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
Posts
I do sometimes.
My position is not that snarkiness, sarcasm, insults, mockery, etc. are always better than polite discussion. Simply that they aren't always bad.
If anything, they're a little like profanity. The less you use them, the more power they have when you need them.
No, I wouldn't agree with that, at least not for me. If I'm being snarky, I'm setting out to reveal absurd positions as absurd. The hurt feelings are just a delicious side effect.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
I decidedly do not
--LeVar Burton
I'll have to take your word for that
I wouldn't say I have a problem with snark in popular music.
I would say I have a problem with snark in serious discourse about popular music though.
--LeVar Burton
Does that vary based on whether the parties have explicitly agreed to have a serious discussion?
If two people sit down and agree to have a serious discussion about something, and then one of them just keeps tossing out snarky one-liners, that's probably a bad usage. If one person randomly says something stupid and another person within earshot responds with snark, that's a different story. There's also what Feral said, regarding snark used sparingly to highlight a point versus used as a crutch. And, of course, snark doesn't necessarily have to be used maliciously - it can be used in good fun to lighten a mood.
Honestly, I don't see snark as different from garden-variety sarcasm, in that it can be used well or used poorly. Or satire, for that matter. Or parody. Humor, in general, is a powerful tool that is often hard to use well.
Life is a gradient.
But the use of snark (and sarcasm) could be moved one or two standard deviations away from serious discussion, to the betterment of all.
I have to say, I can't think of a time in years that I've seen either used in a topical thread around here, directed at an interlocutor, that I didn't think would have been better served by a frank reply.
Ronya is one of my favorite doggies precisely because through his knowledge and direct and civil addressing of points, many a useless tangent has ended.
--LeVar Burton
As some dude who isn't important and probably lives in his mom's basement or something once said:
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
I don't think 'snark' is always funny. Much like jokes aren't always funny. But it is meant to be comedic, to be funny, in it's least incarnation funny to a very small group of like-minded thinkers but funny still. Snark is just sarcasm, man. And an essential component of sarcasm is humour. It isn't just insulting, "fuck your fucking fuck, you fuckers" isn't sarcasm or snarky. It's just insults.
To label it bad in itself is missing the point. It's a tool, a rhetorical device. What you're really doing is just labelling failures at sarcasm as 'snark' and then saying it's obviously bad and fail and whatever.
An asshole that spends money... still loses you money by driving others away.
--LeVar Burton
I would actually suggest that the difference between snark and sarcasm is that the former has a necessary component of humor, while the latter does not.
P.S. The hell is up with my language today? Funny.
--LeVar Burton
That's not discourse though, that's you saying 'fuck it, it's not worth arguing with you, you ignorant shit'. Not necessarily a bad thing (other than for humanity as a whole), because Uncle Herb's views are terrible and aren't going to be changed by a few minutes of rational argument. It's more a way of saying that the argument is over, and that perhaps they should be aware that it was the penultimate statement that was the offensive one.
Huge difference between that, and a tool to use in conversation. If you want to draw attention to the fact someone's broken the unwritten rules of discourse, then break them yourself in (hopefully) an entertaining fashion with some form of snark - if you want to continue the conversation then you need to stay within the rules otherwise you've just changed things into a fight. Too much pride and face involved there to change minds as it's now about not losing than being right.
Yeah if the issue is over whether or not there is/was too much snark on the internet specifically (and perhaps outside) I'm with you. Sarcasm, being a variety of humour, is inherently tied to the context of language in a pretty difficult to balance way. It works off of the rest of our conversation, talk, discourse and debate. By it's very nature it cannot be dominant, it needs to make fun of what is dominant. If it gets dominant it will start feeding on itself and breed a toxic environment. I think most people here recognize that there are limits, at the very least contextual ones, to the usage of sarcasm.
As a sort of aside I think the internet as a whole has gotten a bit less toxic like that these last few years. Most of the forums I have any familiarity with that still exist have gotten more decent, people got a little less competitive and such. It's still pretty bad, especially in the demographic you mention but even there we got PA which is pretty big and pretty good.
Or is it just because it's super easy to do and crosses over from being super obvious to a little more like conventional 'misdirection' humour?
I'm not sure how I've stifled the discussion (nor how you've defended the claim you started with).
I think that even dedicated opponents of snark would have to make an exception for art and pop culture; art and pop culture should be an overgrown garden in which all sorts of awesome stuff is crossbreeding and blooming. I don't think that opponents of snark should necessarily even oppose snarky political tracts or screeds--that's another long tradition and has its place (though I have my own doubts about it--see the last paragraph). What should be opposed, though, is the introduction of snark in attempted serious exchange: the stonewalling use of snark. This seems to be the explicit intent of some practitioners; I think the rationale you introduce is really a common one, at least in some corners of the internet, namely that some views are so abhorrent that they deserve to be totally stonewalled.
I'm not very sympathetic to this point. Many of my views would be considered abhorrent by mainstream society (I, of course, disagree). I don't think my views deserve to get stonewalled. I've spent a long time testing, formulating, and more generally considering my views. Even if I'm wrong after all, I have something worthwhile to contribute. More broadly: in general many of the views we now hold as orthodoxy originated as deeply offensive heterodox views held by 'lunatic fringe' minorities, views that would get you laughed, shouted, or thrown out of the room. --anyway, I've given my peans to free speech before, so just Ctrl C-Ctrl V in whenever someone wants to defend snark explicitly as a silencing tactic for people who really deserve to get shut up.
Anyway--I think one of the sources of skepticism toward snark as an argumentative tactic is just the following: it seems snark is insensitive to the truth (this is what I was getting at with the examples of Taylor and American blackface). Whether some snarky remark succeeds is more a function of the skill of the speaker and the sympathy of the audience than it is a function of whether the target really deserves scorn. So as an argumentative tactic it falls alongside all the other rhetorical tools that are persuade people without rationally convincing them. It goes to what the philosophers found so alarming about the sophists way back in ancient greece: the rhetorical tricks the sophists were teaching people had everything to do with persuasion and nothing to do with the truth. For a fee, sophists would teach you how to convince people of something regardless of whether it was right or wrong (see: 'sophistry'). Maybe in the end you need to use to those tricks if you ever want to get anything done, and that's just a sad fact about human nature and society. But it is a sad fact, if it is a fact at all. Because there is something defective about convincing someone of something in a way that's totally insensitive to the actual reasons for or against it.
1. Work within the confines of those discussions that explicitly prohibit the disliked device
2. Sharpen your sword in such a way as to not have to use your dislike of the device as an excuse for your (presumably) poor arguments
As an example. If my ass is on the line and I have the choice of two attorneys, one who uses any rhetorical device to keep my presumed innocent ass out of jail or one who maintains some arbitrary sense of "civility" beyond that which is required by the forum? You better believe its the goddamned shark. And I highly doubt anyone would choose the other.
EDIT
I'll even throw it out there and say I think a position against snark and smarm is by definition one of the smarmiest things I've ever heard.
Interesting observation. Perhaps the negative reaction to sarcasm on the internet is due to it being way harder to do in written form and is therefore perceived often as just mean remarks. It's easy to think you're being sarcastic, but over the internet an other party might entirely miss it. The subtle irony is not conveyed so you might resort to more overt and blunt sarcastic remarks but if a person then misses the sarcasm it's likely they'll think it's even harsher insults than normal.
Like:
What is sarcasm without humour? How would that even work?
Isn't it possible that we just often miss the tone of sarcasm in a remark because it is written down? Or even that while someone might intend to be sarcastic they don't realize their intention isn't conveyed? Or that they simply fail to recognize their failure at being humorous?
People fail at sarcasm in small groups in person too. That doesn't mean they don't mean to be humorous, it just means they are not actually humorous. Why should we suppose that people engaging in snark don't intend to be humorous (to whatever their audience is) rather than suppose they're just failing at it?
Few and far between are the social or ethical conundrums where choosing the most desperate situation one can think of, and then applying those factors across the board, produces useful insights.
--LeVar Burton
sar·casm
ˈsärˌkazəm/
noun
1.
the use of irony to mock or convey contempt.
Mocking does not have to be funny, and sarcasm often is not, even in attempt.
--LeVar Burton
So, as I've said in many other threads in the past, we accept the realities of the situation and now we're just concerned with scope?
The way to defeat snark and smarm and any other rhetorical device is not to advocate their prohibition in search of some arbitrary and ill defined concept of civility. It's to present a better argument!
When I engage in discourse, I put quite a lot of effort into structuring things so the most reasonable ideas become apparent, rather than the most convincing ones.
Edit: to expand, sophistry and logical fallacies, and intellectual dishonesty are all very effective rhetorical devices... which I also disapprove of. Much more strongly in fact.
--LeVar Burton
It seems to me that at that point you've come full circle around to smarm. You have a (however recent it may be) status quo that bigotry is wrong, and are trying to enforce that status quo by refusing to engage bigotry as a reasonable subject of discussion, since it's so obviously outside the status quo.
Not that that's necessarily a bad thing, of course. It should influence the discussion about whether smarm is inherently bad, though.
But then what isn't? Civility is as insensitive to it.
Snark, civility, irony, politeness, sarcasm and basically any other mode of speech is insensitive to the truth and the thing is that they do not influence the rational truth-value of a statement. If you understand that something is meant to be sarcastic then all you do is just flip the literal meaning of the sentence to get to it's actual meaning. All it really does is just add another layer to what we mean to say.
What is sarcasm if not a loose definition of a reductio ad absurdum? The problem with sophistry is after all not that is taught how to argue but that it did so regardless of the truth. If I can count on my audience to understand rational arguments, why can I not count on them to understand my sarcasm? (aside from philosophy being mostly written and therefore sarcasm being a bad idea.) Sarcasm can easily be employed for rationality, it is often used to point out a counterfactual for example.
This strikes me as the crux of the thread.
Smarm isn't just tone trolling, it is using tone as an excuse to dismiss the substance of a comment. That is part of what makes it irritating.
If your snark is similarly unconcerned with substance, I see that as wrong, too. (Potentially worse.) it is a bit like the old pre-silly-goose standards we had on ad homs. "Your argument is wrong because you are a quim-gargling merkin marauder" is fallacious. "You are a quim-gargling merkin marauder and your argument is wrong because (reasons)" isn't.
(Again, that isn't an excuse to go accusing people of marauding merkins willy-nilly. But once in a while somebody shows up smelling so pungently of quimiferous merkin that saying so is just calling a spade a spade. Such accusations are like cilantro; they don't go on everything and they're better in light sprinklings.)
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Irony is literally always humorous. It is the contrast of what we expect to what really happens. It can be wry, sad or even maddening but it's always humorous because it's the world laughing at us. It's not haha-funny, it's not a dickjoke, but it is humour.
Sometimes we can't afford to address everything
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.
and here's the rub, if the use of snark or smarm includes those fallacies you attack the fallacy, not the rhetorical device. If any rhetorical device contains an inaccuracy or fallacy, you attack the content, not the form!
this forum is notorious for this (and let's be frank, most forums are), for attacking the "tone" or the "delivery" or the "accuracy of the metaphor" rather than the information provided in the argument. I could give less than two shits about how something is presented - if the point is valid, the point is valid. falling back on attacking anything other than the content of the message is an admission of defeat!
but, having said that, when content and rhetoric meet a lovely crescendo? it's a goddamned beautiful thing to see.
I would argue that civility is not limited to only honesty. civility certainly can be honest, but it just as easily can be used as a façade for dishonesty. again, attack the message, not the delivery.
I feel like we're really getting off into a tangent here, but irony absolutely does not have to be humorous:
i·ro·ny1
ˈīrənē,ˈiərnē/
noun
1.
the expression of one's meaning by using language that normally signifies the opposite, typically for humorous or emphatic effect.
But I think we may also be talking about a case of outlook rather than strictly definitions anyway.
--LeVar Burton
Well, racists love to feel persecuted so this tactic is not likely to actually decrease racism, if that is your goal. If your goal is simply to say "fuck you" to someone and you need a socially acceptable target, then this tactic is sound for that.
Somewhat reluctant to type this as it seems that our sense of humour has changed a little over time (oldest recorded jokes are all reference/fart based humour*) - but the majority of jokes work on the basis that you've set up a situation that results in a way you don't expect. So irony and sarcasm fit perfectly alongside this model. Snark and *shudder* what you call smarm in this thread are wildly different things.
*- Sumaria BC1900 "Something which has never occurred since time immemorial; a young woman did not fart in her husband's lap.**"
"snark" the way it's being championed here is really just a sidewise attempt to discredit someone you disagree with by treating them with contempt. it's an ad-hominem attack at its core, and often makes discussion of an issue impossible.
and that, actually, is the reason that it's so popular among the very very ideological - here and elsewhere. it's because a discussion is not desired - what is desired is the discrediting of an enemy and enemy perspectives.
the champions of snark in this thread have given examples of its heroic applications in combating the uptight conservatives who don't accept alternative or minority viewpoints, of puncturing the self-righteousness of prudes. of triumphing over the racist, sexist, ignorant and benighted.
and how can something used in pursuit of such righteous ideals be bad?
but "snark" - or really just bald cruel mockery, the bitter sarcasm, the discrediting of opponents through contempt, the basic dehumanizing disrespect, is just as roundly applied - probably more often and to greater effect - by racists and bigots and pious zealots and conservatives and the small-minded when targeting the powerless and the minority and the despised. do you think that sneering fratboys don't have snark down pat?
all of this is an issue with the user and the application. not with the tool.
civil discourse is predicated on all parties acting in good faith. unfortunately, this is not always the case, and in those scenarios rhetoric is an excellent tool for illustrating both the depth of the bad faith and the strength of the counterpoint.
EDIT
sometimes assholes gonna asshole
But I just want to point out that at the top of the page, three people joined together to declare that sometimes they enjoy hurting people's feelings and that doing it makes them feel good.
That kinda sucks to hear.
Total tangent and yeah maybe outlook. I think irony is always humorous but that's because what I think humour is closely resembles irony. And perhaps it's not the only way to view humour, the contrast idea that is, but I think it works if you do view it that way.
Really my point is more that there is a purpose to sarcasm that is distinct from merely wishing to insult or mock. It has the aspect of performance, of rhetoric. You're using irony to achieve something different than putting down the one thing you're responding to. The target is not a statement but the situation that statement is made in.
But we should probably let this rest unless the rest of the discussion grows stale.
for real though, if someone in real life used the tone that often passes around here as standard snark lol, we'd basically be fighting.
after moderating here for almost a decade i feel like i'm just sick to death of sarcasm and snide superior tones and ganging up on unpopular viewpoints. this place is immensely more civilized than it once was, and i'm really proud of it, but there's always going to be a dedicated cadre of people with Real Important Opinions for whom tone and civility and respect are just impediments that get in the way of really sticking it to someone or a really satisfying dogpile. it's just the nature of the beast of a discussion forum, but it gets more awful to me and more tiresome every single year.
i still catch myself employing unplayful sarcasm from time to time and i'm always a little ashamed at it.
I could see that. But that pretty much falls under my edit. In light of the glorious edict (as we're indirectly discussing members)
Sometimes geese gonna geese.
And at the end of the day we're all human. To @spool32 (s) point, if an asshole gets his comeuppance, who am I to weep for it?
Sometimes they even learn from it.
Sometimes people's feelings need hurting. If only to make them realize that their feelings can be hurt and it's not the end of the world. That wack with the Realness-hammer is part of making us socially function.
Enjoying it is kinda one of humanity's things you have to live with.