| 24 comments ]

That seems to be the question – at least over at BCC.

I’m hesitant to add my two-cents to a post that has already been Snarked, but some things were said in the BCC comments that cried out to be snarked upon.

The basic questions posed by Ronan are:

Can snark ever be civil? Should the ‘nacle support Snarkey? Was the Mormon Archipelago right to boot them? Should the curtain be pulled back?
These questions suggest an air of arrogant supremacy (speaking of 'nacle bigwigs generally, not Ronan specifically) in all things Bloggernacle related. It assumes the ability of the ‘nacle bigwigs of BCC, T&S, M*, et al to curtail "support" for the Snarker in addition to the capability of said entities and/or individuals to expose those of us associated with Snarking. I submit that if such exposure were possible, it would already have taken place. The frustration of ‘nacle bigwigs in this effort must be maddening.

As for civility – there are those among us in the ‘nacle who will take offense if any contrarian views or comedic fun are had at their expense. They believe they have a God given right to express their views – however warped or misguided they may be – in a public forum for all to see, hear, read, and enjoy.

You know what? To do so is their right and they have the ability to pontificate to the limit allowed by the collective bandwidth available to them. That said, my ability to poke holes in ever-expanding egos is governed under the same tenets under which the ‘nacle bigwigs post their thoughts.

There is an ever raging debate about what exactly is Snarkworthy. The Snarker/Snarkette and I have, at times, disagreed on this standard. Most of the time, I don’t snark people relating their personal trials and tribulations – unless they happen to be related in a manner which causes me to spew my morning Diet Coke on my computer monitor because the story is so frigging hilarious. Yes, Tracy M., I’m talking about you. I try, and often fail, to keep away from snarking the FHM’ers more than once a week. Believe me, this takes a discipline which I have not yet entirely mastered.

Basically, if you’re going to take pot-shots at the Brethren, claim that your personal opinion is more valid than established Doctrine, or trumpet the Sunstoned Symposium over General Conference – and I have the time, energy, and disposition to do so – you’re going to get snarked. Sometimes I’ll take a comedic course, other times I’ll just point out what I find to be ludicrous.

What will most likely drive the ‘nacle bigwigs even further nuts is the fact that I don’t need or require ‘nacle support to participate in this blog. Read if you like. Comment if you feel so inclined. Either way, my ego is secure. Sorry to disappoint, Kaimi.

For the record, I do not know the Snarker/Snarkette. Neither Dazzle nor I have ever met or spoken with any other member of the Snarker Team. If the ‘nacle bigwigs desire to "expose" me, I invite them to take their best shot.

So, to answer Ronan’s question – yes, the fact that no one is forced to read the Snarker is relevant. Far more relevant, however, is fact that his ability, and the ability of other ‘nacle bigwigs, to control what is Snarked is, in fact, non-existent.

That’s the way the ‘nacle turns.

24 comments

Anonymous said... @ May 20, 2006 at 4:49 PM

So dark the con of Snark

P.S. Find Nate Oman

Anonymous said... @ May 20, 2006 at 7:14 PM

so what's your point? are people threatening to imprison you guyz or something? I don't see how people saying 'hey I am offended by what you said about me' is crossing some line. I really don't know what you're arguing against; yes, everyone is free to write and read what they wish. But you sound awfully defensive about how people respond to what you guyz write.

Anonymous said... @ May 20, 2006 at 7:18 PM

"They believe they have a God given right to express their views – however warped or misguided they may be – in a public forum for all to see, hear, read, and enjoy.

You know what? To do so is their right and they have the ability to pontificate to the limit allowed by the collective bandwidth available to them"

So you are one of these people you complain about??? In the words of Bill O'Reilly, you're spinning. Making this appear as if it's an exercise in internet free speech, when really it's about you guyz not liking what people are saying about you.

Anonymous said... @ May 20, 2006 at 8:20 PM

That thread at BCC clarified a few things for me.

On a day when everybody is peeing their pants because Snarkette called somebody at T&S a 'tard, fmhLisa is telling one her commenters that his opinion is, to use her charming vocabulary, "bullshit".

Hell will freeze over before anyone says a single word to her, after all, she's a 'naccle pet. The same people who claim to dislike you because you are mean and say hurtful things probably don't even notice it when they do it themselves.

The hypocrisy turns my stomach.

Anonymous said... @ May 20, 2006 at 8:27 PM

Well, there are those of us who feel the Snarker is justified and logical. Imagine how the average Mo and non-Mo must perceive the 'nacle. It's exactly what Shizzle said, "take pot-shots at the Brethren, claim that your personal opinion is more valid than established Doctrine, or trumpet the Sunstoned Symposium over General Conference".
If you have a problem with someone disagreeing, then keep your mouth closed. The sad truth is that not everyone will agree with you all of the time.
The fact that a few names are well known throughout the 'nacle does not mean that those fine few are always right.
There are more than two sides to every story, your side, my side, and the actual story. I, for one, would prefer not to be guided in my decision to like or dislike the Snarker. And if you try to do so (Should the ‘nacle support Snarkey?) then my sympathy will lean every so slightly more towards the SNARK.

D. Golden Shizzle said... @ May 20, 2006 at 9:45 PM

Anonymous #2 - My point - which you seem to have missed altogether - is the fact that I don't really give a flying fig what the 'nacle big wigs thing about my snarks. I'll write them regardless of their state of offendedness. I'm not being defensive - just stating my point.

Most of thier offended comments center around the claim that I'm being "mean". Most of the time this is not true, but it gets them out of having to actually respond to the orginial snark.

As for FMHLisa's charming vocabulary, I'm not really sure how she can have an opinion as to what it written or discussed here on SnarkerNacle as she has repeatedly and vehemently denied ever visiting or otherwise perusing this blog.

Anonymous said... @ May 20, 2006 at 10:28 PM

"These questions suggest an air of arrogant supremacy in all things Bloggernacle related."

As a "big-wig", I can tell you that any arrogance was unintentional. It was just a way of framing a question in the abstract, of discussing the motivations and problems involved in snarking. I'm pretty sure that no one at BCC has any power over you -- or anyone else, for that matter. Snark on!

Anonymous said... @ May 20, 2006 at 11:01 PM

I'm starting to think that the Snarker is a member of an Area Presidency somewhere :-)

Anonymous said... @ May 21, 2006 at 4:43 AM

Kaimi is a law professor, isn't he? Nate as well? How can they be so thin skinned?

Anonymous said... @ May 21, 2006 at 6:11 AM

It's due to the insulating ivory towers of academia in which they now operate.

Anonymous said... @ May 21, 2006 at 7:13 AM

Why is everyone anonymous today?

Seth R.

Anonymous said... @ May 21, 2006 at 7:20 AM

D.,

It's good of you to be a team player with Kurt and his buddies, but I don't think it's you that people are complaining about.

Stephen said... @ May 21, 2006 at 7:30 AM

I think everyone is nervous. Myself, I'd like to treat the Snark as I would theatre, encourage the good, ignore the bad, contact them directly about the malicious.

Naiah Earhart said... @ May 21, 2006 at 8:27 AM

Stephen,
That's about how I look at it, too. Good analogy.

Anonymous said... @ May 21, 2006 at 10:34 AM

Who cares about this anymore? I certainly don't, except of course, to post this.

If something's funny here, it's funny--I'll read it. If it's mean, it's mean and I'll deplore it like 95% of the other decent people out there. And, I'm not even that decent.

Oh yes, mean people suck, but under the God-inspired constitution these guys here and over there and elsewhere have a right to write--whatever.

I might add, there are funnier Mormon writers--Robert Kirby beats anything here, anytime.

I agree with my cousin above--this snarking in defense of the brethren stuff starts sounding like some subcommittee of the correlation committee. Can you truly be a bad-ass snarker and hold anything sacred? Maybe the snarker is really Elder Packer?

Anonymous said... @ May 21, 2006 at 1:32 PM

"insulating ivory towers of academia"--anyone who has ever submitted an article to a peer review journal will know that academia does not insulate one from sharp, personal, and anonymous critique. Perhaps Nate and Kaimi are just too new to the game, but blind review can be a blood-sport that makes the snarkernacle pale by comparison.

Anonymous said... @ May 21, 2006 at 2:02 PM

Robert Kirby also gets a paycheck.

Not much of a paycheck, but it's something.

Seth R.

Steve EM said... @ May 21, 2006 at 3:11 PM

As someone who's been snarked plenty of times, I like this site. The T&S crowd’s reaction is free entertainment. They think they own the net and who can participate. For guys with no hormones, they sure have big ____s.

Anonymous said... @ May 21, 2006 at 5:39 PM

It has been my experience that Dazzle and Shizzle are consistently funnier and less mean spirited than Kurt. They prove that you can snark without being malicious. And no, I'm not one of them.

Ronan said... @ May 21, 2006 at 6:47 PM

If I'm a Big Wig, I can assure you that I'm the "token Scouser"* affirmative action hire.

Yes, the questions were preposterous really, but they were meant to stir sensible debate and I think they were successful. If SN holds up a funny-mirror to the nacle, then the nacle should occasionally do the same for SN. Keeps everyone honest.

Peace.

(*I am so not a Scouser, though. Nor a Brummie. Nor a Geordie. I'm a bloke from the shires. Or as the true Scousers would say, a "woolly-back".)

Anonymous said... @ May 22, 2006 at 1:08 AM

So, let me get this strait: the Snarker is protected under the 'God-inspired Constitution,' but Heather Oman isn't when she wants to say 'I cried today because the Snarker drove me to tears.' She should 'keep her mouth shut.' And if any non-members came around, would they really be concerned with pot-shots to the brethren (actually I think they'd be relieved we don't worship them), or would they be more concerned with a bloggernacle site that takes pot-shots at their fellow Mormons and frequently causes contention (regardless of motive, which may or may not be contentious).

Specifically to d. golden shnizzle: You said, "Most of thier offended comments center around the claim that I'm being "mean". Most of the time this is not true, but it gets them out of having to actually respond to the orginial snark.

So a blog that was set up to take down the ego driven bloggernacle takes it upon itself to say which claims of meanness are true or not?! Also, I think it's a little egotistical to assume that someone is so intimidated by the logic of the original snark that they think pretending to be offended is the only response available.

Anonymous #2

D. Golden Shizzle said... @ May 22, 2006 at 9:05 PM

Anon #2:

You don't take too much time to process what you read, do you?

I never stated the 'nacle bigwigs don't enjoy the same freedom of writing that I (or any other Snarker) enjoy. You missed the entire point.

As to the original purpose of the Snarker blog, I can't shed any light there as I came along later. What I can say is I participate here because I grow tired of the unchecked pseudo-intellecutal banter masquerading as mainstream LDS beliefs.

As for my claim that the offended do little more hide behind the claim of "mean-ness" rather than defend their snarked post - I really don't have to defend that claim - it's pretty obvious if you actually read their comments.

Am I egotistical in my belief that the Snarker blog adds a little bit of realistic sanity to the 'naccle? Perhaps.

Then again, perhaps I do it just to get a rise out of people like you - which I have thus far suceeded in doing.

Stephen said... @ May 23, 2006 at 5:52 AM

when she wants to say 'I cried today because the Snarker drove me to tears.' She should send the snarker an e-mail and he'll pull the post.

The real problem comes when a fight breaks out. As far as I can tell, the Snark pulls posts whenever anyone says "hey, that was out of bounds."

Whenever anyone picks a fight instead, a fight ensues.

I'll spare you the Texas wisdom on that, but I've tried to encourage people to take an approach that seems to work.

Of course what would I know? I've only published about thirty articles in that area and if I go to a conference, I never encounter more than five or six fans.

At most CLE I'm lucky to run into more than one or two (though I had to miss a session the last CLE I went to and a fan, who was presenting, was kind enough to give me all of his lecture notes).

I'm miffed with everyone this morning, feeling like I've given, and repeated, good advice that would let us encourage a humor site, which we need, that would be humane and fun, rather than feeding feuds, which people seem intent on nourishing.

Well, I've had my rant, so there.

Anon, do you really want fights or do you want to enjoy life? (I know, you think you want to win the fight, but that isn't going to happen. No one ever wins with a satirist).

What you feed, grows. Remember that.

Anonymous said... @ May 23, 2006 at 8:04 PM

Stephen-I appreciate your concern(?), but don't worry. I have no illusions of winning the debate with the satirist, on his own blog, no less. I actually enjoy a good, healthy debate, so for me it's not a choice between living a happy life and debating (I don't consider this a fight, more like point counter-point debate). I will say if Snarker is meant to poke fun, that's good; if the idea is to deflate egos, perhaps they should take your advice about not feeding T&S.

d golden-Yes, you are the puppet master; I am the puppet, and when you pull my strings I dance. LOL. To the extent you've gotten a rise out of me, like I say to Stephen, I enjoy this type of debate. We've both read and responded to each other's comments, nothing more, nothing less. And, for what it's worth, I actually enjoy many Snarker posts; I was debating a specific point, and only generalizing the Snarker in order to back up my point of view.

Anon 2

Post a Comment