>>9943620>>9943628Weirdly, the only definition that is somewhat correct is anti-smark.
Mark = someone that gets emotionally invested in wrestling such that it is seen as real. This can be a temporary moment (marking out) or the constant state of a wrestling fan that hasn't been smartened up to the fact that pro wrestling is a work, depending on context.
Smart = Knows that pro wrestling is a work and views wrestling through the lens of a performance for money.
Smarks = combination of mark and smart. It's essentially a smart that remains just as passionate about wrestling as a mark, sometimes even losing themselves in the moment (marking out).
However, "smark" is often misused, especially on /pol/, to refer to fans of a modern style of wrestling that severely downplays, or even ignores, kayfabe such that matches feature clear cooperation by opponents, obvious time wasting to setup spots, obviously weak or even botched moves that are still sold, etc. These fans don't care much for storylines either. They value athleticism and "cool" spots over anything else. They're also heavily influenced by Meltzer to tell them what's good, despite Meltzer not being able to reasonably judge a wrestling match for at least 15 years.
So "anti-smark" is a reaction to the people described above. It's an indictment of the lack of attempts at realism in wrestling. The reason people bash "flippy shitters" is because they often perform obviously fake moves, require cooperation to perform them, and thus their matches look fake as fuck.
You can't lose yourself in the match if you keep getting reminded that's it's a work.
>inb4 everyone knows it's fakeSame with movies and television. Fans get emotionally invested and lose themselves in film/TV because you're not being constantly reminded that it's fake (while the film is rolling).
