We're on slippery territory here. Without the resources of irony, we can be severely limited in our ability to criticize, comment, and make light of topics (and joking can be, strangely enough, an important tool for truth-telling and cultural dialogue).
We've already lost the distinction between use and mention on heated topics. For example, to even type the actual "N-word" - the one with a double "g" an "e" and an "r" is to have "used" it, so we may now only speak of it under veil of partial erasure (i.e., the convention of typing "N-word"). Papa John lost his Pizza Throne not because he called anyone the N-word, but because he mentioned that Colonel Sanders did. The headline from Forbes, however, was still "Papa Used N-word on Conference Call". To be clear, I don't think anyone needs an "N-pass" (because we have successfully made "N-word" the preferred substitution), but we should be able, on occasion, to note what another person actually said without the meaning being buried in euphemisms, partial erasures, the never ending treadmill of politically correct substitutions, and other circumlocutions.
Today, or so it seems, some things cannot be referenced without some dubious necessity kicking into gear by which that being references is also endorsed/asserted. A tyrannical "=" sign is on the rise, a puritanical literalism. This is bad. The resources of non-literality are needed to engage in rhetorical figuration, especially tropes (most notable of which is metaphor) and which allow for dexterity bend and stretch in ways that allows meaning to circulate.
I'd rather allow for some people to troll with cultural dog whistles than attempt to "purify" language with more newspeak. Is Manson a creep? Well, it wouldn't surprise me. Are varieties of alleged non-literality covers for sincere sentiments (e.g., it's just a joke, it was a prank bro, I was being satirical, that was an "ironic" Swastika, t'was a mere hyperbole)? Absolutely. Is irony frequently a cheap fig leaf for risky literal statements? Undoubtedly. Have you detected a real pattern? Certainly. Is it worth noting? Yes. Good catch.
Even so, presumption still must go to the ironist, lest our game of cultural whack-a-mole wind up crushing comedians, fictions writers, pundits, political cartoonists, etc. in our attempt to catch out the Mansons of the world. He can pretend to be an ironist and we can shrug and note our own suspicions (Sure, a**h*le, you're an "ironist"). However, we should still protect the ironist's cultural right to be "innocent until proven guilty."
We've already lost the distinction between use and mention on heated topics. For example, to even type the actual "N-word" - the one with a double "g" an "e" and an "r" is to have "used" it, so we may now only speak of it under veil of partial erasure (i.e., the convention of typing "N-word"). Papa John lost his Pizza Throne not because he called anyone the N-word, but because he mentioned that Colonel Sanders did. The headline from Forbes, however, was still "Papa Used N-word on Conference Call". To be clear, I don't think anyone needs an "N-pass" (because we have successfully made "N-word" the preferred substitution), but we should be able, on occasion, to note what another person actually said without the meaning being buried in euphemisms, partial erasures, the never ending treadmill of politically correct substitutions, and other circumlocutions.
Today, or so it seems, some things cannot be referenced without some dubious necessity kicking into gear by which that being references is also endorsed/asserted. A tyrannical "=" sign is on the rise, a puritanical literalism. This is bad. The resources of non-literality are needed to engage in rhetorical figuration, especially tropes (most notable of which is metaphor) and which allow for dexterity bend and stretch in ways that allows meaning to circulate.
I'd rather allow for some people to troll with cultural dog whistles than attempt to "purify" language with more newspeak. Is Manson a creep? Well, it wouldn't surprise me. Are varieties of alleged non-literality covers for sincere sentiments (e.g., it's just a joke, it was a prank bro, I was being satirical, that was an "ironic" Swastika, t'was a mere hyperbole)? Absolutely. Is irony frequently a cheap fig leaf for risky literal statements? Undoubtedly. Have you detected a real pattern? Certainly. Is it worth noting? Yes. Good catch.
Even so, presumption still must go to the ironist, lest our game of cultural whack-a-mole wind up crushing comedians, fictions writers, pundits, political cartoonists, etc. in our attempt to catch out the Mansons of the world. He can pretend to be an ironist and we can shrug and note our own suspicions (Sure, a**h*le, you're an "ironist"). However, we should still protect the ironist's cultural right to be "innocent until proven guilty."