The irony they were referring to was a person writing an essay against essays, that’s it.
I understood that. I acknowledged that. I don’t think the original contention missed that either. I don’t think all the people affirming that contention did. I think most of us here understand that it’s intended to be a superficial joke.
I disagree that it’s ironic, for reasons mentioned before. I don’t think the word applies here. I don’t think the joke works. And apparently, so do many others.
Irony doesn’t have to have a single objective definition – that’s not how language works anyway – for me to be able to argue that my understanding of the word doesn’t fit this case. If language is a consensus construct, all the other people thinking the same kinda back that argument up.
Funny and ironic are different things. “Not ironic, but still funny” is a point I can and will not contest.
You could just agree to disagree.
I did miss that “pro-AI” allegation at the time of writing my original comment, but it doesn’t change the fact that the original contention that we keep going back and forth over wasn’t about AI but simply about the definition of irony. We’re not (initially) “dogpiling” on them for not hating AI, but for making a joke we don’t think works.
I understood that. I acknowledged that. I don’t think the original contention missed that either. I don’t think all the people affirming that contention did. I think most of us here understand that it’s intended to be a superficial joke.
I disagree that it’s ironic, for reasons mentioned before. I don’t think the word applies here. I don’t think the joke works. And apparently, so do many others.
Irony doesn’t have to have a single objective definition – that’s not how language works anyway – for me to be able to argue that my understanding of the word doesn’t fit this case. If language is a consensus construct, all the other people thinking the same kinda back that argument up.
Funny and ironic are different things. “Not ironic, but still funny” is a point I can and will not contest.
You could just agree to disagree.
I did miss that “pro-AI” allegation at the time of writing my original comment, but it doesn’t change the fact that the original contention that we keep going back and forth over wasn’t about AI but simply about the definition of irony. We’re not (initially) “dogpiling” on them for not hating AI, but for making a joke we don’t think works.