I was actually using smarm in reference to you and what you support. The others, the ones you speak out against as the acidic shame of the forum, are the snarky fellows.

Quote

"Stand against snark, and you are standing with everything decent. And who doesn't want to be decent? The snarkers don't, it seems. Or at least they (let's be honest: we) don't want to be decent on those terms.

Over time, it has become clear that anti-negativity is a worldview of its own, a particular mode of thinking and argument, no matter how evasively or vapidly it chooses to express itself. For a guiding principle of 21st century literary criticism, BuzzFeed's Fitzgerald turned to the moral and intellectual teachings of Walt Disney, in the movie Bambi: "If you can't say something nice, don't say nothing at all." "

What is smarm, exactly? Smarm is a kind of performance—an assumption of the forms of seriousness, of virtue, of constructiveness, without the substance.

Here we have the major themes or attitudes of smarm: the scolding, the gestures at inclusiveness, the appeal to virtue and maturity. Eggers used to be a critic, but he has grown out of childish things. Eggers has done the work—the book publishing, the Hollywood deal-making—that makes his opinions (unlike those of his audience) earned and valid opinions.

etc.

But aside from clarifying the word usage that I think you missed, which isn't a bad thing since I did paste an article that is way too fucking long (but damn is it cute)....


In reference to your two statements provided to me, I don’t have an issue with either.
You and I are talking, and in a moment of criticism you state to me:
A. You’re a creative guy, but you PROBABLY aren’t very perceptive when it comes to people.
B. You’re a creative guy but you’re socially retarded
Right up front when comparing these I have no direct issue with either. Most of my friends speak to me like B, when we critique each other at all. If I were in the middle of a business interview where my work was being critiqued by a managing party in a formalized atmosphere then likely A would be said. I don’t exactly see why A, here, is an essential one in comparison to B. Or why B should be banned/silenced/censored/hated/whatever for their method of presentation. “So what if Snowden is telling the truth? Just look at the way he's telling it”. I think it likely comes down to a difference in preference between you and others.

I don’t mind playful insults, vulgarity, normal insults, or anything else in a presentation aside from the fact that the argument actually holds some weight on its own (ad hominems, as you said and I would agree, ALONE, don’t necessarily do much unless the insult itself is formed in a way that points to the behavior or action being critiqued – IE “you’re a pussy” if someone is acting like, well, a pussy). I don’t view that as ruining a forum, or as being negative to an atmosphere, especially when the atmosphere is in regards to a forum that circulates around a game where races hate each other, taunt each other, and beat the shit out of each other. I think, in a way, it’s a natural expansion from the type of game we have here. We get some really good discussion (reminiscent of RP) and tossing around insults that would make a sailor change his underwear.

HairyOrangutan COULD have said it differently. He could have also just said nothing. He also could have argued for the benefits of socialism. He could have also made a joke reference unrelated to the topic but plays to the humor of CF’ers. He COULD have done a lot of things. Same for you, me, etc. I guess what it comes down to is what we prefer. You would prefer he talk a certain way, he would prefer to talk a different way. And his statement, in and of itself, isn’t too bad – he’s making a valid statement if you read it through:
You stated in your response to Paul Ott that his response was “due to the demonization of my forum personality over the years but I'd expect an adult to see through that for a healthy debate. You need to relax”. Curious, isn’t it? You insinuated he wasn’t acting like an adult and told him to relax, and even said that you were “SURE” that his response wasn’t to you, but was to a demonized misconception of your forum persona. You make a lot of assumptions there as well as thinly veiled insults (strange, given it seems that’s what you want to fight, but I guess we can’t all be adults and not be huge lying faggots (see what I did there?) ). So, in response to your insults against Paul Ott (which weren’t called for in the least), HairyOrangutan addresses your statement and says that it isn’t a demonization of your forum persona, but rather Paul ott’s response is properly gauged based on how your ACTUAL forum personality or, even more so, where that comes from – your actual IRL personality.

So, again, it seems strange to me. You state that he COULD have just said “'I don't think it's demonization of your forum name, but maybe how people perceive you really are behind it.” And instead, as you put it, “thought it more productive to insinuate I'm a terrible person in real life” right after you insinuated that Paul Ott wasn’t an adult and needs to relax. Maybe I’m just a socially retarded half-bat-half –man, but something seems fishy to me there (and I don’t like seafood).

Ps R U CALLING ME A TROLL?

Anyway, I think you’re entirely off-base here in terms of your double-think responses to Ott, others, and then your attempted criticisms of those who do insult you, OR WORSE – ACTUALLY CRITICIZE YOU (gasp).


Anyway, if you ask me, on the overall topic - I think censorship is a far more insulting act than an actual insult. Meaning if we looked at two people: one who bans people who say things, and others who say things - I'm going to hold more criticism for the one doing the banning, given that the act itself is, in my mind (and I'm not saying this is the consensus of the community in the least, but it would be unfair for me to just give you this entire critique on your opinions without making myself a tad bit vulnerable by providing my own) worse.