Snark is not original. It is essentially parasitic and lazy. — Page 2

Everything in moderation. The issue I mostly have are those people who, like I said, ONLY have snarky comments for people (like on this message board) without adding ANYTHING ELSE to the conversation. That, regardless of the intelligence required to come up with, is, indeed, parasitic and lazy. You either have to think so highly of yourself that you just feel the need to actually contribute to a discussion you enter into, or you are, dare I say, just a miserable person who has no other option but to try and drag someone down to your current state.

---

i am snark. and so can you.

---

I think you're absolutely right, Jane.

I mean, you all know I have a smart mouth, and I have occasionally in real life made a joke that I could tell was not taken the way I intended.

But because I could read the body language or facial expressions, I had the opportunity to "fix it."

Or conversely, I might be able to say something in real life and my demeanor will make it clear that I intend no harm.

We don't have those options online. Often by the time we know we've offended someone, it's too late.

Still, most people who press the snark button do know what they're doing, I think.

For me the issue is "snark" is lacking any clear definition; the man who wrote the book about it says it's a case-by-case basis? It doesn't even make sense.

I know I used to have run-ins with a poster here who was totally parasitic, I'd get a funny line off and he or she would just add-on and never come up with anything original but would bask in the reflected glory of somebody else's creativity. So I get why parasitic is problematic. What I don't get is this focus of Denby's, which he can't define.

It's like he's trying to be Malcolm Gladwell but lacks the crucial ingredient of insight.

---

Depends on how hung.

---

Message boards like this one are a strange beast. They're hard to wrap your head around. If you really stop and think about it.

They're like an "intimate setting" where people can exchange communications along with a few others who are online as if chatting in a living room with a handful of guests, and, at the same time, anyone on the entire planet can drop by and read the posts if they choose to do so.

And people here at BWW oscillate between relaxed honesty and truth to uptight self-consciousness and phony posturing.

A lot of people get "caught in front of the camera" and don't know what to do or how to behave. So they turn into people they aren't. They exaggerate the gestures because they realize they're exposed to the world.

And on the written page (or screen in this case), it's sometimes hard to tell where they're coming from. Or who they really are.

I find that some here are way too concerned with how they're coming off. That makes them either overly aggressive with "positivity and goodness" to the point of sounding like horrible harpies themselves. I don't think they realize that either. Others are just trying to be funny and end up hurting people in the process, only to come back with, "lighten up! It was a joke!" as if their own failure as class clown is everyone else's fault.

I try to be true and clear about my opinions. And I also attempt humor. Sometimes I score, sometimes I don't. But I don't go at it with a self-aware agenda of trying to win people over. I'm just "communicating." Saying what's on my mind. Reacting to other's remarks. Trying to discuss stuff with others who supposedly like something I like, ya know?

In a way, "snark" is in the eye of the beholder. And some people need to get their eyes checked. They can't tell "snark" from "criticism." They are not the same thing. "A discouraging word" does not make the poster or the comment snarky.

And some people think that personal insults pass for humor. They don't. They're a form of abuse. Not comedy.

And yeah, I've whacked a few people over the head around here ... when provoked. They usually deserve it, too.

But to "snark" just for the thrill of it? Just for the kill? Or to try to make myself look "good?" Pass. I don't do it myself, and I'm not interested or impressed with others who do it.

---

Particularly for a douche like you.

christ. since everyone is all syrupy sweet and honest and schtuff.

who i am on bww is who i am. that means i fluctuate wildly from heart on the sleeve honesty and emotion to vicious barbarism. but there is not a thing that i type that i would not say if we were sitting across from each other, next to each other or if we were hanging upside down from a trapeze. anybody here who knows me - and there are plenty - knows that.

i don't have the time or inclination to invent anything so yer stuck with me.

i don't get hung up too much in who people are here. if you have nothing to offer it's apparent pretty quickly. after that, unless they happen to hit a nerve, i pretty much ignore them. if i even noticed them in the first place.

---

I want to hear more about this trapeze idea.

Snark is always second person; i.e. "I made a witty, caustic comment. You can do nothing but snark."

when papa snarks, everybody listens. papa's like e.f. hutton y'all.

---

Like on the texting thread, the generation gap is also something to consider. People in their early 20s speak snark. (We're clearly responsible for the decline of modern society too. Sorry bout that.)

when papa snarks, everybody listens. papa's like e.f. hutton y'all.

I never viewed your comments as snark, funnily enough. I always thought it was just rabble rousing.

Oh, we definitely have some older snarkers around here, Craww. I think it might be more of a generational issue on other boards, but not so much on BWW.

---