One of my pet peeves is this whole “snarky” thing. 

I often see people excuse away their unprofessional on-line behavior by saying “Well, I was just being snarky.”

Since when is it acceptable to be rude, sarcastic and dismissive to other well-meaning, professional people?   We probably wouldn’t act that way in a face-to-face interaction but somehow in the bizarro world of the social web, it’s OK as long as you call it snarky.  Inexplicably, it’s usually the more experienced bloggers who hide behind this position, and seem to be proud of it.  They wallow in their snark. 

Gratefully, {grow} has usually been a snark-free zone.  The folks in this community take accountability for their thoughts and words and don’t hide behind euphemisms.  Thank you. 

As for those who mask cynicism and cruelty behind snark, grow up.  Be accountable.  Be a leader.  Set an example.

Whew. That felt good. : )

Addendum: The day after I wrote this post, I saw this quote from American entertainer Conan O’Brien, commenting on his emotional exit from the Tonight Show: ”I hate cynicism.  It’s my least favorite quality and it doesn’t lead anywhere. Nobody in life gets exactly what they thought they were going to get. But if you work really hard and you’re kind, amazing things will happen.”

27 Comments

• 

  By Steve Dodd, January 21, 2010 @ 10:26 pm

  Hear! Hear!
  something that needed to be said……
  Thanks Mark.
• 

  By Marc Winitz, January 21, 2010 @ 10:29 pm

  At the risk of sounding “out of touch” which definition are you referring to (from urban dictionary)?

  http://bit.ly/KaahU
• 

  By Kimmo Linkama, January 22, 2010 @ 2:34 am

  Although I haven’t personally had to deal with “snarks” in my blog comments or Twitter, I’m familiar with the problem. I’ve moderated a couple of special-interest forums and it’s unbelievable how many inappropriate or downright libelous posts needed to be removed daily.

  I have a couple of suggestions for snarky people: 1) don’t use the web for therapy, 2) only press Enter when sober.
• 

  By Joseph Fiore, January 22, 2010 @ 7:56 am

  Agreed – snark is never in vogue. And by all accounts, it’s jumped the snark ;)

  Joseph
  @RepuTrack
• 

  By Mark, January 22, 2010 @ 7:58 am

  @Kimmo — You’ve provided much better advice than me!
• 

  By Diane Meyer, January 22, 2010 @ 8:34 am

  Yes…have seen a little snark myself and have wondered why a professional would do this. I guess they don’t understand “branding”. Some are even a bit snarky about their own clients. Although they don’t name them, it reduces their worth and brands them as rude, gruff, and impertinent. One of my followers retweeted a tweet of mine and I thanked them. They respnded back and said I did not need to thank them and in fact it was impolite to thank for a retweet. Was that “snarky”? ~ or ~ correct? I just find it hard to believe thanking someone is rude so I’m leaning toward “snarky”.
• 

  By Andrew Swenson, January 22, 2010 @ 8:44 am

  When it comes to snark, I think there is a difference in where it’s leveled.

  Personal attacks are never okay.

  But allow me to make a short case for “professional snark.”

  It’s my opinion that a biting remark about someone’s argument, if it’s founded in reason and backed up by it’s own argumentation, can be an effective rhetorical device (I’m channeling Jon Stewart here, although I will admit that sometimes his work descends into personal attack).

  Take for example the academic community. In many disciplines, if you get two scholars in the same room with opposing viewpoints, they’ll attack each other with reckless abandon. But, in many cases, they’ll still go have a beer afterward.

  I think to avoid the web country club where we’re all too afraid to disagree, we need to have a bit of healthy (professional) snark built into our dealings.

  Thanks for writing Mark.

  -Andrew
• 

  By Mark, January 22, 2010 @ 9:02 am

  @diane It’s all about personal branding in the end.

  @Andrew Thanks so much for making this important distinction. Would this be a litmus test — if you are engaging in professional conversation and you have to explain that it is “snark” you probably should not have said it : )
• 

  By Jerri L. Yates, January 22, 2010 @ 9:28 am

  Excellent post. I see you online reflecting who you are in person, so your position doesn’t surprise me at all, the gentleman you are.

  The reverse also works in that I wouldn’t be terribly interested in working with some people in person based on their online “snarkiness” quotient.

  I recently received a post from an academic listserv where one prof replied to the conversation about an incredibly important issue solely by correcting the punctuation of another’s post. Another prof suggested the conversation about the issue stop because of the volume of email in his inbox. In both cases, respectful, but disagreeable responses were posted with no snark, to great effect.

  I also appreciate the John Stewart reference regarding the ability to deliver commentary from a non-neutral place (I’m a big fan), but I think that is a wholly different arena. He gets more than 100 or so characters to share his message, nuanced or not, and has the benefit of body language compared to a blog posting.

  As usual, thanks for the valuable post.
• 

  By Mark, January 22, 2010 @ 10:00 am

  @ Jerri Great examples. Also i think this points back to self-awareness and the power of the personal brand online. When I observe snark, I usually un-follow or drop the blog from my reader. Life is too short to be unkind.

  Now think of the possible effects on business, as you say. There’s nowhere to hide on the social web. People rapidly sniff out the fakes and snarks.
• 

  By Jayme Soulati, January 22, 2010 @ 1:32 pm

  Tweeted on the meaning of that 6 months ago; it appears to now have wings. Look at Conan; he is the epitome of snark, and people like that. Can’t stand the word. Like it’s acceptable to have no manners, which everyone is seeing/feeling these days.
• 

  By mose, January 22, 2010 @ 1:40 pm

  Again some very violent agreements here.

  My take …

  Snark is cool and OK if it works. Most doesn’t cause we all think we are funny – but funny is in the eye of the beholder. So if ya wanna try bein an online comic – knock yourself out.

  Ebert for example has been dangerously close to me dropping him on twitter – not that he cares, but as an example. (I am not even sure it is Ebert) Whomever it is I do love some of the stuff so would give him a pass occasionally – but lots of snark there! So it is simply a natural selection thing.

  The issue we have is – if you look at comments on any Blog or Facebook – a lot of folks turn the original post to a personal attempt for illumination. (That is a nice way of saying they are so freakin needy and they really, really, really NEED the attention.)

  The easiest crap to write is quips. Twitter is nuthin but quips. Shows a lot about folks.

  1 – Everyone thinks they should be Letterman or a writer for SNL. Please stop! just be you. We love you as you are. Unless you are Larry David, then we hate you! (See? me tryin to be funny – shitty if you LOVE Larry David. Marginal especially if you have no clue who he is!)

  2 – We are writing in isolation. Like road rage and a lot of times anonymous. In a face-to-face setting we would never act this way. Well, you could try but a pop in the nose may follow.

  3 – ad-hominem attacks have always been a no no. But as the Net has exploded – no one reads the EFF netiquette. Hell, no one knows about the EFF.

  In every News Group and on every BBS there was a netiquette post. Lurk, do not self promote, no ad-hominem. If that was the case Twitter would be empty currently.

  Oh, by the way I am having a bagel and a Chai tea at Lexington & Bushywetway (4square)

  How is that for snark!

  One thing I do notice is the ecomomy has not helped. I have not read much from an anthropological standpoint on this – anyone? bad times = more snark? Or a corollary to that?
• 

  By Sheldon, January 22, 2010 @ 3:03 pm

  Guilty! *points at self*.

  All the other high-and-mighty, pure-and-articulate positions were taken. Snarky is all I have to work with.
• 

  By Mark, January 22, 2010 @ 4:13 pm

  @mose I love it when the length of a comment exceeds the blog post. Shows i got ya thinking.

  I guess I segregate snark from humor. When I see “snark” being used in comments is a comment targeted at a person. Some of the examples by you and others could be of the stand-up humor or even the editorial variety. I just hate it when people are unnecessarily mean-spirited. You’re right the Nettiquette is long gone.
• 

  By Mark, January 22, 2010 @ 4:14 pm

  @Sheldon That’s Ok. We still love you man. We accept the tired, the poor, and those yearning to be snarky.
• 

  By Jim LeBlanc, January 22, 2010 @ 4:16 pm

  Still waiting for somebody to be snarky. Come on Sheldon. Do it! Do it!
• 

  By Sheldon, January 22, 2010 @ 4:40 pm

  I shall resist the temptation. I direct my brand of “snarkasim” at those who deserve it. Mark is not one of those.
• 

  By mose, January 22, 2010 @ 4:41 pm

  Red Rover, Red Rover let Sheldon come over!

  Hit it Snark-Boy!!!
• 

  By Mark, January 22, 2010 @ 5:03 pm

  OK, Sheldon, direct it at Mose then. Everybody knows he’s an ass and can benefit from a good swift snark right in the patootie. You get a snarky free pass for the day.
• 

  By Shelly Kramer, January 22, 2010 @ 6:28 pm

  Marky-Mark,

  I’m a snarky kinda gal and also have just about the biggest, sappiest heart on the planet. I’m with Mark Wintz and his urban definition of “snarky.” It’s a skill. It is wit, combined with sarcasm (usually directed at self, in my case) and silliness and irony.

  There are mean and arrogant and nasty people everywhere. You might call that snark but, to me, that’s just mean, arrogant and nasty people being themselves. In fact, in my experience, those people have no idea the talent that’s involved in being truly snarky. When done well (and correctly) it’s a true art form.

  There you have it – my take. Snark is not nastiness – nastiness is nastiness. Snark is wit mixed with a whole lot of other cool stuff and mostly makes people laugh. Snark is something to aspire to, practice and hold in high regard.

  And the hell with those mean and nasty people.

  Your friend in smartassity,

  @shellykramer
• 

  By Mark, January 23, 2010 @ 10:03 am

  Wow. My first friend in smartassity. That is so cool!

  I think part of the problem here is I am so damn un-hip, hence my narrow definition of snark. I only see the term used in the mean-spirited, social media variety. I have almost no exposure to popular TV culture except sports. I need to get out more. Perhaps I should start reading People magazine or something to get my cool on. : )
• 

  By Shelly Kramer, January 23, 2010 @ 11:35 am

  Yup – go get your cool on, dude. Snark is good. Dayam good.
• 

  By mose, January 23, 2010 @ 9:34 pm

  Quote – direct it at Mose then. Everybody knows he’s an ass …

  I will have you know there is a couple outside of Kingston NY that do not know that … yet!

  Shelly how is that for Saturday night snark! (And anyone replies on Sat night confirms the Geek coefficient!)
• 

  By Mark, January 23, 2010 @ 11:28 pm

  It’s Saturday night but everybody is sleeping. Does this still count as being a geek?

  P.S. I called the couple in Kingston. Yeah, they agree with me, too.

  Piece of trivia: My ancestors were the first Dutch settlers of Kingston, NY. So put that in your pipe and smoke it Mose.
• 

  By Andrew Swenson, January 23, 2010 @ 11:33 pm

  Okay, all this talk about Kingston has compelled me to say that I once lived there, and am presently missing Deisings Bakery and Kyoto Sushi.

  This of course, has nothing to do with anything.
• 

  By Mark, January 24, 2010 @ 10:53 am

  @Andrew This has turned into the Jerry Seinfeld of blog posts. : )

  I aim to go to Kingston some day and look up some of my ancestral places. My great x 7 grandfather founded the colony, which was burned to the ground and all the people captured by Indians. He eventually negotiated their safe release but by then it was wintertime and many people starved. I will definitely check out the food digs you mention and eat sushi as I learn about his heroics.
• 

  By mose, January 25, 2010 @ 12:30 am

  Wow I guess I nailed it with the Kingston comment. Hmmmmmm psychic I tell ya!

  It must be cool to have a family tree that doesn’t fork!

  And Mark – sleeping does not count!

Other Links to this Post

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a comment