The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
A God Damned Separate Thread For Your Discussion About Snark And Smarm
AngelHedgie
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
Since this is a subject that comes up time and time again, it's worth giving it a thread.
Recently, Gawker published a a very well written polemic by Tom Scocca about two rhetorical forms - snark and smarm. And his main thesis is that while most criticism is leveled at snark, the dangerous one is really smarm.
It's a thesis that I agree with. And it becomes apparent when you look at how the forms work. Snark cuts. It both incises and excises, though how cleanly it does so is dependant on the skill of the practitioner. And in doing so, it can cut through barriers and layers of argumentative disguise to get at the truth of an argument. It is no surprise that snark is the tool of the underdog.
Smarm, on the other hand:
Smarm is the tool not just of the status quo, but of those who would be gatekeepers of discussion. It prizes form over function, style over substance. It excludes those who don't know the proper forms but have knowledge, while elevating those who weave those forms into a tapestry of nothing. And it is this that makes smarm much more dangerous than snark.
Recently, Gawker published a a very well written polemic by Tom Scocca about two rhetorical forms - snark and smarm. And his main thesis is that while most criticism is leveled at snark, the dangerous one is really smarm.
It's a thesis that I agree with. And it becomes apparent when you look at how the forms work. Snark cuts. It both incises and excises, though how cleanly it does so is dependant on the skill of the practitioner. And in doing so, it can cut through barriers and layers of argumentative disguise to get at the truth of an argument. It is no surprise that snark is the tool of the underdog.
Smarm, on the other hand:
What is smarm, exactly? Smarm is a kind of performance—an assumption of the forms of seriousness, of virtue, of constructiveness, without the substance. Smarm is concerned with appropriateness and with tone. Smarm disapproves.
Smarm would rather talk about anything other than smarm. Why, smarm asks, can’t everyone just be nicer?
Smarm is the tool not just of the status quo, but of those who would be gatekeepers of discussion. It prizes form over function, style over substance. It excludes those who don't know the proper forms but have knowledge, while elevating those who weave those forms into a tapestry of nothing. And it is this that makes smarm much more dangerous than snark.
XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
+5
Posts
is a demonstration of snark
*bows*
Actually, it's not:
Smarm is more like concern trolling.
Snark is like sneering sarcasm.
Care to elaborate?
wait are you being snarky now
"smarmy" is always pejorative
One is good and the other is bad.
The one i'm doing is good.
The one the other guy is doing is bad.
i think it's one is bad and the other is insidious
If you (anonymous hypothetical debater) have something worthwhile to say in good faith or a valid criticism I'd rather you just say it without attempting to win cleverness points for the Internet peanut gallery.
A lot of times I'll see something well reasoned that I would agree with, if not for the speaker being a fuckwit. And I suppose the it point still stands, but my antipathy towards the speaker sours it. More often the snark/smarm/whatever is a cover for not being well reasoned, or for making broad claims about complex issues.
As far as I'm concerned, my favorite debaters on these boards (from both sides of the aisle) generally avoid it. I lean liberal; and if I'm hearing a conservative point I'm more likely to understand, appreciate, and consider it if, of course, the speaker isn't being a jerk.
One man's snark is another man's smarm.
Snark is like a backhanded compliment.
Smarm = "How dare Stewart/Colbert have the audacity to attack my views. I was simply stating what I believe, and this is America, isn't it? Isn't this a free country?"
The article is fantastic. And is does acknowledge that snark can go wrong, but argues that it is not in and of itself bad. Smarm is trying to prevent people from being snarky = promoting the idea that all things are above mockery, therefore protecting that which deserves to be mocked.
Smarm is admonishing the lobster not because of the truthfulness of the first statement, but because of the tone of the second.
Consider a discussion of tax policy. Someone comes in and proposes that taxes should be lowered to promote economic growth. You disagree. What follows is a polite discourse on economic matters. Yay, communication. Now someone else comes in and argues that all tax is theft and that modern society is a construction of the Illuminati designed to enslaves free thinkers. Are you really going to win this person over? Is engaging with him honestly going to result in anything? Are there people out there who are going to witness your conversation and derive any useful knowledge? No. And by engaging this person's crazy delusions, you're just going to lend him legitimacy. You're better off dismissing him and going about your business. He's going to bleat about how you're a stupid sheeple, but he's going to do that no matter what. Judicious application of snark not only neuters his attempt to derail a potentially interesting discussion, it communicates to others that his ideas are so stupid that they're worthy of ridicule. Because they are.
Snark is also useful for addressing concern trolling, or other bad arguments. Done well, it's also hilarious.
Vive la snark!
Smarm is just... smarmy.
I prefer the original terms applied to smarm and snark, "being a stupid asshole" and "being an asshole who is also correct."
I feel like snark and smarm have not been defined fully, and this is leading to some misunderstanding.
My understanding is that snark and smarm are both criticisms, in that they are pointing out something that is believed to be wrong.
However, snark signifies the tone of the criticism, while smarm signifies the target (the tone of something (hence why smarm is often a response to snark (parentheses!))).
Additionally, I believe that the above quote's definition of smarm includes a purpose for smarm, which is to stifle "unpleasant" arguments. Assuming that this is, by definition, what smarm is, then I think we can safely say that yes, smarm is bad. But people seem to often use "smarm" interchangeably with "criticism of tone," sans the implied purpose.
Which leads me to the next point: is criticism of tone itself always bad?
Although the author does not explicitly state this, I have to believe that the works mentioned would not have been as effective if they had been written in the tone of a Gladwell article. However, what is required to be "effective" depends on a number of factors. I can think of three big ones:
- audience: does your audience already agree, disagree, or not have an opinion yet? Is it the person you are speaking to or a third party? A group or an individual?
- purpose: are you looking to convince, entertain, attack?
- mode of communication: are you speaking? Writing? Is it an article, a show, a blog post, a book, a riot?
As an example, what if you are arguing with an individual and your purpose is to convince, your medium is a show or article, and your audience is NOT that individual?
What if you change your audience to people that already at least lean to your side and your purpose is to strengthen their conviction?
What if your audience is the person that you are arguing with?
What if your purpose is to release some frustration?
Personally I think tone is a valid target of criticism in all of these situations (yes, even that last one), provided that the criticism is actually constructive and aimed at making your communication more effective. Of course, this by no means is meant to suggest that criticism of tone always equals "be more polite." In fact, sometimes the opposite may be the correct suggestion.
Next on analyzing rhetorical tools: brevity!
"Vaccines give kids autism! Don't vaccinate your children!"
"There's no scientific proof for what you're saying, and this unproven belief is leading to the return of harmful diseases." <not snarky, direct and to the point
"Look, you have your sources, and I have mine. I don't understand why you're always trying to inflict your opinion on other people."
Even if you dare to call an opinion out as "stupid", you're entire argument is dumped because LALALALALALA AD HOMINEM ATTACK I GUESS YOU'RE TOO IMMATURE TO HAVE A REAL, LEVEL-HEADED CONVERSATION
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
I started looking into feminist ideas and writings a few months ago, back when we were having a lot of threads about the topic both in G&T and D&D. I feel like I've gained a greater respect for and understanding of feminism, but I still can't help but associate the movement with a nearly unbearable level of snarkiness. I unsurprisingly found a lot of snark in BitchFest, a collection of articles from Bitch Magazine, as well as Jezebel (which is part of Gawker Media).
My point is that snark works well when the audience already agrees with you, but it can be hit or miss when the audience is on-the-fence. Some may be convinced to your position, but others can take it to form a negative impression of you. I know I for years didn't take feminism very seriously because of how unceasingly vitriolic and aggressive the movement's members seemed, an impression that didn't change until I was pointed in the "#1 Reason Why" threads here on Penny Arcade to articles written in a tone a bit less aggressive than the "I'm a bitch/proud of it/fuck patriarchy" approach I had seen before.
I can understand why so many articles are written in a combative, snarky tone; I'm sure it's very cathartic. But I can also understand why someone who isn't already in the choir could conflate feminists with anarcho-primitivists and PETA.
what exactly is "concern trolling"
I only ever see it used on this forum and honestly I don't really get it
I've really only ever seen it used on sites like Jezebel or certain Tumblr blogs, where it seems to mean that a person who hates fat people (and I assume other people who are medically considered at-risk for ill health, like smokers) will say things like "Don't you understand that's bad for your health?" because they want the other party to feel bad rather than out of genuine concern (though it seems like at least some of Jezebel's contributors honestly believe being overweight or obese actually isn't bad for you). In regards to overweight people this is known as "fatshaming".
Personally, it seems like the people who accuse others of "concern trolling" are, more often than not, just trying to assign malicious motives to negative commentary so they can more easily dismiss them.
I think neither is any use in debate, although snark makes us feel better.
I'm not convinced smarm even exists. It seemed like an attack on politeness and positivity by someone who just wants to be snarky. The article's definition did not match my experience - rather it seemed to be written by someone who just doesn't get sincere but polite disagreement and writes it off as smarm.
It's a false dichotomy because we don't have to choose between them. Neither is of much value. One is funny, the other one is perhaps fictional.
That most vicious of all Southern curses, "bless your heart", captures the essence of smarm. It appears to be polite, but it's meant to establish authority and put the target in their place, all under a veneer of gentility. (Southern culture as a whole is quite smarmy, as the genteel surface covers a rigid and vicious hierarchy.)
Concern trolling is "Just asking questions", often with the pretence that they would be happy to accept "Global Warming is true/Evolution happens/etc" if they could just get their last few concerns cleared up. The thing that separates them from someone who is genuinely seeking answers is that often the questions they are asking have been exhaustively answered previously as a simple google search would show and the concern troll will simply switch to asking another question, or pig headedly refuse to accept the answer to their first when presented with a comprehensive or inarguable answer.
In this post-Usenet age it's probably the pinnacle of trolling now that you can no longer cross post as well meaning people will often write lots and lots in response to the troll who has just copy pasted his question off a "skeptics" site.
So the classic Concern Troll goes "I've been reading up on global warming and I kind of understand what the scientists are saying but I have this one concern..."
I made a game, it has penguins in it. It's pay what you like on Gumroad.
Currently Ebaying Nothing at all but I might do in the future.
The examples I've seen usually takes the form of:
Person 1: [Policy/Group/Gaming Platform X] is terrible. It has [Flaws A]. You should should support [Policy/Group/Gaming Platform Y].
Person 2: [Policy/Group/Gaming Platform Y] isn't perfect either. It has [Flaws B].
Person 1: How dare you say X is worse than/the same as Y! I dismiss your criticisms (you concern troll).
There is something to be said for "the perfect is the enemy of the good" - just because something has flaws doesn't mean it's not the best option available (e.g. "Defund obamacare! It's unfair to [smaller population than the group it benefits]!"). It's also fairly common that [Flaws B] are unconnected to, or do not diminish the impact of, [Flaws A] . Just because [Flaws B] exist does not necessarily mean we should not be upset about [Flaws A], or take no action (e.g. "Why are you angry with unrealistic depictions of women in comics? There are also unrealistic depictions of men!")
However, the "concern troll" can also be used to deflect any criticism - so [Flaws B] get ignored or unaddressed. e.g. Group X goes around stealing lunch money, Group Y makes smarmy forum posts. I'd hope it's possible to prevent both lunch money theft AND smarmy forum posts.
Edit: to clarify, my comments are regarding the accusation of "concern troll" (which is used inappropriately as a defense more often than I would like). Actual "concern trolls" tend to be as Alistair Hutton describes above, and are also incredibly annoying.
1) This is my view as well. I tend to enjoy engaging with people who are very different from me (Chinese conservatives, American conservatives, religious people, people with what I regard as weird views on justice or causality or whatever, etc), and as such I tend to avoid snark. It's a rhetorical device that's used to affect an audience and to mock an interlocutor and it's not great for an enlightening engagement with someone.
2) I also think that while snark is something one is cognizant of as one engages in it, smarm isn't necessarily so. It's something that is based on an appeal to authority and the like, but it's something one can engage in while being sincere and (from the smarmer's perspective) on the level. That is, I think it's something that can appear dishonest while it isn't necessarily so. It might be coming from someones privilege and/or ignorance or something similar rather than from someone being disingenuous. (Although, of course, it might be something one does disingenuously as well).
I tend to see an annoying interaction between (1) and (2) in message boards and similar forums (online or otherwise) a lot, where there are potentially sincere smarmers who are engaged by snarkers and non-snarkers alike. They tend to bristle at the snarkers at the expense of the potential for engagement by the non-snarkers.
I don't think I've ever been accused of being smarmy per se, but I wonder if my preoccupation with tone might make me appear that way to others.
EDIT: Or maybe I am smarmy?
Basically the one concern trolling just ignores any actual content, meaning, or sanity, and attacks someone for the most superficial and meaningless things in order to shut them up, ignore their points or try to make a "both sides do it" false equivalency argument.
Snark is valuable, but needs to be used carefully.
However, there is a point where people need to stop coddling idiots and mercilessly mock them and point out just how fucking stupid they are.
I still don't quite get the smarm thing.
Steam: adamjnet
This is the definition I've always known.
It happened a lot more on this forum back when gay marriage and DADT were still big debate topics.
'If queer people would just act straighter, then all these mean people would be so mean to them'
Or
'Feminists shouldn't use agressive language during internal discussions, because it might alienate outsider who stumble upon their blog.'