The U.$. has never understood the definition of ‘IRONY’

Total Posts:  167
Joined  20-09-2016
10 November 2016 15:23

...And never has this fact been laid more bare.

From a semantic standpoint: ‘irony’ means, “the expression of one’s meaning by using language that normally signifies the opposite” (e.g., being run over by an ambulance, could be seen as ‘an irony’).  However, U.$. ‘English-speakers’ [citation need] avail said term to mean coincidence—which is a patent misuse / misunderstanding of the word.

Now, the embarrassingly poor grasp of language that the advent of the Internet has borne out—indeed, protected, promoted and propagated—notwithstanding, the concept of irony, is also apparently lost on U.$. burgess.  The most topical example of which would be the nation’s electoral process. In point form —

• A “democratic” system that inherently does not function to elect its leaders according to the popular vote
• Yet, a nation that prides itself on said democratic system’s so-called “fairness”
• Refusal — either through boycott or indolence — to participate in this “democratic” process
• Yet, manifest dissatisfaction and anger at what is then whelped at the arse-end of the process
• Claims of this system being “rigged” and contrived in favour of those who directly prescribe its precepts
• Yet, nary an overture is ever made to rectify these purported vulnerabilities to exploit
• Platforms concentric to the critique of these compromised processes, that trumpeting its change; if not its wholesale decimation
• Then benefiting from the very alloy$ that render this “democratic” process a veritable punchline, to the onlooker and its opponents…

Perhaps this misappropriation of the concept of ‘irony’ can indeed be traced back to some linguistic progenitor.  However, the manifest influence such misconstruing, or fundamental ignorance, of the concept of irony has on corporeal existence, is difficult to deny.

As such, it surely must then be folly to dismiss language as mere aspirations of grunts and groans; suffice unto their need, provided they convey a vague approximation of the message attempting to be conveyed.  For this laissez-faire attitude breeds an environment wherein what one says, does not even remotely necessitate it to represent what one does.

...And if the expectation for our walk to buttress our talk is spurned, where does that leave us as a communication-reliant species?

Destination Immortality
Destination Immortality
Total Posts:  488
Joined  29-09-2009
10 November 2016 18:06

i, and everyone i know, agrees: the system is flawed. worse, any governmental system you can point to on the whole earth is just as flawed, or moreso. i suspect you are preaching to the choir.

got a better idea? that can actually be implemented by humans. heh.