Comments on: Snark vs Smarm: Two Wrongs Don’t Make a Right

By: Tim Hall

Tim Hall — Sat, 14 Dec 2013 22:26:14 +0000

And a lot of sites (or posts) get the comments they deserve.

By: Abi Sutherland

Abi Sutherland — Sat, 14 Dec 2013 21:34:34 +0000

…and why we say “do not read the comments” on so many sites.

By: Serdar Yegulalp

Serdar Yegulalp — Sat, 14 Dec 2013 21:03:39 +0000

Snark and sarcasm have their place, but they are best not seen as a default stance. It can feel like that if you read certain critics, who go out of their way to sack things they know are terrible. Most of the time I’d rather focus on bringing things to peoples’ attention that are good and not well known, rather than tearing down things that most everyone already knows is junk.

That linked review, by the way, had me reaching for the Visine.

By: Tim Hall

Tim Hall — Sat, 14 Dec 2013 17:44:51 +0000

I’ve noticed that too. I’ve also noticed that the sort of provocative, snarky posts that send to send discussion sour are also the ones the get the most hits. Which is why so many eyeball-driven websites encourage that sort of posting to the extent that some of their writers are little more than professional trolls.

By: Abi Sutherland

Abi Sutherland — Sat, 14 Dec 2013 17:28:29 +0000

I agree completely. As someone who writes to start conversations, I’ve noticed that the threads that go sour the fastest, and go the worst places, are the ones that start with a snarky original post.

I think we’re often a little afraid of sincerity, because it looks like a kind of vulnerability. If I snark and someone disagrees, I have a kind of deniability. If I smarm and someone disagrees, I can at least say I meant well. If I tell the straight-up truth as I see it and someone disagrees, I have to engage on the basis of fact rather than tone.

It takes a kind of faith in one’s self and one’s intellectual processes to stop hiding behind either snark or smarm. But in my experiences, the conversations that arise from abandoning them are much more interesting.