
Why snark works - req2
http://agrammar.tumblr.com/post/211360936/why-snark-works
======
dkarl
_Flippancy works best for people who already agree with you in principle._

And this is why snark "works" -- people only care about socializing, not
learning or persuading. Snark "works" by reinforcing commonality, stigmatizing
difference, and turning disagreement into rivalry. Snark "works" if you're
interested in the distinction between "people like me" and "people unlike me"
rather than the distinction between your ideas and someone else's ideas. It
doesn't work at all if you want to communicate constructively with people who
have fundamentally different or alien ideas.

EDIT: I guess I didn't say anything very different from him, but I thought he
glossed over the negative aspects pretty quickly. He characterizes snark as an
ugly way of bullying people close to you, he says it is "quite possibly a
really bad thing and a really bad habit," but he's clearly looking forward to
using it. Creepy.

~~~
lionhearted
I'm with you. Take this part, saying that thoughtful discussion is potentially
dull and time-wasting:

> Flippancy is more fun. The work of reaching out and explaining things is
> potentially dull and time-wasting; it’s just plain funnier and more exciting
> and more gratifying to be on the inside of shared assumptions.

He has it completely backwards - standard internet sarcasm is incredibly
boring and repetitive. It's sad when a good site gets popular and the same
cliched rudeness and snark replaces and pushes out the good and thoughtful
discussion.

~~~
Sthorpe
Its not only sad online but offline to. I wonder what causes people to
talk/write in a snark fashion? What is the main motivator. To be cool? Get
noticed? I guess youtube comments are the perfect example.

Maybe only thoughtful discussions can be had when a group is limited to a
certain size and status is defined by the most original discussions. Not by
the most accepted.

~~~
lionhearted
> I wonder what causes people to talk/write in a snark fashion? What is the
> main motivator. To be cool? Get noticed?

It's a part of it - is regarded as cool to be angsty and defiant. When someone
doesn't actually have intelligent points, they can just make the same joke
they read about in the newspaper or heard a comedian say.

> Maybe only thoughtful discussions can be had when a group is limited to a
> certain size...

I think this is more true with men than women - I think men jockey for status
a little more.

> ...and status is defined by the most original discussions

Either that, or a clearly defined hierarchy. If it's clear who is in charge
and there's mutual respect, there's no status jockeying. It's when it's not
clear who is in a leadership role or there's not mutual respect that you get
the most of it. Anonymity only makes that worse.

~~~
Sthorpe
\- So you would say its not only to be cool and get noticed but its also to
say something, without caring about its originality, just to re-express a
comment that has a proven effect? And this is better than saying nothing?

\- Not sure I agree with your comment about women vs men with status. I
believe that no matter what the information is, the social dynamic is
different given a smaller group/context. It helps all of us narrow the focus.

\- No clue why I keep hearing this love of hierarchy, respect and
accountability. Whats wrong with just having something worth talking about? I
think we all have a voice, maybe not the best tools to deliver it. But I think
that's our job. :)

------
10ren
_"They convince socially, not rhetorically."_ is an interesting take on the
well-known idea of peer-group pressure. Humans have a need to belong, and
we'll do it using whatever means are available. It's not just reddit memes,
but also even the kind of language scientists use (so their "dominant
paradigms" are partly social paradigms). When you laugh at a clever xkcd
comic, it's partly a social laugh.

I hadn't thought of it in terms of _convincing_ people - of having arguments
and assumptions accepted, often without any opposition, because the conscious
barriers are circumvented. Advertising uses this (especially sports-star
endorsement). It's not just a sense of "getting it" and belonging/being
accepted - it's also values and beliefs being changed.

Incidentally, peer pressure was experimentally confirmed in the famous
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asch_conformity_experiments>

_EDIT_ the problem with sacrificing objectivity for a sense of belonging is
that you don't see things quite as they are, so you have less ability to make
a difference. You can't hack "magic" (there's my in-group reference). But in
any group, people will try to conform unconsciously - the stubbornness of
Establishment scientists (putatively truth-seekers) is a well-known trope;
even here, HackerNews has some cult-like qualities (the "pg cult").

The problem of going the other way is that you sacrifice a sense of belonging
for the sake of objectivity - an inhumanly cold choice. And you can't do it
fully, anyway.

~~~
Sthorpe
"the problem with sacrificing objectivity for a sense of belonging is that you
don't see things quite as they are, so you have less ability to make a
difference."

How do we agree as a group and yet continue to think independently? We have to
agree on some things...right?

~~~
10ren
I think you're getting at having a common language, terminology, notation, in
order to be able to communicate.

These also carry assumptions and biases within them. Often, breakthroughs come
along with new notation or terminology - a new conceptual way to reason and
talk about the subject - that the existing language "taught away" from.

But communication is also important for seeing more, and having more
objectivity, by getting new points of view. Just being aware of the
subjectivity is probably the best we can do in practice.

------
stcredzero
One should take it as a good sign if people are criticizing them with only
snarky remarks. Especially if the snark is uninformed or misinformed!

------
Sthorpe
When i'm new to a group, I like creating my own snark comments instead of
acting like I get theirs. Then I can hijack the assumptions others have and
make them my own.

Besides if you don't use direct references you have to rely on assumptions.
Which makes us all speak babble.

------
papersmith
I consider it more of a guilty pleasure.

------
jimfl
All serious comments in this thread will be downvoted.

~~~
jimfl
But seriously (If I may spend a little accumulated karma), I argue though
humor alot (ALOT), and I sometimes have people ask me "how come you're never
serious?" to which I reply, I'm deadly serious. If I didn't care, I'd just be
quiet. Keying on the irony of a situation is often the quickest way to get
everyone in the same frame for problem solving.

