Ask HN: Why is one downvoted for sarcasm

That's easy to answer -- humor is almost always disparaged at HN. People want serious discussions, and jokes often end up being noise blocking the signal.

Also, sarcasm by its ambiguity requires people to shift gears from a straight interpretation of someone's post, to one in which various kinds of verbal trickery is intended. It just seems like too much work if a straight presentation would convey the meaning more efficiently.

Sarcasm (and cynicism) all too often act as pseudo-intellectual facades over a posters' inability or unwillingness to exercise critical thinking or empathy. Sarcastic posters are rarely as funny, clever or even honest as they believe, rather, their cynical view is usually obvious, banal and lacking in anything which moves a discussion forward.

Although when they are funny, I usually upvote them.

1. Sarcasm is often difficult to discern without tone of voice.

2. Humor for its own sake is less valuable than humor that makes a point. I wish I could find it, but I read an interview with the New Yorker's cartoon editor who said something similar.

3. It is easy to tear down with sarcasm but very hard to build with it. There is too much negativity in anonymous / pseudonymous forums in general.

I notice that comments that are purely sarcastic get downvoted but comments that express some insight sarcastically get upvoted.