Well, I do know how to be sarcastic. I can be very good at it. It's like: The best liars are those who always tell the truth [sic]. Seriously, I once felt I had no choice but to switch into sarcasm, and I went full-on, ballistic - and I tore that girl to shreds. (This was back when I was the lower part of a back). Crying, she asked me how could I say all those terrible things? I said, "It's easy. You say say all the things that are opposite of what the other person wants to hear." Well, that shows empathy, right? Like, Trump has empathy. The ability to know what the other person feels, thinks or wants... At least give me that.
In fact, I was very caring, and very sympathetic, but I was confronting a violently hurtful situation, like a cornered racoon. It hurt me more than it hurt her, to so defile myself and my values. Anyone who forces me into that compromise, they are history with me. Because. Sarcasm is too easy, and so often hurtful.
Really, as one of the links below conveys, sarcasm often is nothing but saying the opposite of what you really feel, with the intention of hurting someone. Right? It's just, like, taking complete advantage of a relationship, to get into nothing but nasty nay-saying, like a couple of young kids. That doesn't take a lot of intelligence - or power. It's generally the sign of a wounded soul and/or a weak person.
Sarcasm is contrarianism without the wit. Or the reverse. I forgot which.
"That was never an argument, right there!"
One of the links below also says that sarcasm is scornful and/or mocking, and/or looking down on the other person/s. But that is the same definition of sardonic! What's the big dif? Well... Take a look at these hands...
Sardonic is like sarcastic, except as a kind of humouring. It may be darker than sarcasm, but with more of a pleasant, gallows feel to it. If things aren't able to be worked out in the end, then at least it can be said that, IT IS WHAT IT IS, and blame isn't going to get us anywhere.
With sarcasm, the feeling is that its jabbing and needling just might evoke some sadly successful response, if only a cry of pain, or a trip over a rug, or some other mistake, from the other person/s - as if some kind of 'progress' can be made, even if that progress is completely destructive. With sardonicism, on the other hand, the comment just falls flat out and sits there, and everyone stands there, looking at it, and they nod their heads. Yep. We're all caught in the same joke. Right.
There are flashy fashionable people, mainly in Seattle, (although there are a few in Madison, New York, Michigan, Orange County, and some hipster places where the Census hasn't really called), who conspire in great orgies of sarcasm, imagining themselves in an endless loop of, "The Importance of Being Ernest," thinking each other quite sophisticated, and supremely charitable in their jabs. And it all leads to bad sex. Which is what they know so god bless them. But in the main, sarcasm brings only as much social delight as money can buy.
Irony is so much cheaper.
In fact, being sardonic can be more urbane than being sarcastic, because the best sardonicism, just like the smell of sardines, can be rife with self-deprecation. Self-deprecation is a refined art of social humour practiced largely in Scotland, Israel, Japan, most every overpopulated island, and in wealthy parties wherever walls are a serious obstacle to escape. Self-deprecation was once so highly valued a virtue that it was originally written into the US Constitution, until it was suspected that it might cause slavery to be extended to 100% of the population.
I think there was one guy there who supported it. He was a Libertarian.
Getting back to the little comparison above: "...sarcasm is scornful and/or mocking, and/or looking down on the other person/s. But that is the same definition of sardonic! ... Actually, just as it is possible to be self-deprecating, it is possible NOT to look down upon the other person/s, whilst being sardonic - (unless simultaneously also looking down upon oneself). This is not so for sarcasm, which might be called the tongs of the devil's fork, if not the tongue of a woman scorned.
Think of, "Curb Your Enthusiasm." Everyone is trapped in some kind of mundane farce - but the big joke is that so are Larry David and Jeff Garlin. I think a lot of the songs of Morrissey could be called sardonic - instead half of everyone calling them depressive and the other half calling them hilarious. The joke just falls right there on the floor and it's up to you how to pick it up. At least if the joke is sardonic instead of sarcastic, you are less likely to want to punch the jokester in the nose.
"This is why most sarcastic people wear protective red rubber balls on their noses." - (Wikipedia).
The joy of sardonica is that you get to carry around both the joke and the pain, in the same ball of wax. Like the Japanese aesthetic of honouring the Dead through living landscapes. In this, and other ways, it is a lot like irony. In fact, I see it as being halfway between Irony and Sarcasm.
Most Republicans have a problem with irony - except some of the renegades. (Many of them similarly have a problem with the lower cousin of irony, sarcasm - and so this is why the GOP went into cosmic spasms all along the nomination and election of Exhibit #1, Donald Trump). This is because Republicans, stereotypically speaking, meanfully adhere to values which are absolute, black versus white, good versus evil. When you jumble up these things, Republicans think your trying to attack them. This is why they have built careers of being angry, and associated industries of making money and having illicit sex.
But, the reality of nature is that irony happens. The Old Testament was entirely written just to explain this fact in more absolutist, reductionist terms. What a Job that must have been.
We have looked at how sarcasm and sardonicism may be similar or dissimilar. What about irony? How does irony compare? Well, I think we can say one thing: Irony may have less human sentiment in it, compared to sarcasm and sardonicism, (especially the former). Sarcasm is very much about wagging one's personal attitudes around in other people's faces, testing the line, cheekilly trying to win favour by the risque risk of it all. Irony is more like: Someone tried to do this, and then fate gave them the opposite of what would be expected. Fate. Nature.
Irony is more like the mechanics of nature in conflict with our own vain presumptions of such, or of our own command over such. It is judgmental merely by chance, although it can be honed into a cutting tool of irony, when directed at certain reviled authorities, e.g. The French are very ironic, as well as being more existential than your average bear.
Less spontaneously delightful or absurd, sardonicism may be darker, more personal, and more deliberated or intentional than irony. The best of it may be urbane, self-deprecating and even darkly forgiving, compared to irony, (and of course to sarcasm). However, they are both related, in my opinion. And this is where it gets interesting, at least to I-the-Me...
As I said, sardonicism just falls on the floor and there it is, and yep, that's (our) life. With irony, a string of little events pretty much leads to the same conclusion - maybe with more of an absurd, and less of a social-commentary, message. Irony doesn't necessarilly make you run home and have weird French dreams to help your psyche figure out what just happened, but sardonicism might. (With sarcasm, who needs dreams?!) Honestly, sardonicism can be a nice tool in psychology, and I am sure Jesus knew a good joke or two. Which is kind of ironic when you consider who had the last laugh...
Nevertheless, we can compare the basic formulae of both irony and sardonicism, because they are similar. Both have a kind-of: Thesis + Antithesis = Antisynthesis construction. But there is a big difference. Time. Versus space. Irony occurs through time. Sardonicism, not so much - it can manipulate things or symbols instead
In, "Reality Bites," Winona Rider presents Ethan Hawk with the question, "What is the definition of irony?" You can look up his response for me if you want. It was very smart, but not really along the conventional definition of irony, which is that it must occur THROUGH TIME. There must be an initial expectation, and then there must be a later event which contradicts the expectation.
However, I have actually posted to you that I disagree with this chronic, chronological definition of irony. Why? Because time and space are the same thing. I am rejecting Euclidean irony for a more relativistic model. Therefore, just the reference to this subject and then to that object - or just the attention of the mind's eye to this symbol or that symbol - or just the time in telling the joke: The mere expression through space is the same thing as the expression through time.
That means that "spatial" sardonicism is actually VERY closely related to what was once thought of as "temporal" irony. Got it? This sounds academic but it's really not. It can be really helpful to the imagination, in understanding society, in writing fiction, etc.
It may be that irony somewhat serves as a tool for keeping us set along the same, socially-agreed timeline in life, with all its attenuating values and responsibilities. Well, it certainly doesn't do this so much as does simple linear logic, including those of religions that tell us that our goal through life is to reach heaven after we die. But if you look at these so called linear, fundamentalist arrows of time, you will see that they work out to be quiet ironic, indeed. "I thought I would be dead and here I am ALIVE!"
So, maybe many Republicans hate irony because they follow their own supreme irony. I'm not judging this one way or another, because, have I not said before that irony is inherent in nature? Irony is bound to occur because there is endless conflict between all timelines, inertial frames of reference, and societies.
Between societies, irony often exists as a way of distinguishing the in-group from the out-groups. This is apparent when taboo labels, like, "nigger," are used with fondness by members in an in-group. Republicans hate ironic statements from out-members. So do all other groups. Examples of irony playing its roles between groups or societies are many - but that is a conversation that can be found in other posts about groupism, or in future posts about irony.
Now, I have been speaking of irony in the past few paragraphs, even though I have been applying it as well to, eg., semantics rather than to time. That is because I am also including such concepts or devices as sardonicism under the umbrella of irony as well. Yes, one can make a sardonic joke which will be accepted by one's in-group, but disliked by an out-group - or what have you. But, this is all the more true of sarcasm, yes? Because sarcasm so often points out enemies, be they people, groups, values, etc. Sarcasm really is one of our fullest personifications of irony, (in the spatial sense). You try to throw sarcasm at an out-group and you will wake up dead soon enough.
So, here are those two links. I recommend these sites to everyone's toolbar "Reference" folder...
Difference Between Sarcastic and Sardonic
What is the difference between “sardonic” and “sarcastic”?
Thank you for your patronage. Now I am off to see a night about a mare...