Is Snark Killing Babble?
From the Geekcentric blog: Is snark killing the web?
"There's this ‘new generation' that has grown up online only knowing blogs as having snarky comment areas and never realizing it used to be a personal, intimate space where you'd never say anything in a comment that you wouldn't say to a friend's face."
That's a quote from Matt Haughey, a quote that's haunted me for a month, ever since I saw it on Rex Sorgatz's Fimoculous blog.
Rex and Matt are self-identified members of the "old guard" - guys that started blogging before blogging was cool - before journal scripts and social networking sites put every angsty teenager and every narcissistic college student on the web.
I started my first blog in 1992, when web publishing required a degree of technical skill. The requirement for HTML coding created a barrier to entry, so the only people who had blogs were geeks who already made web pages for a living, or dedicated diarists who really had something to say.
Or, in my case, people who were so simultaneously lonely and full of themselves that every random thought in their head was deemed worthy of publication.
The web was a smaller, more intimate place then. Blogs were like diaries - raw, emotional and real, with none of the self-conscious hedging that goes on now.
These days, even blogs from "the overshare gang" read like magazine copy.
Haughey is lamenting the de-humanizing effect of modern blog comments, where sincere questions and emotional disclosures are met with banality and scorn.
I think the culprit, beyond the well-documented effects of anonymity and the general pettiness of human beings, is the culture of snark that has come to dominate writing on the web.
"Snark" is actually a contraction of "snide" and "remark". These days, snark is a writing style, like the worst kind of celebrity journalism, wrapped in a faux-intimate first-person style.
A snarky writer is the ultimate outsider. He's outside of everything, poking fun at the elites, tearing down institutions with insults and dry humor. That's all well and good when you're an underpaid assistant poking fun at editors from Condé Nast.
But somewhere along the line we stopped using snark on the people who "deserved it" and started snarking at normal people. In fact, with the advent of email and open comment sections, many bloggers have discovered that the line between celebrities who are worthy of scorn and normal people who are just doing their jobs is a very thin line indeed.
(. . .) Snark is fun to write and fun to read, unless you're on the receiving end. It's fun to sit in the cheap seats and throw tomatoes at the stage, but what happens when you read an article or get an insider email and are suddenly forced to see your target as a real human being?
(. . .) What about the army of normal people who share their thoughts and feelings on public blogs - where every confession, every lament and every honest question becomes a straight line for strangers to pounce on?
I don't know the answer. I don't know if we can get back to a "simpler time." I was on the Internet at the same time Matt Haughey was and I'm not sure this golden age even exists.
I remember mocking people and being the target of cruel jokes back in the days when blogs were called bulletin boards and you had to dial in to them one at a time.
I don't think we can ever really un-snark the web, but we're definitely seeing a backlash. Writers like Choire Sicha and Jess Coen rebelled against the culture of snark established by Gawker and have tried to make blogging a kinder, if not entirely snark-free, enterprise
Yep!
I think it's okay to dream about castles. It's when people try to move into them that real problems begin. People are not snarkless in the real world. And I think some Canadians grow weary of their international reputation for being so polite that we wouldnt say shit even with a mouthful. We don't do outside cafes so much as they do in France, and we aren't great socializers in general like many Europeans are on vacation. What Canadians do is get on the internet and let our alter egos loose in this way. Hi, I'm Fidel.
Yes it is. We can't go back to the innocence of yore but as individuals we are the web. It becomes what we make of it. There's poking fun, and there's bullying. We are adults, we know the difference.
Thanks for posting this, Martin. It definitely struck a chord with me.
One geeky correction to the post though - "bulletin boards" were never "blogs", even in the "old days". Blogs are completely different from bulletin boards and always were - because there still are bulletin boards. The successor to the old dial-in BBSes of yore are what we're currently on now - discussion forums like this one.
Participation at Babble, B n R and En Masse appear to me to be down. I read somewhere the either day that online discussion groups appear to have peaked and are on the decline. I can't remember the source. Everytime someone who posts predominantly at B n R or EnMasse posts here I get a glimpse of what this place must have been before the Great Schism and hope for what it can be in the future.
Some of us prefer to hang out with the chopped liver crowd here. That, and the ongoing concern about spreading myself too thin probably accounts for the reason why i've never visited the offshoots. ;)
I've never liked blogs - too much like opinion columns in the newspapers, which I hardly bothered to read, either. And, I don't get where people find the time to write blogs daily, unless that's their paid occupation. The one columnist I bother to read in the Star has a long list of blogs beside her column - I'd never have the patience to read through even just a few of them. I don't think babble or BnR resemble blogs at all - these are more interactive forums it seems to me.
True enough. The time we spend before these screens... But sometimes, I feel it is really worth it (especially when we move out of snark mode for heartfelt exchanges or controversies)... Yet, I have difficulty justifying this daily activity to friends and end up describing it with a sheepish grin as somewhat of an addiction...
Participation at Babble, B n R and En Masse appear to me to be down. .... Everytime someone who posts predominantly at B n R or EnMasse posts here I get a glimpse of what this place must have been before the Great Schism and hope for what it can be in the future.
good one: the Great Schism...
btw, noticed skdadl around again,
good to have someone here who has always read the books we talk about
Would we all agree that it's not specifically that snark is killing babble, but that other people's snark is killing babble?
Even in the early days of Usenet, when the 'alt.' newsgroups were all the rage, there was 'alt.fan.warlord', a comics newsgroup which was appropriated and used exclusively to mock other people's sig's. Admittedly, they usually only went after the really big ugly ASCII picture sigs, but still, it's only purpose to was point and laugh.
I don't think the behaviour is new; I just think the technology continues to make it easier for us to react immediately with whatever we're feeling at that moment.
I think one of the problems on babble which raises the tension is snarky comments clearly directed at certain people but at no one in particular. The Gary Doer oilsands threads were a big example of that, with comments like:
"And anyone who tries to lay blame for Alberta's pollution export economy squarely on the shoulders of the NDP should not be taken seriously." (strawman)
"Another thread one just has to love, just as one loves a snipey great aunt/uncle that smells funny and grabs your cheek. They have the best intentions, but are basically out to lunch." (calling posters out to lunch)
"See...such greataunt and uncle propaganda always works, it is tried and true. Thus people use it over and over again because they want either a Con or Liberal government I guess.
Nothing like those who want status quo to get a good laugh from." (accusing people of being Liberals or Conservatives, basically saying that the posters in this thread just want the status quo)
"I got my pop corn already for more news, on how dastardly the federal NDP and Layton are, because of Doer....it'll be like watching a game of twister, where several people always end up with their noses up someone else's ass." (nose up ass)
"Oh just ignore them, remind. They've got chips on their shoulders and former politicians who had nothing to do with pawning off the environment to private enterprisers to pelt with eggs. We'd best stand out of the way of the crazed villagers, because they mean business. Big business." (strawman, general attack on everyone)
"I see it more, remind, as coming from and being applauded by frustrated folks who are devoid of ideas for corrective action." (accusing others of being devoid of ideas)
...and so on.
These comments do nothing but raise the tension. People who posted in the thread think "is this one for me?" and feel like they are under attack. The comments then raise the tension to the point where a factional war breaks out based on who is on which side of the issue, or based on knowing each other's online personalities (On rabble, it is generally the left faction vs. the NDP faction)
Maybe, if we're going to criticize other babblers, we should at least have the courtesy to quote them or name them. But, I guess once you name people, you cross the rubicon from being passive aggressive to plain old aggressive.
Having avoided the NDP related threads recently, I now see that with all the fun going on there, it's time to return.
So, you feel outright aggression is better than what you call passive aggression, eh.
I see it more as indicating the passive aggression at work in the first place.
But of course, it's only the "fun" of watching other "progressives" being embarrassed or hurt, not the fun of watching the enemy being rightly blamed for, ie. the Tar Patch travesty. Kinda not funny, unless you are given over to that kind of humour. Kinda snarky.
remind: So, you feel outright aggression is better than what you call passive aggression, eh.
I tend to agree with genstrike here. I find unfocussed accusations more damaging and harder to wind down. If the understanding was that one should name the people we disagree with, there would be less agressivity for effect and more care to quote people accurately and press for a reduction of misunderstandings and, hopefully, a bridging of differences. The blunderbuss approach is sloppier and, in the end, less respectful and effective than direct challenges. Everybody ends up with (mostly undeserved) egg on their face.
It's not a matter of "disagreement", martin, it's "some people" relishing in repeating, over and over, the failure of individuals within a political party, knowing full well how much it's going to be appreciated by people - many of them hardworking adherents of that party - on the receiving end.
I repeat, that the guilty parties know the effect it will have, and must be really at a loss - after the umpteenth enumeration of the failure - to come up with some productive political ideas. But, then, perhaps you did not bother to read the examples of what can be done, OUT THERE in the real world, to bring such things to the attention of the Great Misled? Rather than playing with fellow babblers in this fashion?
Fair enough, next time I will just call people outright concern trolls.
If the understanding was that one should name the people we disagree with, there would be less agressivity for effect and more care to quote people accurately and press for a reduction of misunderstandings and, hopefully, a bridging of differences.
This has absolutely nothing to do with "disagreeing" with babblers. Did you not read genstrike's selection of morsels? This is about attacking individuals here, questioning their motives, attributing motives to them - why? Because they dare to attack public political figures. In other words, some people here consider that an attack on Gary Doer or Jack Layton or the Dalai Lama merits an attack on the babbler - and usually the basest form of attack, insinuating that they are secret partisans of some other party, or disconnected elitists, or white male chauvinists, or pick your poison.
You think the solution is to name the object of such smears? As if it is not blatantly obvious whom they are directed against in each and every single case??
The solution is to stop attacking each other - period. If someone doesn't like an attack on Gary Doer, do what Fidel does - which is to defend Gary Doer. I know it's hard, but try.
What in blue blazes is a concern troll?
Wikipedia on concern trolls (point 3)
A concern troll is someone who pretends to be largely on the same side as the community but has specific "concerns" on which he feels the community needs to hear his constructive (of course!) criticism. In truth, the troll's intentions aren't really benign. So when Tom Flanagan offers advice to the Liberal party that Liberals should probably ignore, you can say that Flanagan is "concern trolling" the Liberals.
ETA: A well known example in American punditry is columnist Richard Cohen who is known in some circles as America's Concern Troll. He's reputed to be a liberal but all he ever does is criticize liberals, generally using talking points that could have been written by the GOP.
Still, it's trial of intent we are talking about, which is why I support not calling trolls when we suspect them - although I lapse, sometimes, I know....
Perhaps it's people who seem to have a particular concern, to the point that they can't help raising it, ad infinitum, perhaps forgetting that they did the same theme last week, and the week before, and each time, it hurts, and those it hurts, can't really deny it, just squirm. And they have nowhere else to turn, but to be active people (not just armchair types), they have to go out and engage in political activities under the banner of the guilty.
Or maybe remind doesn't mean that.
You think the solution is to name the object of such smears? As if it is not blatantly obvious whom they are directed against in each and every single case??
I actually think martin was pretty close to what I was saying, although I'm not sure "disagreement" is always the right word for what is going on.
I don't think that naming each other directly is necessarily the solution, but I think that makes it easier to deal with the problem. I think in some respects, it's a little harder to attack someone directly rather than in a passive-aggressive indirect way, so that might reduce the number of smears and increase the actual debate, quoting each other, and addressing each other's substantive points instead of just posting the equivalent of "Some people (hint hint) are (insert insult here)". People might think a little more if they're posting directly. Second, it's a lot easier to deal with things, both personally and from the standpoint of moderation, when they're up front and in the open instead of having people passive-aggressively talking by each other, which has pretty much the same negative effect and I would say is even a little worse because it isn't clear so all participants are left wondering if it was meant for them.
Can we at least have enough respect for each other to be up front about things?
This has absolutely nothing to do with "disagreeing" with babblers. Did you not read genstrike's selection of morsels? This is about attacking individuals here, questioning their motives, attributing motives to them - why? Because they dare to attack public political figures. In other words, some people here consider that an attack on Gary Doer or Jack Layton or the Dalai Lama merits an attack on the babbler - and usually the basest form of attack, insinuating that they are secret partisans of some other party, or disconnected elitists, or white male chauvinists, or pick your poison.
You think the solution is to name the object of such smears? As if it is not blatantly obvious whom they are directed against in each and every single case??
The solution is to stop attacking each other - period. If someone doesn't like an attack on Gary Doer, do what Fidel does - which is to defend Gary Doer. I know it's hard, but try.
Thank-you. This is exactly right. There is absolutely NO babble rule or even convention against criticizing public political figures on their public actions, and that includes NDP politicians.
And no, it will not be okay to call people "concern trolls" for doing so.
Okay. I hope the anything goes rule, even with innuendo involved, applies to public institutions generally, not just "public political figures on their public actions."
I'll always remember Justice Gale of the Ontario Supreme Court telling a few junior news reporters that one was generally safer in a libel action if innuendo was not involved. I suppose here, that would mean to expect certain actions to be repeated...endlessly.
and the week before, and the week before that, all making a big deal, really out of not so much, over and over and over and over and over again...when there are really big deals tha need actioning, like the support of the NDP's environment Bill, that the Cons and Libs just conspired to ditch, after the Liberals have voted for it 3 times.
But oh no, attention was focused on a former NDP Premier, who is just another typical self serving white male politician, doing whatever benefits himself, just as we all have noted he has done throughout his career. Instead of focusing upon actioning something that needed actioning, which I have been speaking about at length here for weeks, only to have some of the same 'concern' people direct away to some other "bad thing" the NDP are alleged to have done.
It is a focusing upon some, for the most part, mythical negative, instead of working on positive initiatives that are occuring, but are being obscured by the concerned folks over and over and over again.
People got the Liberals and Cons to back down on having their internet privacy violated, but we are supposed to believe they/we can't get them to back down on destroying the environment.
Positive actions are being obscured by negative concerning, and by the advocation of doing nothing, because after all what can you change...while evidence and very now evidence indeed, suggests otherwise.
The discontinuity inherent in that is amazing.
"The web", and "snark" on "the web" has been around for a long long time, and if anything the situation has actually improved since the early days when there were no "rules" around to even attempt to address proper conduct on the intertubes ... or "news groups", BBS's and "compuserve forums" that lead up to what we now consider forums and blogs.
True, but it can still be improved if we want to foster a sense of community and common projects. I have no solution to the fact that some people insist on holding the NDP - or other progressive institutions - accountable - even if it irks those who feel it is doing fine, or enough, or the best it can in the circumstances or in the end. It is not just individuals either: some collective decisions are clearly at stake.
The rhetoric does get tiresome though, which is why I would encourage reeling in the snark factor a little and stating objections otherwise than in "Eliminate With Prejudice" or "Arrrgh, another Personal Attack!" mode.
Rick Salutin attempted to analyse the phenom the other day as it applied to Obama: " The left's nuttiness, which intrigues me more due to my own inclinations, is better focused; it's about being seduced and abandoned." But, just as Salutin pointed out, regarding Obama, the president, "You don't get there as a leftist or socialist. If those are your goals...you don't win."
And one might point out that the individuals involved in the party, appealing to different electorates in a variety of constituencies - best they can without the aid of the MSM - facing different situations, but always, with the betterment of the marginalized in mind, the tradition made popular by J.S.Woodsworth and furthered by Tommy Douglas, and always demanding the corporate world pay its dues. And hoping the Great Misled do not succumb to the propaganda of the bosses and vote against their own best interests. The Doers, these days, never promise you the rose garden. But it would be wonderful if they managed to resist the sellouts to a rapacious, soulless conservatism that is ready to sell out the kids.
But you must carry on, hopefully, with the help of your friends in the community in which you describe your hopes and fears.
Ah! It's turned into another of those threads. I think that the relentlessly unapologetic NDP'ers of us are just going to have to endure the criticisms of our party here on babble. That's fine, because as we know, it's a good party and has already stood the test of time. The NDP will continue to fight for Canadians and the environment no matter what anybody says about them from the most obtuse angles of attack. We don't need to defend Gary Doer - he's not even an NDPer anymore. His political record on the environment speaks for itself. He's actually said very little about defending the tar sands and more about balancing energy supplies with increased renewable sources and efficiency. He's still on about efficiency, which as Gary says and everyone knows is the first step to a greener economy. And Canada has a long way to go to curbing its 2 percent of total global emissions. It is the USA next door that needs to make great strides toward efficiency and conservation. And our laissez-faire politicos in power are just not interested in writing made-in-Canada national energy policy. As Linda McQuaig said about our two old line parties, their impotence in all ecnomic decision making is not the real kind. The laissez-faire impotence of today is the self-imposed variety. And wrt the environment, the NDP says we need to renegotiate NAFTA and get rid of the very anti-Canadian proportionality clause among other things defined in that trade law that are so unfriendly to all of the environment as well as Canadian workers.
So let's allow criticism of our party on babble - the NDP can handle it. It's not to say we can't watch for lazy comments about the NDP which might be egregious errors of fact. It's against babble rules to post false information if we can show that is false. And we can report that to moderators. The other stuff is just fluff and speculation, and mostly spin about the NDP. And there isnt much we can do about that. Put them on ignore if we have to, but try not to centre people out by name, and be careful not to post driveby slurs aimed in their general direction. That's not nice either. If we only respond to the high-minded comments, it might help to prod discussion about the NDP to a higher level.
Well, that clears the air to a large extent regarding party politik discussions and permissible atmoshphere for digression. Although I've tried to be as mindful as I could of the anguish that sometimes arises when offering criticism of the NDP, being saddened by the hurt caused during the exchanges is quite often an unavoidable result.
I am sure you have been mindful, being saddened not so much, not avoidable, is laughable.
Avoidable of course through silencing of dissent.
Well if we know anything, remind, it's that there are a number of babblers who prefer to talk about the NDP than make so much as a mention of the other parties. I guess those other parties aren't worth discussing. We NDP'ers should see their constant focus of attention on the NDP as a compliment more than anything, really. It's an exciting party attracting a lot of attention.
Yeah, like Iran, North Korea, Islam...
See what I mean? It's like the cold war era rhetoric will never flame out as long as the NDP threaten to spoil things for the stoogeocracy.
martin:
"Yeah, like Iran, North Korea, Islam..."
Is snark killing babble, Martin? Assholes, more than snark, I'd say. Jesus you are devious. Or was that your alter ego that posed the question for this thread?
George, I think you took martin wrong...I took it to mean he was indicating false demoniization, as the center of all the worlds ills, like the countries and religion he mentions are, when clearly they are not, but I stand to be corrected, of course.
If I have taken him wrong, I will apologize, remind. But I believe it is a prime example of snark. And I've had it with trying to express the pain I feel. Expressions of hurt only seem to excite. To hell with it.
On second thought, I think martin was only joking. Good sense of humour, martin. Had us there for a minute.
If you're stumped for a name or acronymn for this watch committee being contemplated, I may have a few suggestions in mind.
Well, George I am not sure, of course, as he could have meant otherwise.
Take heart, and do not be too hurt, at least you are not being called names for holding your position on something as you see it, as you have a right under the Charter to do.
There is a lot of snark and passive aggressiveness in this thread. Actually, having read through it, I now have a new found respect for Doer. Sure, he is a traitor and he's now a conservative, but read again Fidel:
He has managed to refocus the debate from a wholly destructive dirty oil project to one about renewables and efficiency even while 100s of millions of dollars, almost two billion in a few weeks (read about it here), is diverted from renewables and "energy efficiency" to the tar sands and the lie of carbon capture. Good for Doer. He's putting his political lessons to good use on behalf of the Cons and the oil patch.
Oh, and by the way, the first step to a greener economy is leaving the oil and coal in the ground. Energy efficiency, as has been pointed out time and time again by people much smarter than we folk, only leads to more energy use unless the cost of the energy increases.
Folks, I think I'm going to close this. The thread seems to have degenerated (as many have lately) into "he said this to me" and "she said that to me" type posts, and I just don't see anything useful that can come of this beyond bad feeling all around.