The terms "Mark" and "Smark" Need to be Retired

I wasn't going to respond, but then I figured that the act of doing so might be amusing. You phrase it like it is, but since 'retiring a word' is essentially impossible, I'm assuming we're talking about some idealised hypothetical universe

I wasn't going to respond, but then I figured that the act of doing so might be amusing.

Well I'm glad you decided to grace me with your presence, o exalted master debator.

You phrase it like it is, but since 'retiring a word' is essentially impossible,

Ah, a realist. Bo-ring.

I'm assuming we're talking about some idealised hypothetical universe

The same one that allowed Sting and Lou Thesz to face each other.

(possibly with bunny rabbits).

Penguins, actually.

Anyway, no they shouldn't be retired. Reason... they're fucking words.

Hey, what they do in their own time is none of my business.

Around these parts you have a collection of people who spend a great deal of time discussing wrestling, and both mark and smark and valuable additions to our vocabulary.

They're also misused and trite.

Take the words away and you'll just find people resorting to typing the phrases "the internet wrestling community" and... well... we don't have much of a synonym for mark yet, but I'm sure we'd cook one up.

And here you have made a mistake. Nowadays, "smark" does not only mean The IWC. It HAS no one true meaning anymore! It can be used to mean "I am better than you, you stupid 'mark'", or it can mean "Damn, that guy is so negative!". "Smark" doesn't mean "The IWC". It does not exclusively refer to The IWC as a whole. "The IWC" means the IWC.

Now I like needlessly extending my posts, but most people don't, and taking away perfectly functional sections of our posting vocabulary is going to achieve nothing but forcing us to do just that.

So you'd rather people say "lol ur a dumbass mark" rather than say "I disagree with your opinion; I find John cena's character bland and uninteresting"? Yeah. No.

I've seen them used in a number of ways, both positive and negative.

Exactly, when the original terms were neither positive nor negative (Well, except among carnies and pickpockets). They were merely descriptive. The meaning has become diluted.

Personally I think that mark is simply a term for somebody who marks for something

Once again, diluted meaning. A "mark" is someone who "marks" for something. When the definition has become recursive, it's time to say goodbye.

but it can be used as criticism for idiots

Subjective.

who can't get a handle on the whole "not real" aspect of professional wrestling,

So you'll deprive them of their way to enjoy the product, just gbecause yoou enjoy it in a different way?

as a put down for people possessing irrational jingoistic support of a particular company/wrestler,

And NOW you're saying they can't like who they want to like?!

or as a badge of honour by douch-bags who want to consider themselves a purer kind of life form becasue they posses the power to "suspend their disbelief" and pretend that Randy Orton is really attempting to murder John Cena with pyrotechnics in front of 200,000 people watching on PPV.

So, because they get caught up in the moment, they're douchebags. That's not very nice.
Unless, of course, you were talking about people who tell people who say anything negative about the product they're "smarks" and need to "gtfo". Then, I agree that they are douchebags.

Smark can be anything from one who watching wrestling in an analytical manner,

Indeed.

to somebody who thinks that wrestling ability directly correlates to how many flips you can inject into a single vertical suplex.

Amusing.

(smart-mark is a rather silly term to describe idiots with)

And yet...people nowadays do it all the time. The self-proclaimed marks/"douchebags" use it this way alllll the time. Well, they do it to people they find to be idiots. Kinda funny. It's almost like Smark no longer means Smart Mark, but rather is an all-purpose term. Interesting.

Has there ever been an occasion where confusion is legitimately brought about by the use of these phrases?

Yeah, back when I was learning the terms. Same with some other people who have posted in this thread.
Also, I was trying to explain to my friend what "marking out" meant, when I realized...I couldn't. What DOES it mean? Being so caught up in the moment you believe wrestling is real? Close, but no cigar. Getting really excited about what you're seeing? no, too mild. The best I could explain it is that "Marking out" means "Marking out". And as such, the words have meaning, while being meaningless. Almost like saying "He's in a better place" or "Plenty of other fish in the sea". Trite, overused, and garbled.

If I tell NSL that he's a TNA mark he'll recognise the context and take it as a compliment. Similarly, if I rant on to Xfear about how the ECW audience were nothing but a collection of intolerable smarks he'll likely recognise that I'm not being complimentary and get defensive

And so, we see that these terms have become nothing more than little words to pepper rants and posts with, while retaining none of their original meaning and being used to start a shit-throwing session. Hooray!

(as ECW fans are prone to do for some bizarre reason).

Loyalty. What can you do about it?

Words usually take their meaning from their context, and mark and smark are no different.

Yes, but even words have distinct definitions so that it's easy to explain what they mean. If you go by the textbook definition of "A mark is someone who believes wrestling is real" etc., then you have a lot of confused people. It's like how idioms don't translate into other languages.

The only problem comes from people taking one using to be an absolute definition, then crusading around the place going on and on about it.

And why shouldn't there be an absolute definition? It would make things much easier. "Defenestration" means "the act of throwing something out of a window". "Lies" means "falsehoods". Why can't "smark" mean "someone who knows it is staged"?

So wait... why in gods name would we retire a pair of perfectly functional words, then replace them with new terms to represent the same meanings.

Incorrect. I would want to replace them with multiple new words with more exact definitions, thus making understanding and discussion easier. We need more than just the blanket terms of "mark" and "smark", and more exact, meaningful words.

I guess technically we could use phrases like 'Member of the internet wresting community'... but it doesn't exactly roll off the tongue does it?

But that isn't what "smark" means anymore!

How about 'person still under the impression that wrestling is real'? Same problem I guess.

And that isn't the current definition of "mark".

I suppose I have one novel idea...

Only one?

how about using the terms mark and smark. There handy,

Yes.

quick to type,

Yes...

and have the added benefit of everyone already knowing what they mean.

No.

No. Absolutely not.

And yet, as humans, it is our nature to label, and categorize. Wouldn't it be more precise and lead to better-crafted posts and statements if we had to be more descriptive, rather than slinging the term "mark" around at someone we disagree with?

As I said near the beginning, there fucking words.

So if they were celibate, you'd be more accepting?

Words don't have any power by themselves.

I completely disagree. If I were to say a certain negative slur for black people or gay people, I have no doubt I would be infracted right here, right now. In fact, I once said that term for gay people on this forum, in a joking context, and wasn't referring to anyone, and I still got infracted.
Around my school, people refer to gay people as that term all the time, and they aren't *really* being malicious. It's just the way they describe them, and I am still offended. Whether they mean to or not, that word brings up connotations of hatred, intolerance, and violence. My best friend is gay, and I'm a staunch supporter of gay rights, and that word offends me. It doesn't matter whether it's being used as a descriptive term or a slur, it's still offensive. And it's just the word by itself.

Statements have power. Posts have power. All words do is help you construct them.

And if the building blocks we use to construct our posts are soft and meaningless, then the whole post becomes meaningless. Trite sayings and phrases mean nothing.

Referring to Smarks as the IWC

Not what it means...

So no. It would be utterly impossible to 'retire' the words in the first place,

And Lou Thesz has never faced Sting.

What's next?

Goldberg.

ncG1vNJzZmien6fCrr%2BNsKmeq6Shsru7zZ5lnKedZMGpvsSam6xnpJ2ybsDEq6SsZZ2Wv6x5wKebZqudlr%2Bsec2enJ1lpKR6o7GMq5ytoaKasW%2BEkmluamc%3D

 Share!