Stuart: "Why do you care? This is MY dysfunctional relationship and I'll have it if I want. Clearly you are getting something out of it or you would not be here commenting. Clearly I am getting something out of it or I would not be here arguing." This is something I've learned since coming here: While I like people to agree and I really like people to act in harmony with one another, if all parties agree to have a good ol' fashioned shitstorm, it isn't my place to tell them not to. (And no, I am not yet sufficiently experienced enough to tell between a fun shitstorm and an angry shitstorm.)
In the end, it all helps me understand people a bit better, makes for entertaining reading, and doesn't preclude me from having other, more agreeable discussions. But I really hate to see people unhappy, even if those people are figments of my imagination based on words on my screen.

[stuart]

People seem to always want to get others to act the way they think they should act.

i think this speaks volumes and is applicable in a variety of ways.

one way I find it very applicable in the realm is that, well, everyone is not the same. Yeah, Yeah. What I mean is, there is a continuum of discourse in terms of desired usefullness, snarkiness, shit-stirringness, logic, circle-jerking (sock or no), etc.

Where I see the nastiest clashes arrise is when two parties (not limited to two people) find themselves at extremes on these continuums and dig in for the fight. This is different from two parties simply disagreeing on things. In terms of these various continuums (what is the plural of that?) it seems like many folks have things they simply won't let slide. An example: for me, I don't like to let 'in the spirit of burning man' slide. Especially when it comes from folks who have not been. My feeling is that if folks are having a discussion and this comes up as a premise, everything that follows is a house of cards. Now, this does not mean I am not interested in what they have to say at all! If anything, if I pipe up with that clarification, it means I am interested in the discussion and don't want to see it corrupted by adding in the magic phrase. Another one for me is when folks say that if you ride up in an RV you miss the event. Pisses me right off because I know from my personal experience this does not need to be the case. It also goes along with

People seem to always want to get others to act the way they think they should act.

I don't like newbies being told they will ruin their BM experience if they do it with an RV. So, I guess I find myself being the unwarrented genaralizations police. This is me sitting on the extreme of a continuum. I have clashed with folks (BBP, now Crypto) by playing 'generalization police'. It's one of my schticks. I get equally flamed for it and praised for it. So which is the right behavior? Well, it depends on the person. And this is what brings me back to

People seem to always want to get others to act the way they think they should act.

one place this clearly causes a lot of friction is in the use of the board. There are a lot of folks here who seem to have a massive ego investment in how this board functions, what is discussed and how it is discussed. Opinions differ and

People seem to always want to get others to act the way they think they should act.

[LeChatNoir]

these various continuums (what is the plural of that?)

If I am correct in understanding that you are asking for the plural of continuum, then you are indeed stating it correctly... "continuums".

A calmaitous cacophony of contentious continuums

[Zephryus]

How the hell did my rant get double posted, days apart? I sure as hell didn't submit it again. Hmmm...

[If an admin reads this, please feel free to delete the second iteration.]

[Zane5100]

How the hell did my rant get double posted, days apart? I sure as hell didn't submit it again. Hmmm...

[If an admin reads this, please feel free to delete the second iteration.]

Your words were so good, we had to have a second serving.

[calsur]

TP,

After the very severe peepee whack, That I Deserved, I vow to make you spew your morning drink onto your keyboard at least 5 more times before the gates open on the Playa.

I will use all my cunning and my training as a low brow comedian to wreck your keyboard.

You have been notified,

Calsur

PS, let me know if this works because I am having a hard time with material.

[DVD Burner]

The very severe peepee whack!

Maaannnn, that sounds good.
Hey we all should make TP spew her morning drink onto her keyboard more often. She Deserves to be made smile as often as possible for all this board puts her through. Heck the whole team deserves it.

Anything to show that this board is not about Drama.


Was that within thread theme?

[calsur]

Stater Brothers has a sale on paper towels. I suggest you stock up.

[Zephryus]

*BEEP*BEEP*BEEP*

SIR, THIS IS THE EPLAYA ANTICOMMERCE POLICE. PLEASE PULL OVER AND PUT YOUR AVATARS WHERE I CAN SEE THEM. YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO SHUT YOUR FILTHY CAPITALIST TRAP. SHOULD YOU CHOOSE TO WAIVE THIS RIGHT, ANYTHING YOU SAY CAN AND WILL BE USED AGAINST YOU BY A CAGE FULL OF FLESH EATING SHREWS OR YOUR FELLOW EPLAYANS, WHICHEVER HAS LEAST RECENTLY HAD A RABIES SHOT. YOUR IMMEDIATE COMPLIANCE IS EXPECTED AND APPRECIATED. THAT IS ALL.

*BEEP*

[Bob]

Irony

Irony (Gr. είρωνεία (eironeia), from είρων (eiron): one who says less than he means, hypocrite, είρειν (eirein): to speak), a form of speech in which the real meaning is concealed or contradicted by the words used. Irony involves the perception that things are not what they are said to be or what they seem. Dramatic irony lies in the audience's deeper perceptions of a coming fate, which contrast with the character's perceptions.

H. W. Fowler, in Modern English, had this to say of irony: "Irony is a form of utterance that postulates a double audience, consisting of one party that hearing shall hear and shall not understand, and another party that, when more is meant than meets the ear, is aware, both of that 'more' and of the outsider's incomprehension."

Irony is, therefore, a matter of perceived and real attitude or values of the speaker, rather than a difference between the denotative meanings of the words a speaker uses.

Socratic Irony

The Greek word eironeia applied particularly to understatement in the nature of dissimulation. Such irony occurred especially and notably in the assumed ignorance which Socrates adopted as a method of dialectic, the "Socratic irony." Socratic irony involves a profession of ignorance that disguises a skeptical, non-committed attitude towards some dogma or universal opinion that lacks a basis in reason or in logic. Socrates' "innocent" inquiries expose step by step the vanity or illogicality of the proposition. The irony entertains those onlookers who know that Socrates is wiser than he permits himself to appear and who may perceive slightly in advance the direction the "naive" questioning will take. Fowler describes it: :The two parties in his audience were, first, the dogmatist, moved by pity and contempt to enlighten this ignorance, and, secondly, those who knew their Socrates and set themselves to watch the familiar game in which learning should be turned inside out by simplicity.

Irony and sarcasm

Heavy-handed irony, in which a speaker emphatically states the flat opposite of the truth - perhaps with accompanying body language to deny the words - exemplifies the form of irony called sarcasm. People may particularly employ sarcasm for the purpose of ridicule, mockery or contempt, frequently uttering a sarcastic phrase. When used in literature, sarcasm is often referred to as verbal irony.

An example of sarcastic speech might be a response such as "Well done" or "Great job", said in an angry tone to a worker who has done something wrong. An ironic "Well done" would come when a fire-fighter across the street from a burning building sees a child on the window ledge and dashes across through traffic to catch the falling child in his arms. Both the speaker and the fire-fighter understand that "Well done" doesn't begin to express the half of it. They share a perception of irony.

Examples of ironic incidents might involve the eviction of a landlord from his home, or the death of an atheist killed by a falling cross. In the first case, an incongruity exists between what happens (the person is evicted) and what is expected (the person normally rents homes to others); in the second case, a strong contrast emerges between the person's beliefs and his apparent fate.

Use of irony

The word "irony" is frequently used figuratively, especially in such phrases as "the irony of fate," of an issue or result that seems to contradict normal expectations derived from the previous state or condition.

Irony of fate

The expression "irony of fate" stems from the notion that the gods (or the Fates) are amusing themselves by toying with the minds of mortals, with deliberate ironic intent. For example:

- Ludwig van Beethoven's loss of hearing
- the rain that sets in immediately after one finishes watering one's garden, following many days of putting off watering in anticipation of rain.

Situations resembling poetic justice, but lacking the aspect of justice, may also be ascribed to the irony of fate.

Tragic irony

In tragedy, what is called "tragic irony" becomes a device for heightening the intensity of a dramatic situation. Tragic irony particularly characterised the drama of ancient Greece, owing to the familiarity of the spectators with the legends on which so many of the plays were based. In this form of irony the words and actions of the characters belie the real situation, which the spectators fully realize. It may take several forms: the character speaking may realise the irony of his words while the rest of the actors may not; or he or she may be unconscious while the other actors share the knowledge with the spectators; or the spectators may alone realize the irony. Sophocles' Oedipus the King provides a classic example of tragic irony at its fullest and finest.

Irony may come to expression in inappropriate behavior. A witness to a scene involving threats of violence, for example, may perceive continued politeness on the part of the victim as increasingly ironic as it becomes increasingly inappropriate. Sometimes the "second" audience is the private self of the ironist.

When not recognised, irony can lead to misunderstanding. Even if an ironic statement is recognized as such, it often expresses less clearly what the speaker or writer wants to say than would a direct statement.

The importance of irony

Much postmodernism sees self-aware irony as central to its own operation.

Some sociologists see irony as fundamental to the operation of society.

Usage controversy

The material above deals with the primary dictionary meaning of the word "irony." It is universally agreed that this usage is correct. Whether it is the only correct usage is contentious, and authority can be cited on both sides.

As of 2003, it is quite common to hear the word "ironic" used in situations where there is no "double audience," and no contradiction between the ostensible and true meaning of the words. Two examples of such usage:

- Ironically, Sir Arthur Sullivan is remembered for the comic operas he found embarrassing, rather than the serious works he hoped would be his legacy.

- Adolph Coors III was the former heir to the Coors beer empire. Ironically, Coors was allergic to beer.

The American Heritage Dictionary recognizes a meaning of "incongruity between what might be expected and what actually occurs." This would allow the example above. (Their usage panel, however, found it unacceptable to use the word "ironic" to describe mere unfortunate coincidences or surprising disappointments that "suggest no particular lessons about human vanity or folly," which would still allow the above usage but exclude "ironically, I encountered a traffic jam when I was already late.")

On the other hand, Fowler, in The King's English, says "any definition of irony—though hundreds might be given, and very few of them would be accepted—must include this, that the surface meaning and the underlying meaning of what is said are not the same." Fowler would thus consider the Sullivan example above as incorrect usage.

See also ... Ironic, a 1995 song by Alanis Morissette which attracted attention as (apparently) an egregious misuse of the word "ironic."

See also

- jargon

http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Irony

[Bob]

Sarcasm

Sarcasm is a form of humor in which someone makes statements that are the opposite of his true feelings. This is often associated with eye-rolling and a particular vocal tone; however, many people consider sarcasm most humorous when they have some difficulty (at least initially) with telling if the person is being serious. Sarcasm is similar to tongue-in-cheek humor but has a slightly more negative connotation, where tongue-in-cheek has a more light-hearted slant.

See also: Irony

http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Sarcasm

[Zephryus]

Jest
Pronunciation: j?st
Noun
jest - a humorous anecdote or remark intended to provoke laughter; "he told a very funny joke"; "he knows a million gags"; "thanks for the laugh"; "he laughed unpleasantly at hisown jest"; "even a schoolboy's jape is supposed to have some ascertainable point"

Witticism
Pronuncitation: Wit´ti`cism
Noun
witticism - a message whose ingenuity or verbal skill or incongruity has the power to evoke laughter

Pedantry
Pronounciation: Ped´ant`ry
Noun
pedantry - a ostentatious and inappropriate display of learning

Smelly
Adj.
smelly - offensively malodorous; "a putrid smell"
See also:
foul-smelling, funky, fetid, foetid, foul, stinking, noisome, putrid
malodorous, malodourous - unpleasant-smelling

Puddingheaded
Adj.
puddingheaded - stupid and confused; used especially of persons; "blathering like the addlepated nincompoop that you are"; "a confused puddingheaded, muddleheaded fellow"- Isaac Sterne
See also:
addlebrained, addlepated, muddleheaded[/b]

[DVD Burner]