4 ms·

It's hard to think of a single situation that's ever been improved by snark. Or passive aggressiveness in general.

by ants_everywhere 1y ago

mistrial9 1y ago
it is a vent. potentially you could say that snark is the lesser path, it's virtue is it's banality
- ants_everywhere 1y ago
  Right, but venting is for a long time understood to be bad. In the same way punching your pillow or the wall is bad when you're angry. Venting is different from expressing your negative emotions healthily. E.g. telling your significant other you are frustrated because of a problem at work is healthy. Venting about the problem, complaining, being sarcastic etc is known to reinforce anger and generally lead to unhealthy outcomes.
__loam 1y ago
Usually the snarky guys have precious little useful to say in the service of having any understanding of civics or its processes.
ninetyninenine 1y ago
It causes shame, and shame paves the way for change. I'm a bay area native, and I'm fucking ashamed of the pathetic excuse of public transportation called the bart. Absolute travesty. Think in terms of evolution. If snark didn't convey any survival benefit, why tf does it exist?
- nomel 1y ago
  Seems like voting for someone else is the correct answer. If the uniparty that exists there today was in an away threatened, they might be motivated to competence. Complaining on HN won't motivate them. The snark is meant to be heard not just said to a void.
  - ninetyninenine 1y ago
    Voting hasn't done much good for this country. In fact voting is probably one of the most ineffective things for change in existence. I'm not complaining to a void. All the readers of HN have heard me and other people complaining hear will be heard too. In aggregate many people complaining on many different venues creates an aggregate sentiment that hopefully will motivate the right people. Cancel culture on social media has made big changes to this country and not everything necessarily good. But one thing is clear, it makes change effectively. Why not use it for the right thing? Either way, I'm not complaining here because because I need some platform to say my piece. Bart IS categorically fucking garbage, that's less of a complaint and more of a statement. I'm just stating facts.
    - nomel 1y ago
      > an aggregate sentiment that hopefully will motivate the right people. I can't comprehend the thought that polluting this not-bay-area specific forum with complaints will somehow eventually, hopefully, make its way to a politician. > because I need some platform to say my piece. This is soap boxing. To affect change, it would be better to do something directly in the real world, rather than hoping for the snark to overflow and leak out of here into the real world.
      - ninetyninenine 1y ago
        >I'm not complaining here because because I need some platform to say my piece. Dude, fuck off. The full quote which you've taken out of context is this: "I'm not complaining here because because I need some platform to say my piece." I hate it when people twist statements. I literally said I am not doing that. I am just stating the god awful truth which is: Bart is total shit. But here's another truth: When you manipulate my statement and take it out of context it makes you a shit head too.
        nomel 1y ago
        My bad, I misread. That wasn't intentional. I put very little effort into arguing with someone trying to make this place shittier. But, your whole thing still fits the definition of soapboxing. > To "soapbox" means to deliver a passionate or self-important public speech or express one's strong opinions, often on a topic one feels strongly about, originating from the literal practice of standing on an empty soapbox as an improvised platform to address a crowd. The term is frequently used figuratively to describe speaking forcefully or at length about a personal issue or belief.
- ants_everywhere 1y ago
  Shame does not pave the way for change. Can you think of a shame-based culture that is prone to change? Shame is like other kinds of abusive and toxic behavior. Does child abuse convey a survival benefit? Or spousal abuse? Evolution can be a useful guide, but it takes work and research to establish an evolutionary cause of a behavior.
  - ninetyninenine 1y ago
    Every culture in the world operates on shame. It goes beyond culture and is intrinsic to human nature. The actions of almost everyone on the face of the earth accounts for shame. It’s an emotion we avoid and we act in ways to avoid it. It’s a very surface level thing. We break the rules of a society and others know about it, we feel shame. Thus to avoid shame we avoid publicly breaking the rules of society. If an attribute of humanity is universal and historically prevalent it becomes for sure through induction that the attribute survived the gauntlet of natural selection. There is a huge survival benefit here. All of evolutionary psychology can only be formulated through induction as there’s no way to find causal evidence for psychological attributes short of time travel. > Does child abuse convey a survival benefit? Or spousal abuse? We don’t know if it does. But abuse is possibly not evolutionary and possibly not beneficial. The reason is because it’s not universal across societies. Not like Shame. Though there is evidence that it is beneficial. Hitting children in Asia is normal. The high achievement and IQ and work ethic of those in China are often achieved through physical abuse not to the extent where it injures the child extremely but to the extent where pain changes behavior. A large part of the economic success of the Chinese is due to high industriousness of the society which is very much influenced by physical abuse of children. Additionally, the overwhelming majority of human societies have men as the dominant sex and often hitting a wife is equivalent to spanking a child in societies where men have power. Was this beneficial? Who knows. One thing is that in societies where men dominate women rate their lives as happier and the divorce rate is significantly down. While the data on this isn’t fully solid this isn’t strictly evidence it’s food for a thought. It’s also the overwhelming dominant paradigm of humanity where men dominate women. Modern society as we know it where women are equal to men is experimental we’ve never done it and there’s no way of knowing if natural selection will select for this. Another thing to note is that modern societies are all experience population decline. There is enough of a correlation here that we believe modernity is causal to population decline. What part of modernity? We don’t know. Likely it is very complicated but male domination could be an aspect of it. Take India. Spousal abuse is much more common and men hold a dominant place in the family unit and they also follow more traditional arranged marriages. Indias population is not declining, it is growing and it is quite possible spousal abuse or the attributes that lead to spousal abuse are causal. We don’t know. So my long winded explanation here is that you cannot use abuse as an example of evidence against the evolutionary benefits of shame. It doesn’t follow from the logic or the evidence and you only said it as if it was like dropping the mic because you’re heavily influenced by modern culture. Abuse = universally bad to you but from an impartial and objective standpoint it is not.

It's hard to think of a single situation that's ever been improved by snark. Or passive aggressiveness in general.

mistrial9 1y ago

it is a vent. potentially you could say that snark is the lesser path, it's virtue is it's banality

ants_everywhere 1y ago
Right, but venting is for a long time understood to be bad. In the same way punching your pillow or the wall is bad when you're angry. Venting is different from expressing your negative emotions healthily. E.g. telling your significant other you are frustrated because of a problem at work is healthy. Venting about the problem, complaining, being sarcastic etc is known to reinforce anger and generally lead to unhealthy outcomes.

__loam 1y ago

Usually the snarky guys have precious little useful to say in the service of having any understanding of civics or its processes.

ninetyninenine 1y ago

It causes shame, and shame paves the way for change. I'm a bay area native, and I'm fucking ashamed of the pathetic excuse of public transportation called the bart. Absolute travesty. Think in terms of evolution. If snark didn't convey any survival benefit, why tf does it exist?

nomel 1y ago
Seems like voting for someone else is the correct answer. If the uniparty that exists there today was in an away threatened, they might be motivated to competence. Complaining on HN won't motivate them. The snark is meant to be heard not just said to a void.
- ninetyninenine 1y ago
  Voting hasn't done much good for this country. In fact voting is probably one of the most ineffective things for change in existence. I'm not complaining to a void. All the readers of HN have heard me and other people complaining hear will be heard too. In aggregate many people complaining on many different venues creates an aggregate sentiment that hopefully will motivate the right people. Cancel culture on social media has made big changes to this country and not everything necessarily good. But one thing is clear, it makes change effectively. Why not use it for the right thing? Either way, I'm not complaining here because because I need some platform to say my piece. Bart IS categorically fucking garbage, that's less of a complaint and more of a statement. I'm just stating facts.
  - nomel 1y ago
    > an aggregate sentiment that hopefully will motivate the right people. I can't comprehend the thought that polluting this not-bay-area specific forum with complaints will somehow eventually, hopefully, make its way to a politician. > because I need some platform to say my piece. This is soap boxing. To affect change, it would be better to do something directly in the real world, rather than hoping for the snark to overflow and leak out of here into the real world.
    - ninetyninenine 1y ago
      >I'm not complaining here because because I need some platform to say my piece. Dude, fuck off. The full quote which you've taken out of context is this: "I'm not complaining here because because I need some platform to say my piece." I hate it when people twist statements. I literally said I am not doing that. I am just stating the god awful truth which is: Bart is total shit. But here's another truth: When you manipulate my statement and take it out of context it makes you a shit head too.
      - nomel 1y ago
        My bad, I misread. That wasn't intentional. I put very little effort into arguing with someone trying to make this place shittier. But, your whole thing still fits the definition of soapboxing. > To "soapbox" means to deliver a passionate or self-important public speech or express one's strong opinions, often on a topic one feels strongly about, originating from the literal practice of standing on an empty soapbox as an improvised platform to address a crowd. The term is frequently used figuratively to describe speaking forcefully or at length about a personal issue or belief.
ants_everywhere 1y ago
Shame does not pave the way for change. Can you think of a shame-based culture that is prone to change? Shame is like other kinds of abusive and toxic behavior. Does child abuse convey a survival benefit? Or spousal abuse? Evolution can be a useful guide, but it takes work and research to establish an evolutionary cause of a behavior.
- ninetyninenine 1y ago
  Every culture in the world operates on shame. It goes beyond culture and is intrinsic to human nature. The actions of almost everyone on the face of the earth accounts for shame. It’s an emotion we avoid and we act in ways to avoid it. It’s a very surface level thing. We break the rules of a society and others know about it, we feel shame. Thus to avoid shame we avoid publicly breaking the rules of society. If an attribute of humanity is universal and historically prevalent it becomes for sure through induction that the attribute survived the gauntlet of natural selection. There is a huge survival benefit here. All of evolutionary psychology can only be formulated through induction as there’s no way to find causal evidence for psychological attributes short of time travel. > Does child abuse convey a survival benefit? Or spousal abuse? We don’t know if it does. But abuse is possibly not evolutionary and possibly not beneficial. The reason is because it’s not universal across societies. Not like Shame. Though there is evidence that it is beneficial. Hitting children in Asia is normal. The high achievement and IQ and work ethic of those in China are often achieved through physical abuse not to the extent where it injures the child extremely but to the extent where pain changes behavior. A large part of the economic success of the Chinese is due to high industriousness of the society which is very much influenced by physical abuse of children. Additionally, the overwhelming majority of human societies have men as the dominant sex and often hitting a wife is equivalent to spanking a child in societies where men have power. Was this beneficial? Who knows. One thing is that in societies where men dominate women rate their lives as happier and the divorce rate is significantly down. While the data on this isn’t fully solid this isn’t strictly evidence it’s food for a thought. It’s also the overwhelming dominant paradigm of humanity where men dominate women. Modern society as we know it where women are equal to men is experimental we’ve never done it and there’s no way of knowing if natural selection will select for this. Another thing to note is that modern societies are all experience population decline. There is enough of a correlation here that we believe modernity is causal to population decline. What part of modernity? We don’t know. Likely it is very complicated but male domination could be an aspect of it. Take India. Spousal abuse is much more common and men hold a dominant place in the family unit and they also follow more traditional arranged marriages. Indias population is not declining, it is growing and it is quite possible spousal abuse or the attributes that lead to spousal abuse are causal. We don’t know. So my long winded explanation here is that you cannot use abuse as an example of evidence against the evolutionary benefits of shame. It doesn’t follow from the logic or the evidence and you only said it as if it was like dropping the mic because you’re heavily influenced by modern culture. Abuse = universally bad to you but from an impartial and objective standpoint it is not.