Ok fine, I can accept this can be used SOMETIMES when you need to make something completely unambiguous, but more often than not you want the opposite - amd most things don’t have anything to do with nazism, and sarcasm can be picked up easily usually as well.
Is this an actual reason for why people do that, an ad hoc explanation, or a view that just a few people hold?
I partly agree with your second point, but the thing is that you have to figure out the person does not mean what they say - that’s the point. If you state the sarcasm explicitly it is not really sarcasm. And while in some contexts it can be hard to know for sure whether something is sarcasm, I do not think this is a problem, and it is more often than not, like in this case, rather obvious.
Also, for the “antifascist” thing to work you would have to take everything everyone says at face value to make sure there are no ambiguities. So if made a joke withut the “/s” or “/j” or whatever you would assume I am being serious? Honestly, making our communication more primitive just so that fascists are marginally easier to spot(I mean you can probably figure it out without the “/s” anyway) is, in my opinion, absurd.
I feel like the “/s” thing always ruins the joke. For me, it’s the ambiguity that makes it funny, if sarcasm is stated explicitly it just doesn’t work that well.
I see it a lot nowadays, so my comment is not targeted at you, do not take it personally. Just a thought I had.
They wouldn’t be able to get it out otherwise.
The superiority of german aryan ports proven once again.
(this is a joke, nazism is evil and I hate it)
Firstly, I would like to say that what happens in the animal world has no bearing on morality. You said it yourself, morality is a human thing. So a lion is not a moral agent, I would not judge it for eating a zebra, nor do I believe that we should try to prevent it from doing so. However, just because animals do something, it does not mean it is not immoral for us to do so, it is as natural for certain animals to eat humans, as it is to eat other animals. That does not mean that murder is moral now, suddenly. Similarly, it is not the case that because it is not immoral for animals to kill other animals(they are not moral agents), it is ok for us to do so.
Secondly, the words direct/indirect do not mean intentional/unintentional. I do not think it is sensible to claim that the more removed you are from the consequences of your actions, the less moral responsibility you bear, but it seems to me like you are excusing the behavour of carnists(that word is, as another commenter put it, metal as fuck) by claiming that most of them are ignorant of the consequences of their actions, but this has nothing to do with how “direct” the act is. I would like to add that the reason for the ignorance of most meaters(meat eaters) with regards to how the animals are treated is their characters, they are keeping themselves in ignorance and are resistant to attemps to enlighten them.
Why do you think direct immoral actions are worse than indirect immoral actions? I don’t buy that. Hell, you are even saying that you are absolved of responsibility for animal abuse completely just because you are paying someone to do it, and not doing it personally. Most people just deny animal abuse happens at all, but you admit it is immoral, yet shift the blame on others along with the responsibility for murdering them, which they do for your pleasure.
This is like saying "x has hired hitmen to killed seven people, but my parent forces me to eat broccoli every day, so since x is commiting a indirect immoral action, my parent is the worst one of them.
I am not a moral person. I, quite frankly, do not care about animals, and I would like to think I would be able to murder an animal myself(for food), since I am doing it now, albeit indirectly, and if you can’t live with the consequences of your decisions, why make them? Weigh the consequences of your actions. Do not run away from them like a coward(a lot of moralizing for a self-proclaimed immoral person).
I respect vegans. If you care about animal welfare, and are opposed to cruel treatment of animals you should not eat meat, and that’s what they do.
I understand that idiots can misunderstand something if it is ambiguous, but that does not mean that ambiguity should be forbidden. If at the end of “American Psycho” there was a title saying “this film is a criticism of capitalist culture and its effect on people”, it would be worse as a film, a work of art and a statement than it is now. It would be ridiculous and disrespectful towards the audience.
It’s literally in the name, “american psycho”, it is almost stated explicitly, but they STILL do not get it. What is it that you want exactly? Our media and discourse to be made with only unintelligent people in mind?