This article in the NY Times by Andy Newman posits naivete and irony as foes. But I wonder about this. By definition irony seems to me a creature turned upon itself - an awareness of the
duality of awareness.
Do you know where you are/
and will you follow your own gaze?
To me the central battle of the mind is to steer insight, noise and fear towards something like cohesion. My notion of a harmony of argument is one where the center holds, and one where thematic resonances allow disparate viewpoints to get along. In this worldview irony and naivete are parts of the same whole, and frequently co-dependent, to the point of canceling one another out. Over-the-top affect of many kinds flattens into an exquisitely painful cursive script, or grows into wrought iron as a vine might grow.
What am I leaving out to make an argument? What am I glossing over? The ridiculous can still be ridiculous but I must forgive it, I suppose, even as it occurs in self and my own two eyes do see. That is the central requirement. Irony can be a poor friend. Disbelief in God defines belief in a god, and upholds it. Irony mocks naivete through tinted windows, driving by, an unreliable witness.