Irony is ruining our culture | Hacker News Reader

Irony is ruining our culture

salon.com

59 pointsmrrrgn65 comments

And as always, something else came along to fill the void: comedy. Shows like "The Daily Show", artists like Louis C.K., and even web comics like "Dinosaur Comics" now do the job irony allegedly left behind of revealing the hypocrisies and absurdities of the modern world.

Because you mentioned Dinosaur Comics, I suppose someone needs to find a relevant one and link to it. Like relevant xkcd linking, except less mainstream.

http://www.qwantz.com/index.php?comic=166

It is remarkable how diluted the word irony has become. More often than not it seems that people think "irony" is serendipity's evil twin. The definition of "random" has also suffered a similar impotence by pervasiveness. It is not uncommon to hear casual conversations where the words random and ironic are used interchangeably.

The next word on the semantic extinction watchlist is literally. If you ask google for the definition of literally you are presented with two senses of the word:

  1:         in a literal manner or sense; exactly.
  informal:  used for emphasis or to express strong feeling while not being literally true.

Sooner than later "informal" will be replaced with "2." and literally will literally mean not literally.

Where did the phrase "serendipity's evil twin" come from?

9 results: https://www.google.com/search?&q=%22serendipity%27s+evil+twi...

This is just my observation of the current definition of the word. I do not know if I unwittingly stole it from someone. I did not see this result in the list of google hits:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6786082

It's a striking phrase, but not quite right. ... If you can recognize the way in which it is not quite right, I think you will have recognized the genius of the attempt.

I do not understand how my opinion can be judged "not quite right"? This is my impression of the concept people seem to have in mind when they use the word irony. I am not saying this is the definition of irony.

"From what I can tell most people's definition is something between 'serendipity's evil twin' and 'partially related.'" --dfc[1]

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6786082

One may have opinions about opinions.

Nothing new. From the OED of 1903:

"Now often improperly used to indicate that some hypothetical phrase is to be taken in the strongest admissible sense."

Fowler's "Modern English Usage" cites examples going back to the mid-19th century.

"Irony" is a different beast, since when used in the sense of "cosmic irony" or "irony of fate", it is serendipity's evil twin.

By contrast, I have a gut feeling that there is some deep psychological slipping going on with the way people use modifiers such as "literally", "truly" and "really", and that it is inevitable that these words will lose the sharp distinction implied by a truly and literally literal reading.

  > there is some deep psychological slipping going on

This is a concept that I am fascinated by, it seems like there must be a term for this. I know that there is a professor that has published something about this and I wish I could find the publication.

Serendipity or sarcasm?

Serendipity.

This is all just symptomatic and the informalization of society. Seinfeld was snarky and shallow, but it was ultimately about laughing at social faux pas. We're rapidly running out of things that are morally acceptable but socially unacceptable.

Have you tried watching the show Royal Pains? It was hard for me to get through an episode because everyone was just incredibly awkward all the time. I don't think we're really running low on that kind of thing.

I have to admit I only made it about half way through this, by which time it seemed to me that the authors had little more grasp of the concept of irony than Alanis Morissette.

Irony is neither cynicism nor snark. It is an indispensable aspect of most forms of written expression; it is almost impossible to write a successful work of opinion or fiction of any length without mastering this classical tool of rhetoric.

Where would Shakespeare be without irony? And what of the ancient Greeks? It's not modern, it is a connection with our heritage.

I think you're just nitpicking here. You could replace the word "irony" with "X" and the intentions of the author may come through more clearly. Here's not saying "all irony is bad", he's saying modern culture has been permeated to the core with sarcasm and cynicism, to the point that no one knows what anyone actually wants or likes anymore. It's a call for sincerity.

Is it not the case that people are resorting to cynicism and sarcasm as a way to deal with not being wrong? When we're punished for mistakes like we are, doesn't it encourage this testing of the symbolic electric fence to find what's acceptable to another without the commitment?

That's what I see from those people whose personality is like shifting sands that mimics anyone or thing around them to remain safe.

In times like these sincerity is a revolutionary act.

I would argue that at least DFW (and possibly the author) knew exactly what he meant when he said irony. I think maybe irony is misunderstood as necessarily being obvious and bald-facedly deceptive in a noticeable way. I think a lot of the problem DFW was addressing (and I very much agree with h here) that it's so pervasive that we don't even perceive it's ubiquity culturally, and that our modes of communication are so shot through with the stuff that we can't just break down and communicate directly. I could be wrong, but in that sense I thought he was frighteningly prescient. I may be (probably am) mis-reading you, but arguing that irony is important because irony was important doesn't quite work as a counterpoint for me in this case.

I think you're right that the authors knew exactly what they meant when they said "irony"; it's just that what they meant wasn't really irony (I make no comment about DFW, whom I haven't read).

"maybe irony is misunderstood as necessarily being obvious"

You aim for that sweet spot where about half your audience will miss your point. Socrates could needle someone in such as way that only his target was unaware of being mocked.

"our modes of communication are so shot through with the stuff that we can't just break down and communicate directly"

Again, I'm willing to take others' word for it that this is the world they live in. I'm just happy that I don't.

Huh? Alanis Morissette is a master of irony. She wrote an entire song about irony that doesn't contain a single ironic situation. It's so thick you can taste it.

I would be interested to hear if your opinion of the article changes after you read the second half.

By "irony", I'm pretty sure they mean "sarcasm". It seems increasingly common for people to confuse the two.

But sarcasm is a form of irony: its lowest and crudest, the first one we learn when we're brats in elementary school.

I'm pretty sure they have it confused with snark and cynicism, because they use these terms while parading their confusion pretty baldly. They're also talking about something like a dread of sincerity as part of one's lifestyle, I think. Real things in some circles, I don't doubt, but not the same as irony. And nothing to do with my life or the people I talk to. (I don't watch much TV, but I thought Seinfeld was brilliant. Oddly, I think part of its technique had to do with a distinct lack of irony, in making things unusually literal.)

So common, in fact, that this joke was masterfully made nearly 15 years ago: http://pastebin.com/8hLsNWrY

edit: I mean the joke about Alanis Morrisette.

I'd hardly say we're in a post-postmodern stage, though... whatever the fuck that means, I'm assuming it's a reactionary stage against postmodernism, which would make it plain modernism.

> I'd hardly say we're in a post-postmodern stage, though... whatever the fuck that means, I'm assuming it's a reactionary stage against postmodernism, which would make it plain modernism.

There's no reason a reaction against post-modernism would have to be plain modernism. Its hardly as if approaches to the world are on a simple unidimensional scale where there are only two extremes, and any reaction against one must be simply its polar opposite.

We've been in a post-pomo world since 9/11: see http://www.bruno-latour.fr/sites/default/files/89-CRITICAL-I... if you doubt this. What's odd is someone dusting off the irony-is-killing-us essay template again after a decade of stridency and self-assurance.

That's an interesting piece. You can see how some lines of thought have become verboten in respectable society. This era might be considered the Rise of Fear and the Return of Authority.

FWIW I think that the younger generation is realizing they shouldn't afraid to be genuine about their feelings and public statements, unlike Gen X and the older Millenials before them. The world is getting weirder and scarier and the information/entertainment overload is overwhelming and anxiety-inducing. A lot of people are seeking out a real warmth and an un-snarky, eyeroll-free reception to their words and art. Problem is that our culture now forgets nothing. Too much self-reflection, too much nostalgia.

Irony is an exercise in cleverness.

I can speak only about US pop culture, but to consider Stewart and Colbert, clever and amusing as they are, in the avant garde of political thought is scary.

Facile isn't wise, and for some reason wisdom is now (maybe always?) deemed boring.

Too much television, too much Web distraction. Turn it all off. Twitter, Facebook, football, futbol, campaign ads, dot dot dot.

Give me something useful: The Weather Channel and porn, in moderation.

It's difficult to think deeply about complex issues. And arguably meaningless. Still...

Jeez, I'm a codger. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

Irony is a sedative. Absurdity requires revolt. Pass the bong. One more hit before I study for finals.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Myth_of_Sisyphus

EDIT: Not unusually, I popped off before reading the post. I'm not a DFW fanboy, but I've found everything of his I've ever read to be substantial. Very substantial. He dared.

  > Not unusually, I popped off before reading the post.

Does "popped off" mean that you did not read the linked article and merely used the title as a cue for a freeform writing exercise? And this is not an unusual thing for you to do while browsing HN?

"Shit... charging a man with murder in this place was like handing out speeding tickets in the Indy 500. I took the mission. What the hell else was I gonna do?"

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0078788/quotes

> "This environment gave artists few choices: sentimentality, nihilism, or irony."

I suppose one could call it art to construct a giant synthetic angst generator and bathe in its effluent.

If you remember the late 90s well enough, this reached a head with Jedediah Purdy's For Common Things.

We have come so far full circle in 20 years, that Aaron Sorkin quoted Purdy without a hint of irony on his latest HBO show.

This was my favorite response then, and maybe Stein'll do a reprise: http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,992159,...

You beat me to the punch. Purdy's book has been far too obscure for far too long. He was the first to awaken me to this cultural deviance and I've been stuck with seeing it everywhere ever since. While it may be too simplistic I blame, J.D. Salinger, Catcher in the Rye and Holden Caulfield almost entirely for this plague of irony. I sincerely wish the creepy Salinger had been lost in the war. As a culture we would be the better for it.

When I read For Common Things I thought perhaps it could be the bell weather of change. Instead it was mostly ignored. He was remarkably young and remarkably brilliant when he wrote it and it gave me hope for the for the influence of his generation. Alas...

This article made me realize what it is that I find so absolutely compelling in DFW's works. I find his suicide not the least surprising in light of his remarkable sense of sincerity. How could one with such sensitivities continue in this brave new world of snark.

""" I asked Purdy if the book wasn't just an excuse for not having a sense of humor. He said, "That's a pretty nifty little piece of psychological deductionism." I took that as a yes. Then, to make conversation, I asked him his favorite movie. He paused and said, "I like movies, but I don't orient to them with the same sophistication as a lot of folks." """

During my 1L year while procrastinating for my Property final I came across an article Purdy wrote about Johnson v. M’Intosh.[1] It reminded me of that neat white book from long ago and I took the time to reread it. If you enjoyed the book when it came out I encourage you to reread it.

[1]: Property and Empire: The Law of Imperialism in Johnson v. M’Intosh -- http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=...

"Skeptics reject sincerity because they worry blind belief can lead to such evils as the Ku Klux Klan and Nazism. They think strong conviction implies vulnerability to emotional rhetoric and lack of critical awareness. "

The article brings this point up, but I don't think it does a good job of dismissing it. I agree that irony can be harmful to culture, however, I think irony still has a job to do in our culture. There's a lot of people believing a lot of things which they don't have evidence for (religion being the biggest one that comes to mind), and I think having an approach of doubt to things can be a good way to be sure society/it's individuals believe the most accurate things.

How is believing in religion different than believing in irony and pluralism?

How does one "believe in irony"?

When one is sufficiently religious, faith/belief become the paradigm for all mental processes. It becomes impossible to fathom a non-religious capacity of thought.

But philosophus' point seemed to be that it was possible for a secular person to "believe in irony." Personally I think it sounds a lot like "I believe in dinosaurs."

"But David Foster Wallace predicted a hopeful turn. He could see a new wave of artistic rebels who 'might well emerge as some weird bunch of anti-rebels… who dare somehow to back away from ironic watching, who have the childish gall actually to endorse and instantiate single-entendre principles… Who eschew self-consciousness and hip fatigue.' "

Call me naive but I've thought about this before -- that this oversaturation of irony and the mainstreaming of 20th century-style rebellion could very soon have a backlash in the form of the rise of some kind of fascistic movement among young people.

Until art can take religion seriously again, it's a pointless discussion. Great artists are authentic and, sans religion, the authentic position is nihilism: everything else begs The Question.

The authors clearly understand this, at some level, by pointing out the singular value of black spiritual music in american history. But, like most of today's elite, they are unable to look the obvious answer in the face, because it's so horrifying.

I find attitudes like this bewildering. I can't imagine being so uncreative as to assert that the only authentic non-religious attitude is a nihlistic one. How hard is it to take the human condition and it's joys and sorrows seriously and at face-value, exalting what we are and might become without resorting to silly supernatural fairy tales. We don't need religion for great art, we need to cultivate our expressions of humanism.

Like it or not, religion (or more correctly, spirituality) is a big part of being human, especially when expressed as art. I think ever since the Age of Enlightenment we've made a big mistake in dismissing anything that can't be rationally explained by science as "silly supernatural fairy tales". We're relying too much on our senses and logical thinking, and neglecting feeling and intuition.

Logical thinking, in the form of theology, is how you get Western religion in the first place.

How so? Religion doesn't seem very logical to me at all.

Even Mr. God Is Dead himself was not a nihilist. He talked about it a lot, but because it was something he saw in the world, not because he thought it was a good thing.

Art certainly can be about overcoming nihilism, but it certainly does not require religion to do it.

As always with these discussions, I think it comes down to what you mean by "nihilist". He certainly thought that the end of traditional Christian values was a good thing, which is why many people call him a nihilist. That's not to say he believed in "nothing", Big Lebowski style, though.

Vocabulary is so hard. :/

Yes, you're totally correct, though.

Yes, did you notice that Salon edited "Nobody Knows the Trouble I’ve Seen?"

Salon's version:

Nobody knows the trouble I’ve seen Nobody knows my sorrow Nobody knows the trouble I’ve seen Glory Hallelujah

The original: Nobody knows the trouble I've seen Nobody knows but Jesus Nobody knows the trouble I've seen Glory hallelujah!

Actually, both the "Nobody knows but Jesus" and "Nobody knows my sorrow" versions are traditional, long-standing versions (and I can't find any clear indication of which is the "original" on the web.) Given the origin of the song, its quite likely lots of variations existed before it was written down.

Salon didn't edit anything.

I don't think I've ever heard the "but Jesus" version.

It's the version that was in Spaceballs, if memory serves.

I'm a fairly religious person myself, and still find the idea "sans religion, the authentic position is nihilism" to be the fairly ridiculous (unless you broaden the definition of religion so much as to make it unrecognizable). Just because lots of people find meaning in religion -- and even if one assumes that those people are in some deep respect right and everyone else is wrong -- doesn't mean that people who find meaning outside of religion lack authenticity. Beliefs can be authentic and different from yours -- even authentic and wrong.

Depends on what definition of nihilism you use. I would agree with the first couple of lines from Wikipedia:

> Nihilism (/ˈnaɪ.ɨlɪzəm/ or /ˈniː.ɨlɪzəm/; from the Latin nihil, nothing) is a philosophical doctrine that suggests the negation of one or more putatively meaningful aspects of life. Most commonly, nihilism is presented in the form of existential nihilism, which argues that life is without objective meaning, purpose, or intrinsic value.

But this does not mean I don't enjoy life, and find meaning for myself. I just don't believe that there's anything objective or intrinsic about it - that is, what gives my life meaning is what I make of it, and nothing else.

One could possibly argue that we derive meaning from our biology - the factors that evokes emotions, beauty, or drives our reward responses, and this represents "objective meaning" in some way, but I feel that's a big stretch, though it is certainly likely to shape your thoughts on what is meaningful.

Right - if beliefs can't be authentic and wrong, then most people finding meaning in religion are also not "authentic".

There is beauty, and depth, and wonder in our Universe. It doesn't require believing in supernatural beings to see or appreciate those things.

For a great counter-argument, see: http://gawker.com/on-smarm-1476594977

I may be wrong but somehow I don't think creators/artists read social comment like this and say to themselves "Gosh, he's absolutely right, from now on I'll give irony a miss and head off in a new direction". If they do then I would guess they're pretty derivative and unlikely to produce work deemed to be outstandingly original.

Is the font absolutely gigantic for any one else? I get 3 lines per screen on mobile chrome.

Yes. If I pinched out it would turn into a normal size, wait a second, and then return to being terrible. I couldn't get through more than a paragraph because of this.

These kids these days! Why back in my day...!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com