1

I'm looking for a replacement for the noun "snark". Sarcasm won't work because it's a form of humor and I want to add a suggestion of malice or darkness to it.

For example, as a response to a request to include a quote within an answer avoid a "link-only" situation, an author added the following to indicate passages that contained the word:

1: [...] horsepower [...]

2: [...] horsepower [...]

3: [...] horsepower [...]

By quoting only the single word from the passage rather than a sentence or so and repeating the same three times, the author pretends to expand beyond link-only but fails by design.

So while pretense comes to mind, it's also not dark enough. Spite is a bit strong. The idea here was to respond by following the letter of the request but not in spirit, perhaps to mock it.

17
  • 2
  • 4
    This may say more about the people I hang out with: isn't snark mainstream? – TaliesinMerlin Mar 9 '20 at 0:19
  • 2
    Sarcasm is not always a form of humour. – Michael Harvey Mar 9 '20 at 16:42
  • 2
    Not sure how useful this is, but it feels closely related to being disingenuous. – Steve Lovell Mar 9 '20 at 22:31
  • 1
    Snark is as mainstream as it gets. The only word I can think of that's more mainstream is beer. – RegDwigнt Mar 11 '20 at 10:28
1

By quoting only the single word from the passage rather than a sentence or so and repeating the same three times, the author pretends to expand beyond link-only but fails by design.

The bolded text is often described as malicious compliance.

From Wikipedia's article on malicious compliance,

Malicious compliance is the behaviour of intentionally inflicting harm by strictly following the orders of a superior knowing that compliance with the orders will not have the intended result. The term usually implies the following of an order in such a way that ignores the order's intent but follows it to the letter.[1]

It is a specialized form of passive aggressive behavior. This is sometimes called "work to rule" and encompasses the situation where the subordinate sees both the folly of the order, rule, or direction and the adverse results.[2]

Although ,in the example you described, suggesting the action was done to cause real harm is probably a stretch, it ticks enough of the boxes to work in my experience.

0

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.