My Year of Firsts
On ‘On Smarm’

The piece On Smarm is fucking spot-on. The things I keep turning over in my head;

  • the sudden proliferation of smarm has increased dramatically over the course of the past few decades. There’s been a two-prong push for smarm: the sales pitch for the Internet as being unilaterally inclusive, and (at least in North America) the explosion of social rights activism. The difference, however, is this: there is someone for everyone but there is not (and should not be) everyone for everyone. The human knack for specialization alone makes everyone for everyone impossible.
  • The moral sleight-of-hand that typifies smarm makes discourse impossible by ofuscating tone and content. Smarm creates a ‘them versus us’ mentality through tone instead of content. Whenever someone pushes the ‘no haters’ smarm ideology, it’s unable to be assailed regardless of which camp you fall into: the ‘haters’, who are critiquing in a ‘mean fashion’ and the ‘no haters’, who can’t speak up lest they be forever exiled. 
  • The dismissive nature of snark (as defined in the article, at least) also makes direct discourse impossible. The ability to critique an argument/statement/item without providing rationale is devoid of actual content. 
  • The aim of both smarm and snark to stifle conversation. 
  • That being said, the author’s definition of ‘snark’ is wide, and let’s say, selective. The author includes what should be referred to as (let’s call it) artistic dissent - presenting a dissenting opinion through content, delivered how snottily or snarkily. Since artistic dissent provides content, it is more valuable than snark (unless you’re not into that sort of thing).
  • Not directly tied to anything, but I worry that the proliferation of smarm is dulling society’s ability to form value judgments. In a society that pressures you to tolerate everything and accept people, practicing discernment can appear to be socially unacceptable. It’s not our job to love everyone, because that’s impossible, and weird. Our society has, since hunter/gatherer, been defined and enhanced by specializations of skills, values, and tastes. Just because we shouldn’t heckle, let’s say, white people for being white doesn’t mean we have to love white people. Tools like smarm, through their repetition, artificially flatten individual value judgments.


God bless all of your topless lesbians and undulating ennui, Tumblr. It’s like everyone is acting out Rules of Attraction in bite-sized pieces for my enjoyment.

This about sums it up.

This about sums it up.

There’s something ugly inside of me, or maybe something that’s just painful, that I bury with whiskey so I never have to deal with it.


'Don't bug me this weekend. I don't want to talk to you. Have fun.'

'You know, if those people are so important to you, maybe you oughta just fucking stay there.'

The story of Drive has an almost biblical simplicity to it. You have a getaway driver with a code. That getaway driver with a code meets a girl and he breaks the code in order to save her. Everything goes wrong and he kills everybody. In a lot of ways it’s the oldest story in the book. A man falls in love. And then the trouble starts.
adam siegel, producer (via plultra)

an ivory statue statue of a goddess

pressed down 

upon the brow of man

and murmured

"tell us what you know.

what is right?

what is the right of man?”

and no one had an answer,

but they thought they did;

maybe they were right

but the world forgot

and moved on without them.

oh man oh man oh man oh man oh man oh man oh man.

"You’ve led a good life. In your youth you’d travelled the land…But that was a lifetime ago. Today, your bones are tired, your mind is fleeting and old skills are long forgotten. Bitterly, you feel the end approaching, and one day you squeeze into your rusty old armour and start off into the nearest dungeon for one last chance at recapturing old glory."