What can we know about sarcasm, specifically what it is categorically rooted in?

It is an ad hominem method. It mocks
the expectations of the other party.
It isn't very common online because
it can be more easily mistaken for true intent
without a tone of voice. When the mocked message
is exagerrated straw-dog style the sarcasm can
be seen more easily.

A triple-twist friendly sarcasm is used between close
friends in UK culture often. It can backfire and
mess up a UK-US or UK-Can friendship when the
fake vicious attack isn't seen as a chummy move.

I don't know what the "categorically.." part means.
As a methodd, maybe? That's what I guessed at.

I think what Leonardomenderes said about it is spot on!

I don't know what the "categorically.." part means.
As a methodd, maybe? That's what I guessed at.

I meant is there a universally applicable element that can be identified as a primary common denominator in all cases of sarcasm?

Mocking another's expectation seems to be necessarily a presumptious move.

creativesoul wrote:
I don't know what the "categorically.." part means.
As a methodd, maybe? That's what I guessed at.

I meant is there a universally applicable element that can be identified as a primary common denominator in all cases of sarcasm?

Mocking another's expectation seems to be necessarily a presumptious move.

That clarifies it a lot.
Saying A and meaning the opposite is the simplest universal piece.

Looking at examples, I think mocking someone else's expectations is most common,
but there are other permutations.

(someone asks for something)
"yeah...let me go get my superman cape"
<<(suggests the request has unrealistic expectations)


(someone tries something)
"..right, that will help.."
<<(you are implying it won't help, mocking capability)

Does sarcasm represent genuine intent to communicate?