Sarcasm, Trump and Malilong

IWAS being sarcastic.”

In at least two recent gaffes that drew heavy flak in the “campaign, Republican candidate for US president Donald Trump used “sarcasm” in walking back his claims.

On July 27, Trump prodded Russia to find deleted emails of Democratic rival Hillary Clinton.

On Aug. 11, he insisted President Obama and Clinton were co-founders of terrorists group ISIS.

If he aimed to belie what he said or lessen damage, it failed, ah, hugely. He didn’t say he didn’t intend that Russia spy on US and he only meant that Obama-Clinton foreign policy helped ISIS grow.

Trump was sarcastic only because his remarks were caustic: “taunting, sneering, cutting.” His “sarcasm” didn’t convey the opposite of what he said; he said exactly what he meant.

Sarcasm is called “ability to insult idiots without their realizing it.” Idiots take the insult as praise and even give real praise in return. Which elates the speaker/ writer about his shrewdness but also dismays him since he’s not understood.

The discerning listener or reader enjoys the spectacle of a splash of insult being taken as a heap of praise. We’ve seen here the likes of lawyer-columnist Frank Malilong (a) explaining in two columns what one earlier column actually means, or (b) being hailed for defending a side or cause he probably rejects.

Its peril

Sarcasm, often tough to do, is unveiled for what it is when it cuts and wounds. The classic put-down is “I’m sorry I hurt your feelings. I implied you’re stupid because I thought you already knew.”

Malilong again risked sarcasm’s peril in yesterday’s “Point lost in de Lima” ( Sun.Star, Aug. 28).

Did you say sarcasm is “the body’s natural defense against stupidity”? I prefer Dostoevsky’s theory: Atty. Frank took “the last refuge of modest and chaste-souled people when the privacy of their soul is coarsely and intrusively invaded.”