you’d think one of them would wake up.

I think they’re pretty much all awake already. No one is convincing them to be like this or blinding them of common sense, they choose to act this way. Typically either because of self-centred greed or pure stupidity, or both.

Of course there’s also that quote about how people who rely on not understanding something to make a salary will never do otherwise.

This just in: shit comes from ass

Expecting countries not to violate international law is like expecting a dog to not eat a three-course meal: they won’t when you’re watching and ready to hold them back, but as soon as they know you won’t do much you better believe those dishes will be licked clean.

It’s less about you not agreeing with me and more about your opinion being based on false presumptions. You’re entitled to thinking that sarcasm and the ability to detect it is associated with intelligence; I would agree with you on that. But assuming it’s as simple as that without taking into account the method of communication is misleading.

Okay even then the point still stands. You don’t just shun people because they can’t recognize social cues, and you don’t assume they’re any less intelligent for it. It’s just presumptuous.

Not only that, but most cues for the intent of a message are either through tone of voice or body language. It’s disingenuous to assert that there’s no hindrance in the efficacy of communication when being done through a strictly written format. Something your first source lines out explicitly:

Other research has show[n] that sarcasm can be easily misinterpreted, particularly when communicated electronically. In one study, 30 pairs of university students were given a list of statements to communicate, half of which were sarcastic and half of which were serious. Some students communicated their messages via e-mail and others via voice recordings. Participants who received the voice messages accurately gleaned the sarcasm (or lack thereof) 73 percent of the time, but those who received the statements via e-mail did so only 56 percent of the time, hardly better than chance. By comparison, the e-mailers had anticipated that 78 percent of participants would pick up on the sarcasm inherent in their sarcastic statements. That is, they badly overestimated their ability to communicate the tenor of their sarcastic statements via e-mail. What’s more, the recipients of the sarcastic e-mails were also decidedly overconfident. They guessed they would correctly interpret the tone of the e-mails they received about 90 percent of the time. They were considerably less overconfident about their ability to interpret voice messages.

Given the risks and benefits of sarcasm, your best bet is to keep salty remarks limited to conversations with those you know well, lest you offend others—even as you potentially help them think more creatively.

That last argument I quoted can be directly overcome through the use of tone indicators, regardless of “how intelligent” the recipient is.

You know tone indicators are used by neurodivergent people who struggle to understand intent, right?