Libertarian Librarian

This is about basketball, right? It's hard for me to imagine caring this much, but there are things that I'm passionate about, too, so I guess I need to try substituting basketball in my thoughts about family, sex, rock and roll, etc. Then maybe I'll get it. [In response to my string of posts regarding March Madness]

Much to do about nothing much. [In response to my contention that Sandy Berger destroying classified documents and then lying about it was a big deal]

All seen through the deeply colored lenses of your favorite glasses? The very act of observing something, changes it, right? I would submit that you cannot truly see bias, because you see it only from your point of view. [In response to my post on bias in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel]

When does the soul leave the body? [In response to my post about Mae Magouirk]

Now I should add that Jack kicked in some interesting, and detailed, thoughts on the heaven/TMNT thread and the Hitchhiker's movie thread, although the latter of those is a bit snarky, too, in my opinion. 'Course, maybe I'm wearing my overly-sensitive glasses.

At any rate, I bring this up not so much to be pissy with Jack, but rather to mention that I'm not sure what purpose snarkiness serves. The comments annoyed me quite a bit, initially-- particularly the one about Sandy Berger-- and while I think perhaps the snarkiness was meant to push my buttons to the degree of getting me to rant some more, I don't think they were intended to actually offend me. Though, initially, they did. I mulled them over in my head, and knowing Jack as I do, decided that he was just trying to push my buttons, and maybe even help me, in an odd sort of way, to formalize my own thinking and conclusions on these matters. But it was probably good that I did not respond immediately to any of the comments, as my response would likely have been just as snarky, and quite probably either defensive or mean spirited. Perhaps both.

It's easy to be snarky. To be on the sidelines, picking and snipping and focusing on this bit or that bit. I do it all the time, I must admit. Snarking often makes the snark seem clever (Ah, excellent riposte, 'ole man), they don't take much effort (all four snarks highlighted above amount to one average length paragraph), and they generally allow the snark to assume the moral high ground. Whichever party is not in power at a given time in U.S. history is likely to be chock full of snarks-- because it's easier to snark away from the edges of power than it is to have substantive debates about important issues. And, of course, some people just love to snark no matter what, so there are plenty of people on the other side of any issue ready and willing to be snarks-- myself included.

At any rate, here at Libertarian Librarian, let's try to rise above snarkiness. By this I don't mean that no one line responses are allowed, or no irony, satire or sarcasm will be allowed. Rather, that there be a bit more substance behind those things. Snarkiness is not a be all and end all itself. Dialogue, remember? Hard to have a dialogue with a snark-- he's too busy being snarky to really engage himself in the conversation. And knowing Jack, indeed, knowing nearly everybody that's reading this stuff, I'd much rather have an intelligent, well-reasoned, even passionate, argument or debate with him, or any of you, than I would a snarkathon.

Who knows, could be contagious. Pretty soon, the snark could be on the endangered species list. That'd be nice, don't ya think?

Labels: Moderation

Posted by: Nick W. / 2:43 PM