(Read comments) - (Post a new comment)

white_serpent
2009-01-24 01:34 am UTC (link)

Wait, what? He's not even coherent:

if you're young and you sleep around or do some cocaine at a party in college, it's going to show up on Google 10 years later. I'm sure these snarky insults have an inhibiting effect on people's behavior.

"Gee. Maybe I shouldn't post the information about my cocaine habit online."

Yes, now I see how we're ruining the world.

If we can't go somewhere without someone taking our pictures, then we're inviting ourselves to be snarked.

What?

When conversational threads collapse into racism, misogyny and Holocaust denial, that ruins the conversation for those people that are in it.

...And snark is to blame for this. Obviously.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

	llama_treats 2009-01-24 01:36 am UTC (link)
	I think he's confusing trolling with snark. After all, when he was born the internet wasn't even a glint in Al Gore's eye, so you can see how he'd get confused. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	white_serpent 2009-01-24 02:02 am UTC (link)
	Oh, nonono. Because he clearly says: It’s not hate speech, it’s not trolling, it’s not simple insult. I'm a teensy bit curious how you get racism, misogyny, and Holocaust denial in comment threads that fail to meet the criteria for "hate speech" or "trolling," but, then again, that's probably because I'm not a respected columnist for the New Yorker. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	jess_d_ripper 2009-01-24 02:30 am UTC (link)
	Snark is whatever we want it to be! (Reply to this)(Parent)

	pyratejenni 2009-01-25 09:32 pm UTC (link)
	I get the feeling New Yorker columnists need to get out more. (Reply to this)(Parent)

(Read comments) -