Honestly, the comment is rude and not helpful. Its an attack on the poster for asking a genuine question, which is total reddit behavior. (But in the context of a joke, its pretty funny, its the kind of banter I’d play with friends - but we all know we’re just joking)
So… what I said was rude, but it is also a pretty funny joke, in context.
???
As I said earlier, the OP had already received serious replies which would have provided them the context to appreciate this as a joke.
I only add /s when I feel what I am saying could reasonably be construed as not being a joke, in context.
As opposed to doing the stereotypical redditor thing and vastly overusing it when its quite obvious in context that something is sarcastic.
Anyway, if what I said is rude, which apparently more people seem to think than not, than this only means that a tiny rephrasing of what Kamala actually said is rude, as it is patronizing.
That’s the next level of the joke, that beyond its immediate application, it is that of pointing out that Kamala is at best an awkward communicator on the fly.
And now we have a third layer of meta irony in that I am explaining to you that a well known quip about context has been misunderstood due to either lack of understanding of or disregard for context.
I read them as saying it was “rude outside of a ‘known’/friend group joke context” which is the default state of public social media, funny in the context of a group that all knows from experience and their connections (or at least has strong confidence) that a well meaning or harmless joke is intended.
Part of it I think is that different places in the world have varying expectations. As do different age groups. You could be talking with a 90 year old liberal woman from New York City who has been on Lemmy for years, or a 16 year old neo-nazi boy from Bangladesh where today is their first experience on any social media site ever. And then one of those two will downvote you, one will upvote you, and you are forbidden to ever know which is which (bc Lemmy does not show that information, despite it theoretically being public).
The downvote relationship is thereby inherently unequal since they know (a little about) who they chose to downvote, while you have no clue who downvoted you and can only guess at the reason(s) why. Which makes this place on social media capricious and unwelcoming, as people sling those around without bothering to offer an explanation. Kudos to [email protected] then for offering one possibility.:-)
Honestly, the comment is rude and not helpful. Its an attack on the poster for asking a genuine question, which is total reddit behavior. (But in the context of a joke, its pretty funny, its the kind of banter I’d play with friends - but we all know we’re just joking)
So… what I said was rude, but it is also a pretty funny joke, in context.
???
As I said earlier, the OP had already received serious replies which would have provided them the context to appreciate this as a joke.
I only add /s when I feel what I am saying could reasonably be construed as not being a joke, in context.
As opposed to doing the stereotypical redditor thing and vastly overusing it when its quite obvious in context that something is sarcastic.
Anyway, if what I said is rude, which apparently more people seem to think than not, than this only means that a tiny rephrasing of what Kamala actually said is rude, as it is patronizing.
That’s the next level of the joke, that beyond its immediate application, it is that of pointing out that Kamala is at best an awkward communicator on the fly.
And now we have a third layer of meta irony in that I am explaining to you that a well known quip about context has been misunderstood due to either lack of understanding of or disregard for context.
I read them as saying it was “rude outside of a ‘known’/friend group joke context” which is the default state of public social media, funny in the context of a group that all knows from experience and their connections (or at least has strong confidence) that a well meaning or harmless joke is intended.
Part of it I think is that different places in the world have varying expectations. As do different age groups. You could be talking with a 90 year old liberal woman from New York City who has been on Lemmy for years, or a 16 year old neo-nazi boy from Bangladesh where today is their first experience on any social media site ever. And then one of those two will downvote you, one will upvote you, and you are forbidden to ever know which is which (bc Lemmy does not show that information, despite it theoretically being public).
The downvote relationship is thereby inherently unequal since they know (a little about) who they chose to downvote, while you have no clue who downvoted you and can only guess at the reason(s) why. Which makes this place on social media capricious and unwelcoming, as people sling those around without bothering to offer an explanation. Kudos to [email protected] then for offering one possibility.:-)