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.
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.
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.
> 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.
- 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. :)
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.