Heartiste tweeted a comment from this blog made by Billy Chav who wrote:
I’m trying to put my finger on why the Jezebel literary style is so atrocious. It’s like it’s false in every particular– pseudo-elegant phrasing (“that, my friends…”) mixed with copious squirm-worthy cursing (“bullfuckitty bullshit”), all meant only to indicate that author is wicked smart ‘n educated– way smarter than you tea party redneck business fascist– but also that she’s hella tough and could kick your ass and call you faggot (which she can do because she’s “reclaiming” the word), even though she’s only 5′ and 100lbs.
In his book, which I’ve pre-reviewed and have now completed, Ryan Holiday spends a lot of time addressing Jezebel and Gawker specifically, especially the snark which is their style. Holiday cites David Denby of the New Yorker who wrote that snark “attempts to steal someone’s mojo, erase her cool, annihilate her effectiveness [with] the nasty, insidious, rug-pulling, teasing insulting which makes references to some generally understood shared prejudice or distaste.”
Holiday’s definition of “snark”: “You know when you’re dealing with snark when you attempt to respond to a comment and realize that there is nothing you can say.” Try arguing in the comments section of ManBoobz to get a taste.
Holiday gets to the fundamental starting point for snark:
There is a reason that the weak are drawn to snark while the strong simply say what they mean. Snark makes the speaker feel a strength they know deep down they do not possess. It shields their insecurity and makes the writer feel like they are in control. Snark is the ideal intellectual position. It can criticize, but it cannot be criticized.
The Right is not above using snark, but it’s mostly used in rearguard fashion. Snark is the domain of the tribal liberal. A clarion to other liberals that a particular person, company, or group is open for attack. The reason is that snark is rooted in relativism and reductionism, and – it shouldn’t need to be said – the unconstrained liberal mindset is intellectually cohesive with the strategy in a way that conservatism is fundamentally not.
Like this:
Like Loading...
Most people are not good writers. The writers at Jezebel just don’t realize they are bad writers.
“….the unconstrained liberal mindset is intellectually cohesive with the strategy in a way that conservatism is fundamentally not.”
In other words, liberals actually believe that they are 100% above criticism.
Now that’s desilusional. Of course you can’t expect an actual discussion from what amounts to a call to denounce the infidels and confirm your belief on the cause to get social points.
Snark is the domain of the tribal liberal.
Specifically the masculine woman and the effeminate man – each having enough male in them to want to exercise power but too much female to know how to pull it off, so it comes off weak and desperate.
so it comes off weak and desperate
Snark IS weak and desperate, but alas, snark comes strong and confident. That’s why people use it so much. Snark disarms. It bypasses the prefrontal cortex where arguments play out and goes straight to the hindbrain, where it ridicules and taunts.
A snarky attack by someone with a strong frame overwhelms the opponent with self-doubt and impotent anger. When attacked by snark, it is imperative to reframe and expose the asshole as weak and desperate.
When playing the victim they use cynical sarcasm in conjunction with strawmen or not understanding averages. For example on posts about the lack of women in STEM fields/at the high end of the IQ distribution they will make out as if the argument is attacking “all women” and then make jokes about going back to the kitchen etc. The writing is entertaining, I guess, but I like boring stuff.
excellent analysis by Billy Chav.
@Lara above,
many of your comments here rely on snark. you can do better.
snark und drang, like sarcasm, is a complete turn-off to men when used by women. you can actually see cellular layers of vestigial femininity peeling off of them with each empty-headed snarky riposte. american women have, by and large. lost touch with the art of feminine charm, and now act like they think strong men act.
when men are snarky, they come across like passive-aggressive, overreaching nerds who would pull their skirts over their heads at the first sign of real trouble. cue john stewart.
(btw, does anyone else enjoy a pleasant fantasy of punching stewart and bill maher so hard in their mugs that they topple over backwards, blood streaming from their noses and tears from their eyes? it must be a guy thing.)
the way to handle a snarky “opponent” (and i hesitate to give them that honored appellation) is as PA says: reframe through sheer unbridled mockery, and change the direction of conversation radically. the worst thing is to get thrown on the defensive and let the snark pin you down as you try to answer it on its own terms.
i can offer examples upon request, but please supply the snark you would like to see a winning reply to.
Heartiste, a motherlode of snark here. Snark, underpinned by malevolent spirit. Masked beta-rage occurs when he says “sorority girl.”
Pingback: Snark: A Sign Of Weakness | Paul M. Jones
PA said “A snarky attack by someone with a strong frame overwhelms the opponent with self-doubt and impotent anger. When attacked by snark, it is imperative to reframe and expose the asshole as weak and desperate.”
Got any examples? I used to have to deal with this a lot in the job I was in, and would like to be forearmed if I ever go back into that field (it’s the media field, with lots of angry, unattractive women). My only defense was refusing to deal with such people.
The issue isn’t snark by itself, but the attempt to use snark as an argument. Monica Crowley’s latest book, What the bleep just happened, is full of snark. However, it’s never used as the only means to make a point. It’s presented AFTER the point is made and facts have been told.
“you can do better”
I’m not sure I always can, but I agree, many of my comments aren’t well thought out. I’m turning over a new leaf today.
Rachel Maddow comes to mind
ahahahahahaa…come on. No one at Jezzebel is 100 lbs.
Got any examples?
ahahahahahaa…come on. No one at Jezzebel is 100 lbs.
There you have it.
doh!
the logic against sarcasm being the tool of a weak argument are pretty valid. I have been seeing more and more comments bringing up this point in the last few months. I, tend to use sarcasm a great deal. I’m not sure why i enjoy it so much. I’m more than a bit bummed out having to admit that it is the deflector shield of nerdlinger wieners. Sad sad day for stickman… Perhaps facts AND sarcasm can be combined into a good rational argument delivered with an acid tong.
I believe facts and sarcasm combined ends up being irony, of the traditional sort, not the hipster or Alanis Morrisette sort. It’s best used in small doses.
I didn’t make the snark association when I wrote what you cited, but you’re right to draw that correlation. I guess I just thought of snark as a form of snideness but it’s obviously more than that.
I think it can’t be pointed out often enough that the generic SWPL/alt-weekly dweeb is basically false and dishonest not only in what he says, but in what he is. This is why they will lose. Whether they will lose in time is another question.
I’ve always thought of “snark” as a snippy, sarcastic reply that’s intended to stifle debate when someone espouses an opinion that isn’t welcome in polite company, and “polite company” usually means egalitarians who are convinced that their worldview is beyond question . . . basically what Denby said, and, off topic: I fucking hate that guy’s movie reviews.
However, I think most people use the word “snark” as a synonym for “sarcasm,” and I use sarcasm a lot when touchy subjects come up. This usually happens when I’m discussing some controversial subject with my (mostly) liberal friends.
I’ve gotten to the point where liberals annoy me so much that I’m willing to sacrifice social status, for example, by discussing racial differences in intelligence. I might say something like, “Sure, we know that ALL PEOPLE, with the exception of actual retards, are BORN WITH THE SAME ABILITIES. Yeah, I know. I get that. Who could argue with you? BUT, are racial differences in cranial capacity socially constructed? Are larger brains, on average, not smarter than smaller brains? What we know about this subject suggests that they are. What evidence do you have that suggests we’re really all born the same?”
Many liberals would probably call my above comment “snarky,” but obviously I’m trying to open the debate and not crush it. If that’s “snark,” I don’t get offended or annoyed when it’s turned around on me as long as it’s not intended to end the conversation.
I live in SWPLttle so I wouldn’t be able to talk to anyone if I worried too much about maintaining status. I usually just state upfront that I’m a right wing maniac and then I can say more or less what I want. I usually add something about it must be tough being a liberal and having to be concerned about everyone’s feelings all the time. And I’m being honest about it, it really must be hard. Which doesn’t make it less moronic or annoying.
Omg, i can’t believe it! as if … whatever.
Ok, though, like really. Snark is from the Valley. Whenever that started, somewhere in California. Those girls, they just Can’t believe it!
That attitude was a virus, a destructive mind virus. Swapples looking for capital and status, applying a Valley attitude to the hot topics of the day! Like omg gay marriage Yes! we support it we are from the Coast! I can’t believe it omg!
But they were desirable, the Girls from the Valley. California Girls, the last of them. They were real people, the genetic qt, and so knew the joke, the irony (speculation here perhaps but some of them anywise). So there was some sophistication and criticism. Like, yeah ok right we’re beautiful and here we are at the mall, again. Omg can you believe it This sucks!
Perhaps there was some appeal there then, the play of those two layers. Now though, where is the subtlety? The vapidity of it all is lost on those caught up in it, that goofy, incipient mode of expression. So they are serious then, it is not a joke apparently.
I can’t believe it.
Noted feminist and mangina Jon Stewart does the same thing – sarcasm is to emasculated wimps what white knighting is to captain save-a-ho’s
“Why America is no longer the best country in the world”
It never was.
“a motherlode of snark here. Snark, underpinned by malevolent spirit. Masked beta-rage occurs when he says “sorority girl.” ”
I laughed out loud at that part of his rant when I saw this last week. Especially given the cue cards he gets from the older brainy girl in the crowd to send him into rant mode.
Jeff Daniels is supremely annoying in that video. I don’t care whether someone thinks the United States is the greatest country or not. He personality just sucks. If he was doing all that to impress the sorority girl, my guess is it didn’t work.
I would have just said, “We have mountains and beaches and range from sub tropical weather to Arctic weather. Americans have a lot of options as to where they want to live.”
I love how in that vid snippet Jeff Daniels’s character, obviously a Boomer, calls the sorority girl’s generation the worst ever. That’s rich. I don’t know how much we can expect from the Millenials, but they’ve hardly had a chance to muck stuff up yet, unlike, say…
Pingback: Linkage Is Good For You – 8-5-12 | Society of Amateur Gentlemen
Pingback: “Game Promotes Rape”: The Latest Smear
Pingback: No, We Are Not All Feminists « Free Northerner
Pingback: CDM-N Goes Private « Free Northerner