Talk:Snob

This page was voted on for deletion at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Snob. The consensus was to keep it. dbenbenn | talk 05:01, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

They didn't like the subject. --Wetman (talk) 02:38, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Word history of snob

There is no evidence that snob is derived from sine nobilitate. This is popular etymology. According to various dictionaries, snob is derived from an 18th-century word meaning cobbler/shoemaker. That is the earliest written occurence of snob.

...demonstrating that at times OED is as confused as Wikipedians. --Wetman (talk) 02:38, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The straw hat illustration, with the caption "American style straw hat. Complex social rules can determine when an occasion is sufficiently informal so that a man may correctly wear this hat." I deleted this, which confuses snobbery with etiquette. Someone may want to insert the image there. --Wetman 21:54, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say this word was invented by wikipedia no one in the world are bigger snobs than them. Their even deleting discussions posts and trying to label them as original research. Its not like I'm editing the damn article, the talk page was made to discuss the article to begin with. Pyrolord777 (talk) 06:40, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jesuits

Jesuits?

Jesuits, where?

"Inverted snobbery"

There's no section on inverted snobbery - surely a serious omission.--80.6.118.162 18:42, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"...your assignment, should you care to accept it..." --Wetman 19:58, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wish I hadn't spoken up. Now we've got: "Reverse snobbery is the phenomenon of looking unfavourably on perceived social elites, effectively the opposite of snobbery." How is this? Suddenly a repulsion has been substituted for an attraction. This is not what's at work, is it? If society is not so much "up-down" now, as it is "in-out" or "cool-uncool", only the object of imitation has changed. Not repulsion replacing attraction. I suppose this would count as "original". But Reverse snobbery is the phenomenon of looking unfavourably on perceived social elites' strikes me as a highly original substitution of repulsion for attraction... --Wetman (talk) 02:38, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Smug

Surely there is no reasion for Smug to redirect to snobbery, they are after all completely different things.

Just fix the redirect at Smug, which is an adjective; it should be deleted altogether. --Wetman 19:58, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Shorter Oxford Dictionary has 'inverted snobbery' but there's no mention of 'reverse snobbery' which is the title of the Wiki entry. Stephen A 22:21, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

air force?

why the air force? i think that this statement is very presuming of a lot of people. most people i know in the air force are by no means snobby nor do they just agree with their superiors to get ahead.

"the path to advancement from below is often eased for those who most whole-heartedly adopt the point-of-view of their superiors" ---this statement is untrue about the air force becuase anyone who knows about the air force knows that they have a set system for promotions and advancement and it has nothing to do with someone agreeing with their higher-ups.

Yes, in the United States Air Force lots of gay black Socialists make it to the very top! --Wetman 19:58, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

lmao. good point.

One can be a snob without aspiring to belong to a certain class of people. A snob can be a really wealthy person that just lokks down on poor people for example.

Citation request in first sentence

At the time of writing, the first sentence of this article is pretty much a definition which is backed up by most of the dictionaries I have seen. Why then is a citation needed and could one be provided without having to rewrite the defnition to closely match (and therefore possibly plagiarise) a online dictionary? Crimperman (talk) 09:49, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The citation is needed because the definition sucks. Why sucks? For an extremal example, do we call a pharaoh a snob? `'Míkka >t 00:31, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have an alternative definition then? Crimperman (talk) 12:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The current definition is too sweeping. A billionaire is superior to a pauper in money, a general is superior to a captain in rank, but perceived or actual superiority doesn't make a snob. (A 'snob' is not a synonym for anyone not democratic egalitarian.) The term 'snob' is meaningless without various existing systems for contrasting peoples merits. Rather a snob is one who rises beyond their level of competence and is obliviously and jealously proud of it, an ignoble "noble"; vanity might be the prime attribute -- it's not enough to prosper while grasping the shadow and losing the substance, rather the snob is a living advertising campaign promoting an adulterated product. Scheming Basil Fawlty is a snob, but clueless King George III was not. Many snobs are climbers, but there are born snobs, as some that inherit undeservedly or unworthily.

Another problem with the current definition is that it only considers one metric at a time; if the social world was a single ladder, one either is or is not on a higher rung. But to be "noble" encompasses many ladders, taste, clothes, appreciation, understanding, education, ancestry, position, property, wealth, obligation, duty, good works, etc. Climbing some may prevent climbing others, nobody climbs them all. The snob either successfully climbs or hangs on to some ladders, but is unable to discern, let alone ascend, the ones that matter.

I've deliberately stuck with (and recommend) English examples and attributes, because they should be less contentious than exploring the snob-relevant metrics of recent and lively cultures. --AC (talk) 06:08, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hip Hop

How can they be includedd in reverse snobbery? With their 40 inch rims, sparkly silver bling and gold teef...♠♦Д narchistPig♥♣ (talk) 23:21, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SNOB IS WONDERFUL —Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.42.35.51 (talk) 20:41, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Computer program

Should the categorizing computer program be listed? : http://www.allisons.org/ll/MML/Notes/SNOB/ Kelly.terry.jones (talk) 16:25, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not on this page (as it is a separate topic), but if you think that the program is notable, then feel free to create a new page for it. --Neil (talk) 19:27, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Should be insufficient?

The sentence:

"Snobbery surfaced more strongly as the structure of the society changed, and the bourgeoisie had the possibility to imitate aristocracy. Snobbery appears when elements of culture are perceived as belonging to an aristocracy or elite, and some people (the snobs) feel that the mere adoption of the fashion and tastes of the elite or aristocracy is sufficient to include someone in the elites, upper classes or aristocracy."

doesn't make sense. Wouldn't snobs believe that mere adoption of fashion and tastes is insufficient?