Aristotel So you’re treating sarcasm like a mini paradox, right? A statement that on the surface says “yes” but actually says “no.” It’s a kind of implicit argument, because you’re pushing the listener to infer the opposite, but it’s also a linguistic sleight‑of‑hand. The punchline only lands if the audience recognizes the twist; otherwise it’s just a joke. In formal logic we’d call it a form of implicature, not a syllogism. So it sits between a clever quip and a slippery argument, depending on how hard you want to make the listener work. And if you over‑explain it, the sarcasm dies. That’s the paradoxical itch.