According to the previously-linked research, historically it is sarcasm. Presently, it's either sarcasm (where people mentally finish the phrase), or ignorance (the origin of idioms is often unknown). But my objection to the phrase is not historical, but pragmatic: it is unclear communication on an international forum. It's not in widespread use outside the USA, and even there, you've pointed out that it irks the young with their spectacularly limited worldviews, no doubt occasioning discussions far less civil than this one. Knowing its localized and irritative properties, appropriate uses for the phrase are severely limited when clear communication is the goal. Thus, my praise for an American who, given the choice between two forms of a colloquialism, refrained from the common sarcastic Americanism in favor of the non-sarcastic, internationally-used form.
Your post chose not to use a serial comma, an omission which is increasingly the standard but which I also oppose, due again to clarity of communication. Do I decry your omitted comma as a horrid debasement of English? No, it's perfectly valid. Would I wax complimentary if you'd used it? Again, probably not, because Oxford commas are still in widespread use internationally, so its use here would be nothing special. If, however, I was aware that you hail from Uncommia, where Oxford commas are seldom used, and yet you had written the phrase "Contributors include the devs, StDoodle, and Zarqon" instead of the confusing "Contributors include the devs, StDoodle and Zarqon" (which makes StDoodle and me seem to be the devs), then yes, yes I would have. Grammatically, I celebrate clarity. I do not luxuriate in consternation.
