cloudy with a chance of idiots

I realize that humor doesn't always come out perfectly, especially in writing. Tone of voice, in particular, can be hard to convey. But some people really need to try harder if they're attempting to be funny or whimsical. 

Here's a recent exchange I had over in an Instapundit Open Thread. My interlocutor is probably male and over 60, like most of the OT commentariat.

Someone had put up a picture of a young Jennifer Connelly, back when she was breasty:

Various commenters hooted their appreciation, and I left this remark:

Ah, yes—before the reduction surgery. Sweet mamm—uh, memories.

Someone replied:

Why reduction surgery? Generally, I am against government interference is private matters, but reduction surgery should be outlawed.

We'll forgive the "is private matters." Old people often make typos and never bother to check or to correct themselves, and I'm starting to become one of them. Anyway, I detected no humor in the above because the OT threads tend to be hotbeds of rightie rhetoric, so I reasonably thought the guy was being a serious rightie. Doesn't the above sound like something a self-serious rightie might write? So I wrote in response:

I've had some large-breasted female friends complain about how their breasts are unwieldy, creating problems with under-boob sweat and friction/irritation. But the biggest complaint has always been that large breasts bring lower-back problems. Do these women absolutely need surgery? Probably not. I would guess that there are solutions to these problems that don't require any surgery at all. E.g., developing a strong core can help with back problems, and there are doubtless products and types of clothing that can help with mobility and irritation. But for what it's worth, I don't see breast-reduction surgery as a problem on the same level as breast-enhancement surgery, which is almost always about ego and superficiality.

His response:

You are being too serious, while I am letting my inner teenager out. Bigger is always better.

Ah. He was letting his inner teenager out. Funny, that! Hilarious!

I decided not to respond with what I was thinking, which is basically that you don't write a humorless response, follow it up with the accusation that I'm "being too serious," then put yourself in the virtuous, superior position by claiming "I am letting my inner teenager out" in supposed contrast to my seriousness. This self-aggrandizing approach is not how you make friends, but it is how you show yourself to be an arrogant asshole.

So I concluded I was dealing with an unfunny idiot and egomaniac who had arrogated to himself the right to be preachy, and I decided to say nothing in response.

Was I wrong to think any of this? What "humor" cues did I miss? I mean, I know I can sometimes be over-literal in a Spock-like way, but was I in this case? Keep in mind, before you answer, that my blog is the space where I vent, so don't come to the conclusion that I'm going to obsess over this all day or that I'm making a mountain out of a molehill. I deal with stupid people like this all the time, and in almost every case, the problem comes down to a combination of ego, incompetence (poor self-expression in this case), and ignorance (think: Dunning-Kruger). In most cases, it's the interlocutor's problem; in some cases, it's my problem. But not this time, I think.

If you're old and believe you're being funny, double-check your tone and ask yourself how others might see your writing. You might be chuckling at the supposed "wittiness" of your response, but if you're more objective, you might just see that the humor isn't coming through. And yeah, I realize this applies to me, too.