Isn't It Ironic?

gessel writes "Have you ever used the word "ironic?" Do you know what it really means? If not, is that ironic? Was Seinfeld's "irony" really the cause of the utter collapse of civil society as we knew it? How ironic was it for the CEO of MTV to declare irony a victim of 9/11? The Guardian is running a brilliant article that clears the confusion around a culturally critical and chronically misused word."

Comments

why

[JrTcoNrd]

why did slashdot post this story? its pointless... and quite stupid. This is what I would expect from fark.com

South Park episode display classic irony

[spun]

In a recent South Park episode, Matt and Trey had the town under siege by greedy corporate Native Americans, intent on paving it over to make a highway from denver to their casino. The town won't sell out, so the Native American resort to rubbing blankets on SARS infected Chinese people and giving them to the townsfolk. One of the kids goes on a 'spirit-journey' using his culture's native vision-drug, huffing paint thinner, and he finds out that the cure for SARS is his culture's traditional medicine of Campbell's Chicken Soup, Nyquil, and Ginger Ale. The Chief's son also contracts SARS. The townsfolk give him the cure, and the chief gratefully gives them their town back.

Irony, as I understand it, is deliberatly saying the opposite of what you mean. No one really thinks Matt and Trey are trying to say that Native Americans are greedy soulless corporate scum.

Re:South Park episode display classic irony

[WIAKywbfatw]

Let's not forget that giving diseased blankets to Native Americans who had no resistance to European infections (because they had never been previously exposed to them) was a favourite trick in the days of the open frontiers.

When times were bad for the pilgrims, the Native Americans shared what they had with them, hence Thanksgiving. When times were good, the European settlers fucked over the Native Americans every chance they got (and they still do), hence the virtually non-existant Native American population in the US today.

It's nice that, in the nation's capital, a city named after the first European settler to preside over the US, the nation's pride in its indigenous peoples is proudly displayed in the name of that city's NFL franchise, the Washington Redskins, and on the side of it's helmets. Perhaps, in centuries to come, people of Latin American and African descent will be equally honoured by NFL teams called the LA Niggers or the Miami Dagos.

Re:South Park episode display classic irony

[Anonymous Coward]

I have two comments:

First, how is the sense of "irony" you've described differ from sarcasm? The Guardian article, in my mind, does an excellent job of outlining exactly what "irony" means in the sense you've implied (e.g., in an argument with someone who is ignorant on a topic, when you ask questions such as "is that so?"). However, there is a fuzzy line, and I'm not sure where the irony-sarcasm line is. My guess is, by the way, that this link with sarcasm is where the misconception of "irony" meaning "cynical" comes from--sarcastic people are often cynical, after all. Is sarcasm cynical irony?

Second, there is a second meaning of irony that seems to get lost in these discussions: events coincidentally occuring in a way that is opposite to what is expected, or in a way that emphasizes something by creating a contrast between an occurence and some earlier event, idea, or situation.

Words change in meaning over time

[f97tosc]

From the article:

We have a grave problem with this word

Well, it so happens to be that we humans constantly shift the meaning of the words in our language. It is believed that the strongest driver of this is the universal appeal in appearing interesting to others.

Language teachers and writers of articles such as this fight a losing battle against such changes in language. Of course, in the long run, a word is defined by the people who use it and not by some dictionary from Oxford. The latter can be changed.

The guardians of language are often the biggest opponents of it's development and modernization. Isn't that ironic?

Tor

Re:Words change in meaning over time

[Titusdot Groan]

The problem we are facing is convergence; multiple words meaning the same thing and losing their old meaning. This is a problem in that we no longer have a word attached to the old concept.

This is analogous to 1984 where the language was slowly restricted to eliminate concepts and hence control thought -- which is double plus ungood as it is hard to form complex thought if your vocabulary is limited.

For instance, if we allow irony to come to mean coincidence or poetic tragedy then what word do we use when we really mean ironic?

Re:Words change in meaning over time

[Mad Quacker]

The guardians of language are often the biggest opponents of it's development and modernization. Isn't that ironic?

No, that's a logical fallacy. Mutation of language is neither development nor modernization. It is bastardization. Look at sanskrit, a language that was engineered, and has been kept almost intact for over two thousand years, one reason being that the scholarly class of Hindus kept the language seperate from the common language, the word sanskrita means "refined" or "purified," and is the opposite of prakrita, meaning "natural" or "vulgar" which all the commoners spoke. (and no, it's not a dead language, you can still find places in India where this is the main language)

Whether modern english has enough merit to be preserved is another argument altogether, but you're just making communication harder by letting it change.

Re:Words change in meaning over time

[EnderWiggin99]

So how does one adapt to changing circumstances without a change in language? Is this possibly the reason why the refined are left behind when everyone else broadens their horizons? How about Shakespeare? Where would the English language be without his bastardizations? The whole point of language is to have a multitude of different words explaining a concept. As society diversifies, these words gradually take on new meaning. If this were not the case, creative arts would be non-existent. You can't write convincingly with a small vocabulary; neither can you read introspectively. Consequently, it is obviously immensely important that language be allowed to develop as the speakers, and listeners, see fit.

Re:Words change in meaning over time

[Mad Quacker]

But no one 'sees fit', it just mutates, uncontrollably. The action of which you speak is not underway. The average english speaker is using a fraction of the vocabulary available, not to mention the mutation we are talking about is the degeneration of vocabulary, not it's amendment. I am not concerned about the next shakespeare forming an entirely new but necessary and proper word. If current language does not suit you, I suggest all the creative arts people have a global conference and engineer a completely new language with structure, purpose, and easy extensibility. Although the same process that I am talking about would be inflicted on it, and unless like sanskrit it is preserved by the elite it will quickly (relative) degenerate by the bastardization of the language by commoners. If you want to have an equitable society, it must be assured that near 100% of the population knows and speaks with proper diction. Relate this with the original post.

Re:Horrible story

[Anonymous Coward]

This is what I hate: word nazis.

Guess what happens when everyone starts using a word a certain way?

That becomes the definition.

Will we ever learn?

I know what "ironic" is supposed to mean, but I know what people usually mean when they say "ironic."

It's fine. We all know what's meant, and there isn't really another word to convey the meaning that is trying to be conveyed by current use of the word "ironic." "Coincidental" doesn't cut it, nor does "wierd," or whatever.

As long as there's no confusion over meaning, and no other more appropriate term, it's okay. Get over it and find another way to stroke your ego.

</vent>

Speed

[gazuga]

Just looking at the definitions, the confusion is understandable - in the first instance, rhetorical irony expands to cover any disjunction at all between language and meaning, with a couple of key exceptions (allegory also entails a disconnection between sign and meaning, but obviously isn't synonymous with irony; and lying, clearly, leaves that gap, but relies for its efficacy on an ignorant audience, where irony relies on a knowing one).

Anyone else feel like the writer was on speed or something? Break that sentence up man, my head is spinning.

Irony is:

[Anonymous Coward]

.
"Irony" is when we get a lecture on English usage from Slashdot!

Re:Next week: proper use of "AKA"

[wadetemp]

AKA is an abbreviation of "also known as", and I don't see a problem with the usage you're describing. AKA is often used in a humorous context for phrase subsitution... the first phrase with some suggestive punctuation:

There are some "OSes out there that really suck" (AKA "Windows 95.")

I don't even know what the last example is trying to say. I might help it out with a little rewording, if I even understand what you are saying at all.

Man, I'm tired from all of that "work" (AKA "partying.") (AKA used for phrase subsitution again.)

I find it ironic that you post this ironic subject (and ironically you will probably be modded down again to -1, Ironic, and so will I.)

No, here's the irony.

[Ignominious Poltroon]

Slashdot, home of bad grammar and spelling, posts article about proper grammar.

The irony is that a Slashdot grammar nazi got it wrong when being a nazi about grammar. Well, OK, it would be ironic if it weren't for the fact that this happens every time someone tries to correct someone else's grammar or spelling. Anyhow:

Grammar: (n) The study of how words and their component parts combine to form sentences.

Grammar is about the structure of language, not its usage. An article about irony is not an article about proper grammar.

Bonus points for those of you who can point out the seven flaws in this message.

how extraordinary

[n3k5]

From the article:

With emails, people with a lot of time on their hands can, obviously, give themselves room to develop an ironic theme, but for people with jobs, e-etiquette demands instant response, which brings you down to the very rudiments of irony - I Love My Boss; I'm Delighted That My Ex Is Going Out With That Attractive Woman; I Really Couldn't Be More Pleased That You've Lost a Stone.

I don't want to object that these aren't fine examples of rudimentary irony, but one could argue that they are mainly sarcastic. Zoe Williams laments that irony is often mixed up with hypocrisy, cynicism, laziness, and coincidence, but completely fails to mention sarcasm. Maybe this isn't a severe omission in the context of this article, because many more sarcastic statements actually show features of irony as there are ironic statements you could consider sarcastic.

Re:how extraordinary

[mooman]

I too found it interesting that not once in the article did the author mention sarcasm (at least not by name). He contrasted irony to about half a dozen oft-mistaken concepts, but never differentiated or likened irony to sarcasm. Most strange. If I had to differentiate the two I would say that sarcasm is intentional irony, whereas irony more often manifests itself naturally.

Therefore the references he made to sources like the Onion would probably more likely qualify as sarcasm (and strictly for the sake of humor; I disagree with the comment that sarcarm is only nominally for hurtful situations) and not irony. Irony would be if the Onion ran some tongue-in-cheek article about Gates and then the next week, Gates actually did something close to what they described...

Thus their comments were "sarcasm",
Gates actually doing so would be "irony",
and while "coincidental", it would also fall under the umbrella of irony. Plain coincidence would be if Cnet said that Gates should do something, and then he happened to do it.. Nothing ironic there. But when the Onion publishes a farsical untruth, which then comes to fruition, *that* would be irony.

Oh look, a dead horse... now where's my bat...?

That's why English is a "living" language.

[suso]

Not that I agree that the definition of irony should be changed. But English is still a living language, which means that the definition and scope of words will change. So perhaps someday in the dictionary under the entry for irony or ironic, it will include what people commonly mean it to be.

Ah, some freshmeat at slashdot!

[Travoltus]

This issue of irony has been a big thing with me for a long time.

I was reading "Age of Irony" by Jedediah Purdy at http://www.prospect.org/print/V9/39/purdy-j.html and it all seemed to gel at last.

I have never understood why I really hated that term "don't take yourself too seriously." Well, at least now, I can study the true depths of its meaning, so as to form a counter argument.

First, what they mean, is now clear: among those who take themselves seriously, exists a large subset of people who are pompous, self-righteous, and at the worst extreme, people who are given to justiy the worst atrocities in the name of an ideology or religion.

But now, let's look at this (from Jedediah Purdy's essay):

All of this suggests that the wish to escape irony is probably mistaken--but that the hope of enriching it is not. Just as we cannot live in the flatness of irony, we cannot breathe the cloying air of anti-irony.

My argument is, that 'irony', or more specifically, people who religiously take nothing seriously, have mired this society in utter apathy.

To accurately and concisely describe the state of affairs we are in now, I will offer two quotes (one I got clarified right here at slashdot):

"[populus Romanus] qui dabat olim imperium, fasces, legiones, omnia, nunc se continet atque duas tantum res anxius optat, PANEM ET CIRCENSES"
"The people who had once bestowed commands, consulships, legions, and all else now longs eagerly for just two things,bread and circus games." - Juvenal

"A full belly and a diverting show makes a bad revolutionary. Television is the opiate of the people. Long may it be so." -Ned Grossberg, Max Headroom

I would add the quote "Those that stand for nothing, fall for anything" (author yet unknown to me), but the "irony" generation does profess to stand for something. What it is, Providence only knows. Let us look at this, shall we?
Ironic thinkers - those who eschew seriousness and approach life with jokes, pokes, and the 'laid back approach' - accuse their opposites of being intolerant, self-righteous hypocrites. But these same modern 'ironic' thinkers are the ones who brought us
Intolerance, hate, and the politics of division:

Fat bashing

Geek bashing

Religion bashing

Male bashing

Self-Righteousness:

"Get Over It" as the cure-all mantra for all manner of life traumas (abuse, molestation, etc.). What the 'ironic' thinkers forget, in this, is that everyone has issues - the profound lack of social support systems in modern society is as equally the fault of apathetic "I don't have time to listen to this, so get me my beer or get lost!" as it is the fault of Christian Repressionist "You must have demons inside you, let us drill a hole in your head to make it go away" ignorance.
To note: the 'irony' crowd tends to have a profound and sometimes verbally and physically violent reaction towards people in emotional distress. The irony of this is these same people then have nowhere to turn when they themselves are depressed or feel their life is in a rut. It is not uncommon that recreational drugs are then used to provide counsel.

Hypocrisy:

SUV owning activists gathering at Starbuck's to drive out to the "No War For Oil!" protest

I can discuss a multitude of other examples here, but I won't get into it.

Ultimately, apathy, the child of ironic thinking, is why we are seeing all of our rights being taken away by the RIAA and MPAA, etc. Apathy and the refusal to be serious about things, is why our politicians and corporations continue to practically dick we the people over with impugnity.

A populace that was more serious and less apathetic, would never allow such things to transpire for so long.

Of course, a really serious, and politically active populace, might be predisposed to frequent revolts, or to

Oh knock it off will you!

[tjstork]

Native Americans were as much as warmongers as Europeans were, just less technologically advanced. Remember, they wanted to buy guns, they wanted the horses, and the whole tribal system was basically a male centered warrior cult mythology. If the Native Americans had invented calculus and sailing vessels first, they would have been spreading smallpox in Europe.

Re:Oh knock it off will you!

[drayzel]

Just a note, they would not have spread smallpox, as that was a European Disease... They likely would have spread STD, such as syphilis, one of the things Comlumus and his band of slave trading pirates brought back to Eruope was a boat load of syphilis.

There aren't a lot of historical accounts of warmongering Native American tribes until a few years of Eurpean influence on a tribe. One of the most striking accounts can be found in the Journals of the Lewis & Clark expidtion (Undaunted Courage by Stephen Ambrose is a great compilation of the joournals). The tribes that they encountered that had little European contact were far different than the tribes they encountered near the West Coast that had contact with European traders. But who can blame them for becoming warmongers! Ever read any of the journal entries from the Mayflower Pilgrims or Columbus? Try reading some to find out the TRUTH about the American MYTHS regarding our founding fathers. If you don;t feel like reading the journals pick up a copy of "Lies My Teachers Told Me" by James W. Loewen http://www.uvm.edu/~jloewen/ He has plenty of excerpts from early journals that he uses as primary sources.

War did exist between tribes, but a large part of traditional warfare was about nonlethal methods of capturing and acquring new members for their tribe (a crucial source of genetic diversity). South American cultures often had very nonlethal wars, sure many of the prisoners were later sacrificed in the name of religion, but many were adopted or enslaved in a MUCH fairer verion of slavery than what our mighty hero Columbus introduced into the Americas (yes yes yes, Columbus started it all on his first journey, he didn't find much gold so he kidnapped a number of natives to be used as slaves)

Not really related, but many Eurpoean women and children were 'captured' or adopted into indian tribes and after some peace treaties the indians were required to return them to 'civilization'. Many did not want to leave the tribe, some kicked and screamed and ran away asap. Native tribes had a remakble degree of democracy and equality. It was about the only place women and blacks could have a say in government at the time. Your "male centered warrior cult mythology" is complete BULLSHIT. Women had a much greater say in day to day ruling of the tribe than 'American women' of the time. Mythology? I assume you are Christian... do you refer to Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, and Taoism as Mythologies? Keep in mind there are MORE people in this world that think that some guy getting nailed to a cross then being resurected 3 days later is as much a myth as Zeus and the other Greek "Mythological" Gods.

So back to the topic, I find it Ironic that I am so offtopic. Oh well, it's only karma.

Self-important Brits?

[djkitsch]

Us "self-important" Brits (yes, all 65 million of us) tend to get slightly pissed off with the condescending way Americans (or some of them) assume that the entire population of the UK have either upper-class or Cockney accents and look down our noses at Americans!

Some of us are in fact well aware that a good deal of Americans (especially sitcom writers) are well-versed in irony, some a lot better than us (have you *seen* our hospital dramas? ER versus Casualty is really no debate).

The thing to be pointed out here is that self-importance on the part of a few Brits AND Americans is what started this "Irony Is Dead" thing in the first place. Sweeping statements never do anyone any good credibility-wise...

Re:alanis.

[rifter]

Some say he did, and want him impeached. Ironically, this time it is really "about lying" and "not about sex." Then again, maybe it isn't ironic. I am throroughly confused by the article as well. Of course I am an American... is that ironic? I give up :P.

An ever worse word...

[evilviper]

The single most misused word I have come across is "literally"...

For instance: "His performance was so great! It literally blew me away."

Unless "he" was performing an imitation of a hurricane, the above use of "literally" is blatantly incorrect. Unfortuanately, all too often, "literally" is being used intechangeably with "really" and "absolutely", which is a real problem.

If fear it won't be long before "literally" is meaningless, and you won't have any way to telling someone you are not speaking figuratively.

Re:George Carlin quote

[mestar]

If the truck was delivering sugar, he is the victim of an oddly poetic coincidence.


I guess I will never understand irony. He was afraid that sugar INSIDE his body will kill him, but, actually, sugar OUTSIDE of his body did it. Isn't that ironic?

(I am looking at this definition from the link)
(1) incongruity between the actual result of a sequence of events and the normal or expected result (2) : an event or result marked by such incongruity

Re:New Meaning

[hobbesmaster]

I dont know about you, but i learnt the meaning of irony from alanis morisets song.

Even sadder, my English teacher used that song as an example of irony.

Now THATS ironic. I think.

We need a new mod option:

[mati]

+1 Ironic

(or maybe -1 Ironic)

A great euphemism for slavery

[tjstork]

Ok, so now you basically Indians were forming rape gangs. Does the word, "savage" mean anything to you?

>but a large part of traditional warfare was >about nonlethal methods of capturing and >acquring new members for their tribe (a crucial >source of genetic diversity).

The fact that you are willing to overlook slavery in native americans while at the same time savaging europeans is ridiculous.

Besides, your whole basis of native americans being nice to each other is completely wrong. they hunted all the ice age big game to extinction. the aztecs and incas and mayans were all huge warmongers... every great native american civilization were butchers par excellent. but oh, they lost to the europeans, so, they must be saints.

by your logic, those poor germans were unjustly persecuted in world war II, and, all of that talk about the evils of national socialism is just a capitalist myth.

Re:Oh the humanity.......

[Anonymous Coward]

Nope -- that's conversational irony, not sarcasm. Sarcasm is usually ironic, but is always an attack. The racing thing is indeed situational irony, since the actual result (breaking a leg) is the opposite of the expected result (man is safe from injury due to giving up driving for announcing).

I believe that the irony of this article is ...

[rabbitliberationfron]

that in attempting to:
a) demonstrate that the author has a better grasp of the meaning of irony than most people and thus establish her credibility as an authority on the matter;
and b) clarify the meaning of irony so as to avoid misusage in the future.
The author has, in fact:
a) contradicted herself on a number of occasions and chosen some poor examples of irony (normally "situational irony", which the author clearly hasn't quite got her head around);
and b) spawned a Slashdot article full of some terrible mis-uses of the word (but then perhaps that is not ironic, as we know that few Slashdotters actually read the articles anyway and one should expect the outcome).

My particular issue is with the statement:
"Naturally, irony was back within a few days, not least because of the myriad ironies contained within the attack itself (America having funded al-Qaida is ironic; America raining bombs and peanut butter on Afghanistan is ironic)."
Why is America's funding of al-Qaida ironic? It's not. America weren't funding them with any expectation that it would protect them from terrorist attacks. They weren't funding them with a view to reducing terrorism anywhere in the world. The outcome here isn't linked with any expectations. It's just a very black coincidence. Equally, why is the bombing of bombs and peant butter ironic? It's certainly contradictory, but ironic? I don't see the discrepancy between meaning and action there.

Personally, I think that the author might have benefitted from reading this article on the meaning of irony (and with useful links to a range of literary terms).

There were a few other areas that I didn't particularly agree with the article on, but a dissection of those does not make for a readable Slashdot comment. Still, I enjoyed it and it was definitely worthy of the label "News for Nerds". My brain has been pleasantly engaged (a thought, does Nerd necessarily == pedant?).

Oh, and btw, is the best use of irony in the article the statement in footnote 1?
"I would strongly urge you not to read any more footnotes, they are only here to make sure I don't get in trouble for plagiarising."
I am sure that successful irony shouldn't have to be flagged (as with the author's more fallible attempts in the main body of the article).

Cheerio,
BB

Was Seinfeld the peak of sitcom culture?

[FuzzyBad-Mofo]

Just now I have realized the extent of the vaccuum left in Seinfeld's wake. And you know what.. I don't feel the least bit bad about it. Truly, we have witnessed the peak of entertainment television. I might live to be one hundred, and not experience the likes of this show again.

Re:I find it ironic that...

[j3110]

I can't believe those friggen Grammar Nazis have been escalated to front page news.

Before long people will throw logic to the wind as long as you cross your T's and dot your I's.

If you don't post in iambic pentameter with a definate rhyming scheme, you'll be ignored.

So, now all we need is moderation categories +1 beautiful, -1 spelling, -1 grammar, -1 invalid use of a colon, and -1 poor word choice.

Next month, from the grammar dept., we'll be discussing the spelling of the letter H. It's actually spelled aitch. Maybe I should have submitted it as a story?

The power of general idiocy is still greater than the Grammar Nazis because irregardless is now in most dictionaries despite the fight they tried to put up.

If you find this story interesting, I'm sure you will find the history of the word "ain't" (originally "an't" in the 1700's) much more interesting. To make a long story short, it was a word used by upper class as well as lower, but the "Usage Panel" decided one day that it was a sign of ignorance, so it was pretty much had it's status as a word revoked. Those very people use the improper conjugation with another contraction ending up with "aren't I". So, I would rather respond to people that say "aren't I" with "I don't know, but I are" just to point out their idiocy in not using the correct word "an't". Those that avoid the topic altogether say "am I not?". In any case, the phrase "Say it ain't so!" will always ensure that this word will never be lost.

I have better things to do than talk about grammar, so it's back to watching the grass grow for me.