human
Lets say that lying is a language game. And the point is to say the opposite of what you mean, and have the others understand the opposite of what you mean. Lets say that irony is a language game within the family of lying, where you say the opposite of what you mean, but you want the others to understand that you mean what you mean, and that you saying the opposite, is meant to underline the fact that you dont mean it. Lets imagine that that is 'meta lying' .  can we imagine the language game of meta irony, where you 'lie', hoping that the others understand that what you mean is the opposite, in order to underline that what you are saying is 'absurd' and therefore you don't mean it, therefore meta irony would be where you 'lie' hoping that the others understand that what you would mean, in normal circumstances, would be the opposite of what you are saying, but since they understand that since you feel that the function of irony is in itself something you don't believe in, you are actually saying what you mean? Is there a logical flaw in this argument?

gpt
--- Reasoning ---
1. Is the question multiple-choice question?
No
2. Is it implied multiple-choice question?
No
3. If two experts were independently asked the question, will the final answer be exactly the same?
No

--- Answer ---
open