Re: Timing!

1

Really? You're still reading that?


Posted by: Di Kotimy | Link to this comment | 05-16-08 10:28 AM
horizontal rule
2

That blog's still stupid, though.

Just thought I'd throw that out there.


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 05-16-08 10:28 AM
horizontal rule
3

Pwned, delightfully.


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 05-16-08 10:28 AM
horizontal rule
4

And with no typos!


Posted by: Di Kotimy | Link to this comment | 05-16-08 10:31 AM
horizontal rule
5

No, you're wrong, it's funny.


Posted by: dsquared | Link to this comment | 05-16-08 10:32 AM
horizontal rule
6

5: "you're" s/b "your", "it's" s/b "its"


Posted by: M/tch M/lls | Link to this comment | 05-16-08 10:37 AM
horizontal rule
7

SWPL proves its worth yet again. Certain people are becoming desparate because SWPL has got their number.


Posted by: PGD | Link to this comment | 05-16-08 10:39 AM
horizontal rule
8

5: No, you're wrong; it was never funny.


Posted by: Flippanter | Link to this comment | 05-16-08 10:39 AM
horizontal rule
9

It seems almost sacrilegious that anyone should have commented before w-lfs-n. But it does lead to the obvious game: Quien es mas blanco: w-lfs-n o Ogged?


Posted by: SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 05-16-08 10:41 AM
horizontal rule
10

7: desparate

Very funny.


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 05-16-08 10:43 AM
horizontal rule
11

9: ogged, por mucho.


Posted by: Melvin | Link to this comment | 05-16-08 10:48 AM
horizontal rule
12

Is this blog getting too meta?

Discuss.


Posted by: JRoth | Link to this comment | 05-16-08 10:49 AM
horizontal rule
13

Quien es mas blanco: w-lfs-n o Ogged?

w-lfs-n's Jewish, so I gotta go with Ogged.


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 05-16-08 10:49 AM
horizontal rule
14

I do think the idea that people who aren't white don't care about spelling or grammar -- what with all those worries about starving or getting shot, the dear, poor underclass -- is adorably whimsical. That guy is funny!


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 05-16-08 10:49 AM
horizontal rule
15

Seriously, why doesn't that blog try just a little bit harder to figure out who it is they are making fun of. Because the inapplicability of half of it to 90% of actual white people I know really makes the attempted observational humor unfunny.


Posted by: Di Kotimy | Link to this comment | 05-16-08 10:49 AM
horizontal rule
16

9: "w-lfs-n o ogged" s/b "w-lfs-n u ogged".


Posted by: Melvin | Link to this comment | 05-16-08 10:49 AM
horizontal rule
17

13: Mexicans are whiter than Jews? Wow, who knew?


Posted by: M/tch M/lls | Link to this comment | 05-16-08 10:51 AM
horizontal rule
18

Some of us white people have figured out ways to support our families being grammar Nazis*. I'm just sayin'.

*My employers: also white.


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 05-16-08 10:51 AM
horizontal rule
19

15: "Stuff white people with liberal arts college degrees like"?


Posted by: Melvin | Link to this comment | 05-16-08 10:51 AM
horizontal rule
20

15 to 5, maybe to 7, to the post. 15 to 14 sounds a little tacky, like, "Dude, the implicit racism/class condescension would be great if only the comic timing was better!"


Posted by: Di Kotimy | Link to this comment | 05-16-08 10:52 AM
horizontal rule
21

14 gets it exactly rihgt.


Posted by: M/tch M/lls | Link to this comment | 05-16-08 10:52 AM
horizontal rule
22

Wow, who knew?

The Centers for Disease Control and the World Health Organization, for starters.


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 05-16-08 10:52 AM
horizontal rule
23

19 -- no, no that's not it.


Posted by: Di Kotimy | Link to this comment | 05-16-08 10:53 AM
horizontal rule
24

the inapplicability of half of it to 90% of actual white people I know really makes the attempted observational humor unfunny

White people love earnestly pointing out logical flaws in satirical fluff pieces.


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 05-16-08 10:54 AM
horizontal rule
25

Does anyone else think that blog gives off a certain "Canadian" vibe?


Posted by: I don't pay | Link to this comment | 05-16-08 10:55 AM
horizontal rule
26

He has a very middlebrow view of The New Yorker.


Posted by: Jesus McQueen | Link to this comment | 05-16-08 10:56 AM
horizontal rule
27

24: But I don't find the pieces fluffy, I find them prickly.


Posted by: M/tch M/lls | Link to this comment | 05-16-08 10:57 AM
horizontal rule
28

Does anyone else think that blog gives off a certain "Canadian" vibe?

Good catch, IDP. The author is from Toronto.


Posted by: ogged | Link to this comment | 05-16-08 10:59 AM
horizontal rule
29

26: because he's an overgrown, fratboy, TotalFark member, entitled dickweed, is why. If any of us met this guy in person we'd want to punch him right in the spotless white baseball cap, I wager.

Well, ogged would probably like him.


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 05-16-08 10:59 AM
horizontal rule
30

White People love NASCAR.


Posted by: Gonerill | Link to this comment | 05-16-08 10:59 AM
horizontal rule
31

25, 28: Oooooh! Well no one really expects Canadians to be funny. Okay then.


Posted by: Di Kotimy | Link to this comment | 05-16-08 11:01 AM
horizontal rule
32

It's not the content that's the problem, it's the style. There are no jokes on Stuff White People Like; there are only explanations of jokes that might have been written by a less-lazy humorist. That blog is its own Standpipe's Blog. But white people will continue to claim that it's funny, because if you pretend to like it it means that you're in on the joke, and thus that you're not like all the rest of the white people that the blog is ostensibly laughing at - or would be laughing at, if it contained actual jokes.


Posted by: strasmangelo jones | Link to this comment | 05-16-08 11:01 AM
horizontal rule
33

29: Only if he was holding it in front of his face.


Posted by: M/tch M/lls | Link to this comment | 05-16-08 11:01 AM
horizontal rule
34

It's not the content that's the problem, it's the style

It could be much better written, it's true. But it's very good at "naming," as it were, White People.

Sifu continues to hate any successful person under the age of fifty.


Posted by: ogged | Link to this comment | 05-16-08 11:03 AM
horizontal rule
35

Because the inapplicability of half of it to 90% of actual white people I know really makes the attempted observational humor unfunny.

I thought the inapplicability was one of the jokes. The whole blog strikes me as a parody of reductionist takes on "African-American culture" or "Latino culture."


Posted by: Gabriel | Link to this comment | 05-16-08 11:03 AM
horizontal rule
36

there are only explanations of jokes that might have been written by a less-lazy humorist

White people eat that shit up, stras. You should get out and meet some.


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 05-16-08 11:03 AM
horizontal rule
37

32: The few pieces of that blog I read gave off a rightwing "liberals are pussies and not down with the gente, like me" stench.


Posted by: M/tch M/lls | Link to this comment | 05-16-08 11:04 AM
horizontal rule
38

29: we'd want to punch him right in the spotless white baseball cap

Tweety reveals his inner Lee Siegel.


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 05-16-08 11:05 AM
horizontal rule
39

The blog is funny because you are supposed to recognize yourself in it. If you can't recognize yourself and laugh, then you shouldn't be offended by the content!


Posted by: m. leblanc | Link to this comment | 05-16-08 11:05 AM
horizontal rule
40

the inapplicability of half of it to 90% of actual white people I know

All this says is that you aren't in the blog's target audience, not that the blog is "wrong" or unfunny or whatever. It's just spot on for lots of people I know, including people who might be me.


Posted by: ogged | Link to this comment | 05-16-08 11:06 AM
horizontal rule
41

39: Oh I definitely recognize myself and other white people in it. And I'm not offended by the content. I just don't think it's very well done.


Posted by: M/tch M/lls | Link to this comment | 05-16-08 11:07 AM
horizontal rule
42

You can make a wanted posted, Sifu.


Posted by: ogged | Link to this comment | 05-16-08 11:07 AM
horizontal rule
43

Hasn't this already been discussed exhaustively? I'd much rather hear more Crazy Blind Date stories! Let's go back to that...anyone else make it into the 'elite club'...still trying to figure out if this categorization actually "means" anything.


Posted by: mary | Link to this comment | 05-16-08 11:07 AM
horizontal rule
44

But it's very good at "naming," as it were, White People.

No, it's very good at describing upper-middle-class professional types living in America and Canada, and making those very same upper-middle-class professional types feel good about belong to an even more-select group - i.e., the subset of upper-middle-class professional types who "get it."


Posted by: strasmangelo jones | Link to this comment | 05-16-08 11:08 AM
horizontal rule
45

I'm waiting for the "White People Like Eating Ass" post.


Posted by: M/tch M/lls | Link to this comment | 05-16-08 11:08 AM
horizontal rule
46

The thing is, of course it's spot on. It uses exactly the same mechanism as astrology; you pick some generically vaguely-mockable trait to name, and then "oh, yeah, I totally know somebody like that!" becomes "oh man he totally has [ everybody ] nailed" even though any given person really exhibits maybe 1 or 2% of the traits he lists on that site. But of course you can't say that, because then you're too square to realize you fit into this little cubby with all the other "white people".


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 05-16-08 11:09 AM
horizontal rule
47

This comment thread makes the Christ child weep tears of blood. How, how, did this not turn into extended mockery of w-lfs-n?


Posted by: baa | Link to this comment | 05-16-08 11:10 AM
horizontal rule
48

There's no way to get out from under it either: "oh, white people totally like complaining about Stuff White People Like, because it totally hits too close to home!"

42 makes my point nicely.


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 05-16-08 11:10 AM
horizontal rule
49

from the link in 42:

the blog takes a rare humorous poke at white liberals and their fascination with the trendy and organic. Emphasis added. Jesus, get out much?

I will note that sentiment is running stronger anti-SWPL this tome around. It's true, you can't post on the same blog twice.

(And overall merits of SWPL aside, the timing is pretty goddman sweet. Good find, good post.)


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 05-16-08 11:11 AM
horizontal rule
50

Hey, I'm eating a salad and wearing a collared shirt! Those are both things white people like! Haha!

Fuck, that site is stupid.


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 05-16-08 11:11 AM
horizontal rule
51

even though any given person really exhibits maybe 1 or 2% of the traits he lists on that site

This is just wrong, in my experience. He's up in the 80-90% range, and you can hear an interview where he's asked how much of it describes him, and the answer is 100%.

No, it's very good at describing upper-middle-class professional types living in America and Canada

Thanks for making that explicit, stras.


Posted by: ogged | Link to this comment | 05-16-08 11:11 AM
horizontal rule
52

I didn't read the whole of the other thread on this, but can we identify what separates the haters from the non-haters?


Posted by: m. leblanc | Link to this comment | 05-16-08 11:14 AM
horizontal rule
53

52: Good sense.


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 05-16-08 11:14 AM
horizontal rule
54

52: the non-haters are totally hip enough to get that, hey, we can laugh at ourselves, whereas the haters are like, unable to see how ridiculous they look from the outside.


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 05-16-08 11:15 AM
horizontal rule
55

Thanks for making that explicit, stras.

You may not be aware of this, but the set of "white people" is not the same as the set of "upper-middle-class professional types living in America and Canada."


Posted by: strasmangelo jones | Link to this comment | 05-16-08 11:16 AM
horizontal rule
56

You may not be aware of this, but the set of "white people" is not the same as the set of "upper-middle-class professional types living in America and Canada."

Dude, you're killing me.

Ok, this topic just annoys me. I'll try to post about something more comity-inducing.


Posted by: ogged | Link to this comment | 05-16-08 11:17 AM
horizontal rule
57

Ok, this topic just annoys me. I'll try to post about something more comity-inducing.

Success! Stras: high-five!

Wait, wait, no: fist bump! Plus explodey noise!


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 05-16-08 11:19 AM
horizontal rule
58

There are no jokes on Stuff White People Like;

The first quoted paragraph certainly has the form of a joke.


Posted by: washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 05-16-08 11:19 AM
horizontal rule
59

"There are no jokes on Stuff White People Like; there are only explanations of jokes that might have been written by a less-lazy humorist."

This is about right. Only exception I've seen is the Obama Friends picture.


Posted by: Katherine | Link to this comment | 05-16-08 11:21 AM
horizontal rule
60

12: Ogged, the a non-hater, attempted to move on to a more harmonious topic.


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 05-16-08 11:21 AM
horizontal rule
61

why it should be only the white people
when i also sometimes if i feel like that point out mistakes in my language too
and i always have to translate white to yellow in my mind whenever i see the word b/c of our vocabulary i guess
the biggest frustrations are not hunger or poverty or something else and external
it's when you could do something and did not
and the chance just slipped away
it's not even could do better feeling coz you didn't


Posted by: read | Link to this comment | 05-16-08 11:21 AM
horizontal rule
62

GREAT, now SWPL has hurt read's feelings.

See what you've done?


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 05-16-08 11:22 AM
horizontal rule
63

I look forward to ogged's post about Stuff Negroes Like, with hilarious observations about watermelon and shirking.


Posted by: slolernr | Link to this comment | 05-16-08 11:22 AM
horizontal rule
64

47: White guilt took over, as usual.

52: Haters: NO THAT IS NOT TRUE I PERSONALLY HAVE A TON OF WHITE FRIENDS WHO DON'T OWN STAND MIXERS. WHY IN FACT I DON'T OWN A STAND MIXER MYSELF THIS IS SO UNFAIR AND BY THE WAY IT'S NOT AT ALL FUNNY.

Non-haters: Heh, cute site.


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 05-16-08 11:22 AM
horizontal rule
65

That site makes me feel defensive and irritated.


Posted by: heebie-geebie | Link to this comment | 05-16-08 11:23 AM
horizontal rule
66

Stuff Persians Like:

1. Cheating You On Carpet Sales

2. Suicide Bombing

3. Wars

4. Killing Jews

5. Killing Americans


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 05-16-08 11:23 AM
horizontal rule
67

B's 64, in a rare feat, was pwned by my caricature.


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 05-16-08 11:24 AM
horizontal rule
68

When I see a stand-up show, if a person goes into 'Black people do it this way and white people do it that way', I know there's no material. It's boring.


Posted by: asl | Link to this comment | 05-16-08 11:25 AM
horizontal rule
69

White guilt took over, as usual.

B, white guilt is the only thing that makes people pretend that it's funny.


Posted by: strasmangelo jones | Link to this comment | 05-16-08 11:25 AM
horizontal rule
70

It's funny because it's true!


Posted by: slolernr | Link to this comment | 05-16-08 11:25 AM
horizontal rule
71

It's funny because it's true!


Posted by: slolernr | Link to this comment | 05-16-08 11:25 AM
horizontal rule
72

It's doubly funny because it's just that true!


Posted by: strasmangelo jones | Link to this comment | 05-16-08 11:26 AM
horizontal rule
73

Repetition is funny!


Posted by: slolernr | Link to this comment | 05-16-08 11:27 AM
horizontal rule
74

Wait, wait, no: fist bump! Plus explodey noise!

I maintain that Stanley is just making this up.


Posted by: Bave Dee | Link to this comment | 05-16-08 11:28 AM
horizontal rule
75

Y'all doth protest too much, man. The thing is, the site is only mildly funny, and I'm sure it's only meant to be so. "Heh, cute site" is about right. It's not laugh-out-loud funny, but some of the entries are amusing or at least have amusing bits.

Like this from the front page, on pirating music: "When they have finished talking, you must choose your next words wisely. It is considered rude to point out the simple fact that they are still getting music for free. Instead you should say: "Wow, I never thought of it like that. You know a lot about the music industry. What bands are you listening to right now? Who is good?"

This sentence serves two functions: it helps to reassure the white person that they are your local "music expert," something they prize. Also, it lets them feel as though they have convinced you that their activities are part of a greater social cause and not simple piracy."

See, that's amusing.


Posted by: m. leblanc | Link to this comment | 05-16-08 11:28 AM
horizontal rule
76

75: not really, no.


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 05-16-08 11:29 AM
horizontal rule
77

47 is right. Only funny people realize just how right.


Posted by: Ari | Link to this comment | 05-16-08 11:30 AM
horizontal rule
78

Okay, Sifu, I get that you think the site's not funny. But there are many things that some people consider funny that others do not. So why does this piss you off so?

Why, rather that just being boring and not funny, is it worthy of scorn?


Posted by: m. leblanc | Link to this comment | 05-16-08 11:31 AM
horizontal rule
79

I mean, in addition to everything else, there are a lot of interesting things to be said about why music stealing is the primary mode of acquisition right now, and what's to be done, and what that means for the music industry...

Oh my God haha I'm so white! It's like I'm a parody of myself talking about these things! Remind me to feel kind of stupid next time I mention it!

White People Like: being pointlessly neurotic about everything.


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 05-16-08 11:31 AM
horizontal rule
80

Why, rather that just being boring and not funny, is it worthy of scorn?

Because I don't like being made fun of.


Posted by: heebie-geebie | Link to this comment | 05-16-08 11:32 AM
horizontal rule
81

I've always (where "always" = "since I first saw the site") thought it would be better either if he just did less (title + photo only for every entry), or worked harder on the text (longer entries with more of a satirical/scientific bent, footnotes, etc).

As it is, it's very middlebrow humor, which I think is where its fault lies. You could pull the same thing off much more cleverly than he has done.


Posted by: fedward | Link to this comment | 05-16-08 11:33 AM
horizontal rule
82

78: the glibness with which he treats things like poverty and relative privilege; the idea that "we", for some needlessly racialized concept of "we", can laugh at ourselves for pretending to care about poverty so can feel better bespeaks a great cultural sickness.


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 05-16-08 11:33 AM
horizontal rule
83

You know what I find funny. xkcd. I laugh my ass off just about every time. Some people don't find it funny. Let's talk about it.


Posted by: asl | Link to this comment | 05-16-08 11:33 AM
horizontal rule
84

And beyond that there's an attitude of glib, hipster thoughtlessness to the idea that anything this overprivileged white dude and his friends are interested in is necessarily something deserving of mockery (however gentle and self-serving) that just completely rankles me. You can lump environmentalism in with only sort-of caring about soccer if you want, but I will hate you for it.


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 05-16-08 11:35 AM
horizontal rule
85

Is this blog getting too meta?

The problem with this blog is that it is no longer meta enough.


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 05-16-08 11:36 AM
horizontal rule
86

White People Like: being pointlessly neurotic about everything.

See, Sifu, you could write the damn site yourself.


Posted by: m. leblanc | Link to this comment | 05-16-08 11:36 AM
horizontal rule
87

B's 64 nails it.

You may not be aware of this, but the set of "white people" is not the same as the set of "upper-middle-class professional types living in America and Canada."

Can this be true?

How, how, did this not turn into extended mockery of w-lfs-n?

White people enjoy endless quibbling over the details of political correctness more than good-natured mockery.


Posted by: PGD | Link to this comment | 05-16-08 11:37 AM
horizontal rule
88

86, meet 48.


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 05-16-08 11:38 AM
horizontal rule
89

85: Bp never meta blog she didn't like.


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 05-16-08 11:38 AM
horizontal rule
90

85 is what's wrong with this blog.


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 05-16-08 11:39 AM
horizontal rule
91

it's very middlebrow humor

The horror!


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 05-16-08 11:39 AM
horizontal rule
92

it's very middlebrow humor

The horror!


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 05-16-08 11:40 AM
horizontal rule
93

Weirdly, today the Stuff White People Like RSS feed seems to have transformed into the Wordpress Update Blog RSS feed.


Posted by: Zippy the Comment Frog | Link to this comment | 05-16-08 11:43 AM
horizontal rule
94

I think we should all just step back and take a deep breath and realize that when Mr. Lander, the humorist, gets to SWPL #207: The Baffler, it will be the nine billionth name of God and all the other SWPLs will start to wink out of existence, one by one.


Posted by: minneapolitan | Link to this comment | 05-16-08 11:45 AM
horizontal rule
95

82 and 84 get it right. Thanks, Tweety.

That said, you can make those observations about the guy's treatment without actually hating the site. There's always indifference. Or a mild interest in the possibility that some white people actually haven't asked themselves about these things, so it's, like, thought-provoking. A public service, then!


Posted by: parsimon | Link to this comment | 05-16-08 11:48 AM
horizontal rule
96

Since nobody wants to make fun of Ben -- a crying shame, in my view -- I would add that SWPL is a near-perfect embodiment of a kind of ironic detachment that does more harm than good. It's sort-of funny occasionally, yes, but the humor is only in one register. And that kind of humor, again so ironically detached as to be carefree, even thoughtless, about everything, has no consequences. It's just not very satisfying to me. Then again, I don't really care that much and just want to make fun of Ben.


Posted by: Ari | Link to this comment | 05-16-08 11:50 AM
horizontal rule
97

Stuf White People Don't Like: Being told that they are like other white people, even if those other people are their friends and neighbors.

Sifu, I think you're misunderstanding the nature of the satire. It's not saying these are horrible self-serving things that white people do. It's saying: a)This subset of white people, who like to think of themselves as contrarian and not like others in fact have an identifiable set of characteristics; they are a culture like any other. b) Just because we/liberal middle or professional class white folk try do enlightened things doesn't mean that our/their privilege disappears.

Heebie: My wife had the same reaction to the site while also finding it funny. I think that we are just so used to thinking of racial characteristics as inherently deragatory that they're hard to take, even when they're coming from a different angle. If they did posts along the lines of "Dancing badly at parties," I might feel differently.


Posted by: JPool | Link to this comment | 05-16-08 11:50 AM
horizontal rule
98

Holy crap, I didn't see 82 and 84. Dammit.


Posted by: Ari | Link to this comment | 05-16-08 11:50 AM
horizontal rule
99

Some people don't find it funny. Let's talk about it.

My reasons for not appreciating xkcd:

1. I feel aggressively alienated from nerd culture.
2. I'm generally unimpressed with stick-figure and clip-art comics. Americans have forgotten that the cartoon is a visual medium, and that pictures as well as words can be funny; the rise of the stamp-sized newspaper strip is mostly to blame for this. I also think that if you're not putting much effort into the art, your writing better be really fucking hilarious, and when it's just nerd jokes, you fail.


Posted by: strasmangelo jones | Link to this comment | 05-16-08 11:51 AM
horizontal rule
100

I wanted to create Stuff Asian American People Like, #1 of which would be "Acting Like White People" and written in the voice of An Aspiring White Person. But while funny to me and some of my friends growing up in Orange County, probably too easily misinterpreted and dangerous. Also, people tend to forget that I'm Asian, since I, you konw, act white. It's only funny if the author is a part of the target.


Posted by: Belle Lettre | Link to this comment | 05-16-08 11:53 AM
horizontal rule
101

written in the voice of An Aspiring White Person

SWPL's co-author is a Filipino-Canadian.


Posted by: ogged | Link to this comment | 05-16-08 11:54 AM
horizontal rule
102

I thought the inapplicability was one of the jokes. The whole blog strikes me as a parody of reductionist takes on "African-American culture" or "Latino culture."

I like this explanation. This is also part of the reason I think that SWPL had a better effect for me cumulatively than in single doses. The whole point is to build up this pseudo-scholarly anthropological study of "white people", and it is a pretty funny piss-take of the horrendous inadequacy of any outsider's take on a diverse populace, and the tendency to identify one especially visible subgroup and take them as emblematic of all members in the greater group. The connections to all the faux-down-with-the-gente that we've been seeing in this election cycle (and every other) are pretty obvious, but it's also a handy reminder of how impossible it is to understand any given diverse group, and how even members of that group will have biased and limited understanding of it.

But that just suggests 81 is kind of right, and it would be improved by an even better faux-sociological/anthropological tone.


Posted by: Po-Mo Polymath | Link to this comment | 05-16-08 11:55 AM
horizontal rule
103

Thank fucking God Jonathan Swift lived before the age of blogs.

'It's not at all funny to suggest that poor people eat their babies.'
'This guy doesn't seem to get that people can be poor without being monsters.'
'O ho! I can suggest that they also eat their own shit! I'm satirical too.'
'It's not just the Irish that are poor, you know. There are millions of children starving whom Swift just ignores. His solution doesn't generalize.'

It's not great satire, but given that the guy is one of the group that he's mocking (seriously, he's said in an interview 'yeah, that's me at the dim sum place, and my bicycle, and...') it's also not 'laugh at those other people.'

But my productivity seriously thanks you. It's one thing to idle the day away on stupid arguments. It's another thing to do on a fucking rerun.


Posted by: Cala | Link to this comment | 05-16-08 11:59 AM
horizontal rule
104

Americans have forgotten that the cartoon is a visual medium, and that pictures as well as words can be funny; the rise of the stamp-sized newspaper strip is mostly to blame for this.

One of my favorite Calvin & Hobbes is the one on this topic, mostly because of the unexpected punchline:

"Your Grandpa takes his comics pretty seriously."
"Yeah, Mom's been looking into putting him in a home."*

I'm not actually hard-line like stras about over-simple comics, but I do think it would be nice for comics to be visual candy again. But, of course, we're surrounded by visual candy, so....

* I realize now it would've been much, much funnier had Calvin said, "Yeah, white people are like that."**

** This little post-script is not necessarily a definitive statement about my position on the presidential race.


Posted by: JRoth | Link to this comment | 05-16-08 12:01 PM
horizontal rule
105

101: Interesting. I didn't know. I figured that the main author was white, since, again, the glib superficial humor of it all would be only funny if it was self-satire.

My boyfriend's white, and makes white people jokes. I am not, so I make Asian American people jokes. Is it funnier because we're "allowed" and we're making fun of ourselves? Why can't I make fun of him being a whitey without feeling bad? Why can't he make fun of my Asianness without sounding like an asshole?


Posted by: Belle Lettre | Link to this comment | 05-16-08 12:01 PM
horizontal rule
106

SWPL's co-author is a Filipino-Canadian.

Tancredo is totally right.


Posted by: JRoth | Link to this comment | 05-16-08 12:01 PM
horizontal rule
107

98: tee hee!


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 05-16-08 12:02 PM
horizontal rule
108

Probably because you're bad people.


Posted by: washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 05-16-08 12:02 PM
horizontal rule
109

Stuff English People Like
Jon Swift

1. Oppressing the Irish.
2. Expanding their Empire.
3. Explaining that their food isn't really all that bad.


"What do you mean you don't think it's funny? You're just defensive!"


Posted by: JRoth | Link to this comment | 05-16-08 12:04 PM
horizontal rule
110

I don't really want to get dragged into this dull discussion again, but seeing it replayed in fast forward, as it were, it becomes more clear: most of the haters complain that it's glib and not very funny. Most of the lovers defend it on the basis of being in some way insightful (and at least a little funny).

Point being, it's not the same conversation:

"It's not funny."
"But it's true!"
"It's still not funny."
"But it describes me! And people I know!"

As we've seen, non-conversations like that can actually be sustained for hundreds of comments at a go. But they still don't go anywhere.


Posted by: JRoth | Link to this comment | 05-16-08 12:08 PM
horizontal rule
111

In what strange world is xkcd NOT visual candy? I mean, it's not Spaceman Spiff or anything, but the guy (girl?) does a lot with the stick figures.

Besides, the Ballmer Peak is pure comedy genius.


Posted by: water moccasin | Link to this comment | 05-16-08 12:08 PM
horizontal rule
112

As we've seen, non-conversations like that can actually be sustained for hundreds of comments at a go. But they still don't go anywhere.

And you know who likes that...


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 05-16-08 12:09 PM
horizontal rule
113

Why can't I make fun of him being a whitey without feeling bad?

Asian-American people love shame.


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 05-16-08 12:09 PM
horizontal rule
114

105.2 Power. Good racial/ethnic humor is often about power. It's just not very funny when those with more power make fun of those with less. Which isn't my half-assed effort to get into the power dynamics present in your relationship. I'm talking about the relative power of white people as a group.


Posted by: Ari | Link to this comment | 05-16-08 12:09 PM
horizontal rule
115

The whole blog strikes me as a parody of reductionist takes on "African-American culture" or "Latino culture."

This was the most charitable explanation I could manage when I tried to understand why people like SWPL, but even it that were the intent, it's not clever enough to pull it off. Basically, I think Tweety's right, and the exposure SWPL has gotten is out of all proportion to its actual humor value, which I would put somewhere between Dave Barry and "Cathy."


Posted by: Jesus McQueen | Link to this comment | 05-16-08 12:10 PM
horizontal rule
116

Ari says you need to date a black guy.


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 05-16-08 12:10 PM
horizontal rule
117

How, how, did this not turn into extended mockery of w-lfs-n?

On behalf of other Mineshaft pedants, I protest! While perhaps not quite in w-lfs-n's league, one of them may have been on the grammar team in high school. One of them may even have wanted to demand a discounted rate every time her therapist said "between you and I."

/indignation


Posted by: Sir Kraab | Link to this comment | 05-16-08 12:12 PM
horizontal rule
118

an Aspiring White Person
that's even more ugly concept
one aspires to be oneself, true and only


Posted by: read | Link to this comment | 05-16-08 12:12 PM
horizontal rule
119

Wow. I think this resolves any doubt that SWPL was talking about the people who read this blog.

And if it hasn't been said: the very point of the blog is to make a certain group of people defensive about their tastes and consumption habits. And, what is hilarious (but not completely fair) is that efforts to make reasoned arguments taking issue with that blog usually serve to reinforce the point it tries to make.


Posted by: dan | Link to this comment | 05-16-08 12:13 PM
horizontal rule
120

116: That's not funny. (Okay, maybe it is.) I'd now like to say something smart about the fluidity of power dynamics and identity at Unfogged, and how the above relates to this being a pretty funny place, but I don't really know what I want to say. So instead I'll just call you a racist. Racist.


Posted by: Ari | Link to this comment | 05-16-08 12:13 PM
horizontal rule
121

Ari tells me, lots of things, like how I should watch Fiddler on the Roof with my dad.

But Ari was right on about talking to my boyfriend about the disownment thing and predicted how sympathetically he'd respond, and for that I am grateful.

So, by extension, I should continue to listen to Ari and break up this guy, and yes, date a black guy.


Posted by: Belle Lettre | Link to this comment | 05-16-08 12:13 PM
horizontal rule
122

When asking someone about their biggest annoyances in life, you might expect responses like "hunger," "being poor," or "getting shot."

I can't imagine describing getting shot as an annoyance, and I have a hard time thinking of anyone who would. Say problem, maybe?

Stuff White People Like: vocabulary nitpicking!


Posted by: Cyrus | Link to this comment | 05-16-08 12:14 PM
horizontal rule
123

an, -ier


Posted by: read | Link to this comment | 05-16-08 12:14 PM
horizontal rule
124

Hear that, haters, I'm incredibly wise.


Posted by: Ari | Link to this comment | 05-16-08 12:16 PM
horizontal rule
125

I'm still not crazy about SWPL, but at its best, it does aspire to provide the kind of satirical commentary about perceptions of other cultures that is alleged above. I still feel like they're pulling their punches a lot of the time though. And how can you defend satire when it does that? Give me Swift or Bamboozled over this thin, white gruel anytime.


Posted by: minneapolitan | Link to this comment | 05-16-08 12:17 PM
horizontal rule
126

Give me Swift or Bamboozled over this thin, white gruel anytime.

Well, yeah.

I almost said, in response to m. leblanc upthread, that sure, I could do that site, but it'd be a fuckload angrier and probably not very popular.


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 05-16-08 12:18 PM
horizontal rule
127

coz you all never correct my mistakes i declare you all non-white-racists, non applying to the both nouns through defis


Posted by: read | Link to this comment | 05-16-08 12:18 PM
horizontal rule
128

127: Jeez, read, whaddya think we are? Lawyers?


Posted by: minneapolitan | Link to this comment | 05-16-08 12:19 PM
horizontal rule
129

See, now this is funny.

I know that 1) it's old hat; and 2) it does allow the "I'm not like that caricature, so I'm totally cool and down with the gente" response, but at least it's funny.


Posted by: Sir Kraab | Link to this comment | 05-16-08 12:22 PM
horizontal rule
130

mostly lawyers, profs and grad students


Posted by: read | Link to this comment | 05-16-08 12:23 PM
horizontal rule
131

119: And if it hasn't been said: the very point of the blog is to make a certain group of people defensive about their tastes and consumption habits. And, what is hilarious (but not completely fair) is that efforts to make reasoned arguments taking issue with that blog usually serve to reinforce the point it tries to make.

Good lord, I initially took the first sentence to be describing this blog.

The second sentence: not true, though it sounds good. Some arguments against that blog wind up as defenses of stuff white people like. Others don't.


Posted by: parsimon | Link to this comment | 05-16-08 12:24 PM
horizontal rule
132

I cannot fucking believe that he got a book deal out of it.

Theoretically, with an editor, he could get the prose punched up, and it would be funny in at least one dimension. But I doubt that he's got the chops, nor the publisher the desire, to make it an actually-biting satire that would make it worthwhile.


Posted by: JRoth | Link to this comment | 05-16-08 12:24 PM
horizontal rule
133

I used to find xkcd funny, but I no longer do. Whether the fault is his or mine, I cannot say.


Posted by: redfoxtailshrub | Link to this comment | 05-16-08 12:25 PM
horizontal rule
134

Give me Swift or Bamboozled over this thin, white gruel anytime.

Give me Jon Stewart, for that matter.


Posted by: parsimon | Link to this comment | 05-16-08 12:26 PM
horizontal rule
135

I used to find xkcd funny, but I no longer do. Whether the fault is his or mine, I cannot say.

Read it less frequently. This also works for SWPL.


Posted by: water moccasin | Link to this comment | 05-16-08 12:26 PM
horizontal rule
136

134: Oh, do give me Jon Stewart!


Posted by: Di Kotimy | Link to this comment | 05-16-08 12:28 PM
horizontal rule
137

Read it less frequently.

I suspect, in fact, that he should try writing it less frequently but to assert that for certain would be to take too firm a position on the his fault/my fault question.

I always enjoy the wacky comic antics of Kate Beaton.


Posted by: redfoxtailshrub | Link to this comment | 05-16-08 12:32 PM
horizontal rule
138

"Heh, cute site"

If it were a one page bullet list, it would be "Heh, cute page". It's got 500 words of good content blown out to pages and pages and pages of tedious.


Posted by: soup biscuit | Link to this comment | 05-16-08 12:34 PM
horizontal rule
139

Oh damn. Po=Mo's 102 just made me sort of appreciate SWPL. Then Cala's 103 came along and made me feel like a dense 14 year old for not seeing that angle sooner...


Posted by: Di Kotimy | Link to this comment | 05-16-08 12:38 PM
horizontal rule
140

I think xkcd has gone soft, and I suspect it's because he's in a better place lately, so I can't begrudge it. It's still funnier than most of the stuff out there.

SWPL should have been updated for about a week and then left. It's like the guy in the bar who starts telling a story and everybody shouts out the punchline.

A softer world, anyone?


Posted by: OneFatEnglishman | Link to this comment | 05-16-08 12:38 PM
horizontal rule
141

Give me Swift or Bamboozled over this thin, white gruel anytime.

Actually, I'd love to talk about Bamboozled, which I only saw a few months ago for the first time. Really fucking intense, and well done. But what was up with Damon Wayans's horrendous affect? Wouldn't it have been better with an actual fake-educated-white-guy accent and idioms than some sort of hyperexagerrated arty/butchered-English accent that no one outside high school drama class would ever use?

Did Spike Lee really need to heighten the contrasts between Pierre and Sloan's characters and their comfort with their own racial/personal identities that much?


Posted by: Po-Mo Polymath | Link to this comment | 05-16-08 12:41 PM
horizontal rule
142

A softer world is usually good, and occasionally brilliant.


Posted by: soup biscuit | Link to this comment | 05-16-08 12:41 PM
horizontal rule
143

Is it even satire? Would anyone call it satire if it was "stuff yuppies like," or would we all be "yeah, no shit"?


Posted by: Katherine | Link to this comment | 05-16-08 12:49 PM
horizontal rule
144

131: I agree that one can defend the fact that they like fancy kitchen gadgets (#54), and succeed in doing so. But when it is accompanied, as it often is, by a certain surprise at being put under the microscope, my second sentence holds true. I bet without even looking that there is a 500-comment thread here about Bill Cosby's talk about poor black people, weighing the pros and cons of what he had to say -- about people who are always under the microscope. All that site does is turn it around. So again, when someone expresses surprise at that their hegemony being questioned, it is evidence that there is something worth questioning in the first place.


Posted by: dan | Link to this comment | 05-16-08 12:52 PM
horizontal rule
145

or would we all be "yeah, no shit"?

Yep.


Posted by: parsimon | Link to this comment | 05-16-08 12:54 PM
horizontal rule
146

144: No, sorry, I wasn't clear. I meant that arguments against the site like those in 82, 84 and 96 above aren't susceptible to your point.


Posted by: parsimon | Link to this comment | 05-16-08 12:57 PM
horizontal rule
147

It can be not funny & sound like David Brooks at the same time. The original David Brooks manages it.


Posted by: Katherine | Link to this comment | 05-16-08 1:01 PM
horizontal rule
148

So again, when someone expresses surprise at that their hegemony being questioned, it is evidence that there is something worth questioning in the first place.

Yeah, but I don't think the "not-funny" people are expressing "surprise at their hegemony being questioned." It's more like, "Wait, what? That's stupid." I think it's less about being defensive about liking kitchen gadgets. I think the reason is more because some of us look at that and go, "Nobody I know gives a shit about grammar. Or scarves. Or bicycles. Wait, why do people think this is funny." It's less about being annoyed by the site as it is being annoyed by the "OMG, that's so true!" proclamations. Um, no. No it's not.


Posted by: Di Kotimy | Link to this comment | 05-16-08 1:11 PM
horizontal rule
149

Perhaps you are just not hegemonic enough, Di.


Posted by: soup biscuit | Link to this comment | 05-16-08 1:17 PM
horizontal rule
150

Stuff Hegemonic People Like!


Posted by: Di Kotimy | Link to this comment | 05-16-08 1:23 PM
horizontal rule
151

(I feel I should confess that I do actually like scarves, though I don't actually own any.)


Posted by: Di Kotimy | Link to this comment | 05-16-08 1:25 PM
horizontal rule
152

Stuff Hegemonic People Like Turkeys!


Posted by: M/tch M/lls | Link to this comment | 05-16-08 1:26 PM
horizontal rule
153

151: Next you're going to tell us your birthday is coming up soon, aren't you?


Posted by: M/tch M/lls | Link to this comment | 05-16-08 1:27 PM
horizontal rule
154

152: Hegeducken!


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 05-16-08 1:28 PM
horizontal rule
155

146: Well, I guess I didn't think these were such good arguments. 82, 84 and 96 all take advantage, to one degree or another, of the fact that anything that looks like the pose of an ironical "hipster" merits criticism. I think this is a willful misread of that blog.

But taking those arguments on the merits defeats my point, that arguments against that site usually end up justifying/making its broader point. Look at the three posts you point out: to defeat or deflect the criticisms in the blog itself -- of white people -- each mobilizes the "the poor" or the "non-privileged" -- to defend white people. That is classic. "Your criticisms of white people are unfair to blacks! And the poor!" This conveniently misses the issue -- even if there is some merit to the substance of the argument.


Posted by: | Link to this comment | 05-16-08 1:29 PM
horizontal rule
156

Scarves? What's the thing about scarves? I do like them and have quite a few of them, but most people think it's just a weird thing about me.


Posted by: parsimon | Link to this comment | 05-16-08 1:30 PM
horizontal rule
157

But taking those arguments on the merits defeats my point

Good catch.


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 05-16-08 1:30 PM
horizontal rule
158

One of them may even have wanted to demand a discounted rate every time her therapist said "between you and I."

I feel for you Sir Kraab. I think that I once lost it and corrected a therapist (in group therapy, no less).

"Between you and I" is the worst, because the person is trying to sound educated whereas "Jim and me went to the store" doesn't grate nearly so much.

Can't we please just make fun of our grammar pedantry?


Posted by: Bostoniangirl | Link to this comment | 05-16-08 1:31 PM
horizontal rule
159

Look at the three posts you point out: to defeat or deflect the criticisms in the blog itself -- of white people -- each mobilizes the "the poor" or the "non-privileged" -- to defend white people. That is classic. "Your criticisms of white people are unfair to blacks! And the poor!" This conveniently misses the issue -

I think you're seriously misreading them.


Posted by: M/tch M/lls | Link to this comment | 05-16-08 1:32 PM
horizontal rule
160

The "white people" thing seems to convince some people that it's some kind of biting satirical critique of cultural hegemony instead of a conventional, obvious, Brooks-y list of "stuff yuppie liberals like".


Posted by: Katherine | Link to this comment | 05-16-08 1:35 PM
horizontal rule
161

153: I'm not sure I get your point. Oh, and I tend to look pretty good in rich, deep colors, in case you were wondering.


Posted by: Di Kotimy | Link to this comment | 05-16-08 1:39 PM
horizontal rule
162

160 nails it. What else needs to be said ?


Posted by: politicalfootball | Link to this comment | 05-16-08 1:41 PM
horizontal rule
163

Don't you need to know what type of fabrics I like?


Posted by: Di Kotimy | Link to this comment | 05-16-08 1:42 PM
horizontal rule
164

161: The scarf's in the mail, Di.


Posted by: M/tch M/lls | Link to this comment | 05-16-08 1:43 PM
horizontal rule
165

Re: making fun of rich white liberals, this is 40-odd years old and still better executed.


Posted by: Katherine | Link to this comment | 05-16-08 1:43 PM
horizontal rule
166

155: This conveniently misses the issue -- even if there is some merit to the substance of the argument.

No, it doesn't miss the issue, because the posts I mentioned are not out to defeat or deflect the criticisms of white people on offer. On the contrary, if I may be so bold, they are in agreement that white people suck in a number of ways. They disagree that it's funny.


Posted by: parsimon | Link to this comment | 05-16-08 1:45 PM
horizontal rule
167

What is the problem about scarves????


Posted by: parsimon | Link to this comment | 05-16-08 1:48 PM
horizontal rule
168

What is the problem about scarves????

They are #97 on SWPL.


Posted by: CJB | Link to this comment | 05-16-08 1:52 PM
horizontal rule
169

I do not want to be a defender of that site, but it just struck me that the beginning of this thread had a sort of knee-jerk reaction I have seen before when the words "white people" are said around white people. (I assume that is why ogged left this thread). I think it is revealing that, however hackneyed, criticisms of white people are always met with statements suggesting that (1) not all white people are like that, (2) the critique isn't thorough-going enough, and doesn't address the "real issues" of poverty, or (3) this critique is "obvious."

That is, I have never seen any criticism of white privilege (or hegemony, unless that term invites further mockery) good enough for a lot of white people.


Posted by: dan | Link to this comment | 05-16-08 1:55 PM
horizontal rule
170

Many of SWTL's entries seem to follow the model "White people like X, when there are starving people in the world!", or the related model "White people claim to care about poor people, but they really don't!"

Now it'd be justly-targeted satire if I had any sense at all that the authors actually cared about the poor and wanted to goad white people into doing useful things to end poverty (as was Swift's aim). Instead it just seems to be a rhetorical stick wielded against the very idea that anyone can or should do anything about poverty.


Posted by: M/tch M/lls | Link to this comment | 05-16-08 1:56 PM
horizontal rule
171

169: right, the other thing is that "white people", or at least white liberals, get defensive referred to that way, & say things like: "not all white people are like that!" or "I'm not like that!", thus adding to the impression that it's biting social satire instead of a David Brooks rip off.


Posted by: Katherine | Link to this comment | 05-16-08 1:58 PM
horizontal rule
172

I have not read this thread, just the post. I am going to point out that when I went for my surgical procedure today, what I noticed on the consent form was that they do not understand the difference between Advance Directive and Advanced Directive.

I did not point this out to the nurse, because I was not raised by wolves.

In happier news, the anethesia turned out to be OK. It left me feeling a little dizzy and loopy, but I didn't actually say anything horrible. So that's nice.

Now I feel all righteously indignant that I have cushy health insurance and can have easy medical procedures with expensive drugs and competent, experienced doctors in a comfortable setting, while half the rest of the country can't basic healthcare.


Posted by: Maggie Thatcher | Link to this comment | 05-16-08 2:00 PM
horizontal rule
173

169: That's not necessarily what people are objecting to. I couldn't give a shit what Christian Lander thinks about race; I don't like the site because it fails in the ultimate test of internetical value, which is whether or not it amuses me.


Posted by: Jesus McQueen | Link to this comment | 05-16-08 2:02 PM
horizontal rule
174

criticisms of white people are always met with statements suggesting that (1) not all white people are like that

I hate to make it sound like I actually care, but my point wasn't "not all white people" but "hardly any white people I've ever met" or "nobody I know." And it's not even "I hate the blog because..." It's "this is why I'm totally not seeing what's supposed to be so funny."

That is, I have never seen any criticism of white privilege (or hegemony, unless that term invites further mockery) good enough for a lot of white people.

Could it be because there's not alot of genuinely good criticism of white privilege?


Posted by: Di Kotimy | Link to this comment | 05-16-08 2:02 PM
horizontal rule
175

Maggie T -- congrats (?) on coming through the surgical thing well. I'm sure there's a more appropriate well-wish, but hopefully you get the generally positive/supportive idea...


Posted by: Di Kotimy | Link to this comment | 05-16-08 2:06 PM
horizontal rule
176

168: Ah, thanks. Totally right. Temperature control and ornamentation, baby.

169.2: I have never seen any criticism of white privilege (or hegemony, unless that term invites further mockery) good enough for a lot of white people

You haven't? You did say "for a lot of white people" -- and that might be true, depending on who you're counting.


Posted by: parsimon | Link to this comment | 05-16-08 2:06 PM
horizontal rule
177

That is, I have never seen any criticism of white privilege (or hegemony, unless that term invites further mockery) good enough for a lot of white people.

This says nothing towards whether this specific instance of criticism of white privilege is any good.

And when you say "good enough for a lot of white people", do you mean "critical enough" or "palatable enough"? A lot of people don't see or don't have a problem with with their own privilege.


Posted by: M/tch M/lls | Link to this comment | 05-16-08 2:07 PM
horizontal rule
178

165: Re: making fun of rich white liberals, this is 40-odd years old and still better executed.

Yes, this is one thing that irks me, the presumption that it is all so unique, "rare" in the linked article. This ground has been repeatedly plowed (with slightly changing targets as the culture evolves) for a long time.


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 05-16-08 2:10 PM
horizontal rule
179

And when you say "good enough for a lot of white people", do you mean "critical enough" or "palatable enough"?

I hope dan answers this.

(I've also been vaguely wondering whether he saw/read ogged's blow-out post after the first SWPL thread, and whether it's wise to point him to it, or whether it would just be confusing. I'ma leave that alone.)


Posted by: parsimon | Link to this comment | 05-16-08 2:18 PM
horizontal rule
180

177: I am not arguing for or against any particular critique. I am saying that it is awfully hard to tell the difference between resistance to a particular critique and resistance to *any* critique. I think the last line in 174 is pretty blunt about it.


Posted by: dan | Link to this comment | 05-16-08 2:22 PM
horizontal rule
181

I am saying that it is awfully hard to tell the difference between resistance to a particular critique and resistance to *any* critique. I think the last line in 174 is pretty blunt about it.

How about looking at the actual substance of the resistance as opposed to assuming that it's just a knee-jerk reaction?


Posted by: M/tch M/lls | Link to this comment | 05-16-08 2:33 PM
horizontal rule
182

When I said "good enough" I just meant something that meets the standard of legitimate criticism in the eyes of the person reading it. What I saw at the outset here is, essentially, that blog is dumb so I need not respond. What is interesting is that, despite this, there has been lots of responding.

I agree that privilege is something white people often do not see, which makes it that much more strange to write off SWPL. Doesn't that insight suggest that its notariety -- despite its shortcomings -- is linked to the fact that it calls attention to what (some) people (sometimes) fail to see? I say yes, and my point is that spending so much time on the blog's formal shortcomings looks like skirting the substance of it. I say looks like because perhaps no one here really is. But it can be hard to tell.


Posted by: dan | Link to this comment | 05-16-08 2:41 PM
horizontal rule
183

When I said "good enough" I just meant something that meets the standard of legitimate criticism in the eyes of the person reading it. What I saw at the outset here is, essentially, that blog is dumb so I need not respond. What is interesting is that, despite this, there has been lots of responding.

I agree that privilege is something white people often do not see, which makes it that much more strange to write off SWPL. Doesn't that insight suggest that its notariety -- despite its shortcomings -- is linked to the fact that it calls attention to what (some) people (sometimes) fail to see? I say yes, and my point is that spending so much time on the blog's formal shortcomings looks like skirting the substance of it. I say looks like because perhaps no one here really is. But it can be hard to tell.


Posted by: dan | Link to this comment | 05-16-08 2:41 PM
horizontal rule
184

There's no lack of good criticism of white privilege (COWP). What's lacking is funny criticism. And this is hardly surprising. It's a big topic, and hard to cover well. Humor can be incisive - finding small moments and blowing them apart - or broad. There is, in fact, lots of incisive, funny COWP - "Love me, I'm a liberal" is a pretty good example. It's incisive because its target isn't that big - the audience for liberal/left commentary ca. 1968 wasn't big, and it was useful and interesting and bitterly funny to point up their hypocrisies.

But that small target group is just a fraction of white privilege. Lay the blame however you will, you certainly can't say that they held the lion's share of white privilege, nor that they were the most egregious preservers of that privilege. And if you try to attack/mock/ridicule the whole enchilada, you lose momentum. How do you make a good joke that sends up both Grace Slick and Barry Sadler?

It's not hard to write earnestly and deeply about the ways in which latte drinkers, fancy cigar smokers, hockey fans and NASCAR fans all fuck up the world. But there's no common thread that makes ridiculing them likely to succeed. It can be done, but it requires a lot of skill.

White privilege is not the preserve of the yuppies mocked by SWPL. By limiting the mockery (such as it is) to that subgroup, it can't be said to be mocking white privilege. By suggesting that yuppies are coterminous with privileged white people, it can't be considered a very good observer. And by droning on endlessly about semi-amusing foibles, it can't be considered very funny.


Posted by: JRoth | Link to this comment | 05-16-08 2:43 PM
horizontal rule
185

You people are insane. I don't know why SWPL drives you so nuts. It;s a joke blog that specifically targets people who are doing alright in the world. I'm not sure that it's possible to be more purposely ineffectual.


Posted by: SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 05-16-08 2:45 PM
horizontal rule
186

To me it's not very funny because it's really all about yuppies. People around here are completely white and mildly racist but share almost none of the site's traits.

We voted for Obama, though. Wobegon is a highly-educated Obama town, which in political demographics means that the HS graduation rate is higher than 80%.


Posted by: John Emerson | Link to this comment | 05-16-08 2:46 PM
horizontal rule
187

So Grace Slick and Barry Sadler walk into a bar . . .


Posted by: M/tch M/lls | Link to this comment | 05-16-08 2:47 PM
horizontal rule
188

What is interesting is that, despite this, there has been lots of responding.

I believe that this blog has featured 300 comment threads about Slurpees. It doesn't take much for us to respond.


Posted by: JRoth | Link to this comment | 05-16-08 2:49 PM
horizontal rule
189

185 gets it exactly right, crackers.


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 05-16-08 2:51 PM
horizontal rule
190

188: We contain multitudes.


Posted by: John Emerson | Link to this comment | 05-16-08 2:52 PM
horizontal rule
191

I agree that privilege is something white people often do not see, which makes it that much more strange to write off SWPL. Doesn't that insight suggest that its notariety -- despite its shortcomings -- is linked to the fact that it calls attention to what (some) people (sometimes) fail to see? I say yes, and my point is that spending so much time on the blog's formal shortcomings looks like skirting the substance of it. I say looks like because perhaps no one here really is. But it can be hard to tell.

I would say that the vast majority of commenters here know all about white privilege. It's possible that, in the larger world, SWPL has opened some white dude's eyes. But around here, its putative political content is old news.

So we're left with bickering about whether it's funny. In the Yes camp we have the Unfoggedtariat's most humor-challenged member, and its trolliest. In the No camp, we have to coblogger of the funniest blogger on the Internet. I know how I score it.


Posted by: JRoth | Link to this comment | 05-16-08 2:53 PM
horizontal rule
192

187: presumably the punchline involves a white rabbit in a green beret.


Posted by: JRoth | Link to this comment | 05-16-08 2:54 PM
horizontal rule
193

I agree that privilege is something white people often do not see, which makes it that much more strange to write off SWPL.

You're succumbing to the soft bigotry of low expectations.

I don't think it's actually effective, in particular because one of the things it seems to be trying to mock is giving a shit about things like the environment, poverty, racism. As I said above, it takes aim at liberal hypocrisy from the point of view that caring in the first place is the problem (as opposed to the problem being not putting enough into what one professes to care about).


Posted by: M/tch M/lls | Link to this comment | 05-16-08 2:54 PM
horizontal rule
194

I hate SWPL because it made me feel bad about my Bertoia chair. My cat still likes it, though.


Posted by: mcmc | Link to this comment | 05-16-08 2:55 PM
horizontal rule
195

Your cat likes SWPL? What, is your cat stupid??


Posted by: M/tch M/lls | Link to this comment | 05-16-08 2:57 PM
horizontal rule
196

Having already grown tired of writing off that blog as being not-funny and sort-of-annoying, I will now write off dan for similar reasons, plus not having read the archives. Presto!


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 05-16-08 2:57 PM
horizontal rule
197

In the No camp, we have to coblogger of the funniest blogger on the Internet.

Note that this doesn't actually mean that I'm funny, just that I know coattails when I see 'em.


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 05-16-08 2:58 PM
horizontal rule
198

Sifu make a mean eggnog too. So there's that.

(surely eggnog is one of the entries on SWPL, right?)


Posted by: M/tch M/lls | Link to this comment | 05-16-08 3:00 PM
horizontal rule
199

Sifu's cob-logger *used* to be funny.


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 05-16-08 3:00 PM
horizontal rule
200

surely eggnog is one of the entries on SWPL, right?

Next thing, you're gonna tell us that drunkenness is SWPL.


Posted by: Blume | Link to this comment | 05-16-08 3:01 PM
horizontal rule
201

199: Now he's just shrillwhite.


Posted by: M/tch M/lls | Link to this comment | 05-16-08 3:01 PM
horizontal rule
202

Was it Sifu or Sifu's co-blogger that wrote the thing about covering pots when you boil water in them?


Posted by: Cala | Link to this comment | 05-16-08 3:02 PM
horizontal rule
203

202: that'd be the funny one.


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 05-16-08 3:02 PM
horizontal rule
204

Drunkenness is SWPL.

Hey, you were right! Uncanny!


Posted by: M/tch M/lls | Link to this comment | 05-16-08 3:03 PM
horizontal rule
205

199-203: Awesome.


Posted by: JRoth | Link to this comment | 05-16-08 3:04 PM
horizontal rule
206

Listen


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 05-16-08 3:05 PM
horizontal rule
207

191's first paragraph makes assumptions I cannot. But I don't know anyone here.

193: I think it takes issue with people for whom "giving a shit" is fine so long as the basics of their own lifestyle are not threatened.

It is ironic to have a group of white people acting as the gatekeeper on legitimate criticism of white privilege. This group could have a blind spot or two, no?


Posted by: dan | Link to this comment | 05-16-08 3:05 PM
horizontal rule
208

White people like boiling water. Spring water. In their AllClad pots. On their Viking brushed steel ranges.


Posted by: M/tch M/lls | Link to this comment | 05-16-08 3:05 PM
horizontal rule
209

Hey, you were right! Uncanny!

Freud is SWPL!

Come to think of it, being right is also SWPL.


Posted by: Blume | Link to this comment | 05-16-08 3:06 PM
horizontal rule
210

Hugging their stand mixers, motherfuckers.

203: shivbunny has praised that post as 'the smartest thing on the entire Internet.'


Posted by: Cala | Link to this comment | 05-16-08 3:07 PM
horizontal rule
211

(That acronym has started being read as 'swipple' in my head.)


Posted by: Blume | Link to this comment | 05-16-08 3:09 PM
horizontal rule
212

It is ironic to have a group of white people acting as the gatekeeper on legitimate criticism of white privilege.

I should follow Sifu's advice. But anyway, how is discussing an issue and stating personal opinions "acting as the gatekeeper on legitimate criticism of white privilege"?

191's first paragraph makes assumptions I cannot. But I don't know anyone here.

This group could have a blind spot or two, no?

You seem to be assuming that anyone here is actually defending white privilege, as opposed to stating their personal like or dislike for a particular instance of someone commenting (sort of) on white privilege.


Posted by: M/tch M/lls | Link to this comment | 05-16-08 3:13 PM
horizontal rule
213

203: Can we have a link, please? I missed that somehow.


Posted by: mcmc | Link to this comment | 05-16-08 3:17 PM
horizontal rule
214

Oh, never mind.


Posted by: mcmc | Link to this comment | 05-16-08 3:18 PM
horizontal rule
215

Seriously, dan, if you want to be non-trollish, site-search for white privilege (may as well check out male privilege while you're at it) and see what you get. It may make your comments more apposite.


Posted by: JRoth | Link to this comment | 05-16-08 3:18 PM
horizontal rule
216

213: My cat wrote that. She's so stupid.


Posted by: mcmc | Link to this comment | 05-16-08 3:18 PM
horizontal rule
217

193
I don't think it's actually effective, in particular because one of the things it seems to be trying to mock is giving a shit about things like the environment, poverty, racism. As I said above, it takes aim at liberal hypocrisy from the point of view that caring in the first place is the problem (as opposed to the problem being not putting enough into what one professes to care about).

I'd say what it's trying to mock is the air of self-satisfaction that often comes with giving a shit. Why not mock the self-satisfaction that comes with being a born-again Christian? They're entirely deserving, but on the other hand they're probably too far gone to be reached.

More interestingly, why not write every entry in such a way that leaves out people who actually do put a lot into what they profess to care about? First of all, I'd say it's because they're relatively rare. My dad and I had an impassioned talk about politics recently -- no offense to my dad, he's a great person, etc. -- and he asked why there weren't demonstrations and strikes and protests going on to try to do something about Bush, and I said that in his case, he's not doing so because it would endanger his job. There are a lot of people who make careers of making a difference, and I know some of them are around here and maybe I underestimate their numbers, but there are a lot more people (like me) who would say they care, or at least would agree with you about what the big problems are, but don't actually do anything about it other than recycle and donate money to politicians.

I guess I can enjoy most of the entries on SWPL taken individually, but as a hundred separate posts, not so much. The joke gets run into the ground just by repetition, not because they go downhill when the author starts running out of ideas, I think.


Posted by: Cyrus | Link to this comment | 05-16-08 3:18 PM
horizontal rule
218

(That acronym has started being read as 'swipple' in my head.)

Every time I see it, I have to remind myself that we're not talking about the Socialist Workers Party something or other.


Posted by: Sir Kraab | Link to this comment | 05-16-08 3:20 PM
horizontal rule
219

Why not mock the self-satisfaction that comes with being a born-again Christian?

Oh, but I do.


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 05-16-08 3:21 PM
horizontal rule
220

We're always talking about the Socials Workers Party something or other, Sir Kraab. Always.


Posted by: soup biscuit | Link to this comment | 05-16-08 3:22 PM
horizontal rule
221

* Socialist


Posted by: soup biscuit | Link to this comment | 05-16-08 3:22 PM
horizontal rule
222

203: shivbunny has praised that post as 'the smartest thing on the entire Internet.'

Is it a post that says, hey, by the way, gang, put the lid on your pot when you are bringing water to a boil, because not doing that means that you in fact fall into the proverbial category of those who do not know how to boil water?


Posted by: redfoxtailshrub | Link to this comment | 05-16-08 3:25 PM
horizontal rule
223

Ah, I see, so it is. Elitist that I am, it never occurred to me that this could be worth mentioning.


Posted by: redfoxtailshrub | Link to this comment | 05-16-08 3:26 PM
horizontal rule
224

Mysteriously, it leaves out the important instruction to put some fucking salt in your water before you add the pasta.


Posted by: redfoxtailshrub | Link to this comment | 05-16-08 3:28 PM
horizontal rule
225

Oh, I keep meaning to mention this. You people on the "SWPL is even slightly funny" camp need to explain

If a white person were to catch a mistake in The New Yorker, it would be a sufficient reason for a large party.

That is painfully unfunny. It's a complete flub of the setup. There's no verbal wit, no sense of word rhythm, no surprise Zing! It would only take a dozen monkeys with typewriters a couple hours to improve on it.

The evidence is staring you in the face, and still you don't see it.


Posted by: JRoth | Link to this comment | 05-16-08 3:29 PM
horizontal rule
226

222: One of my family's most treasured stories is of my mom's roommate (improbably called Truff) who could not, in fact, boil water.


Posted by: JRoth | Link to this comment | 05-16-08 3:30 PM
horizontal rule
227

224: Is fucking salt anything akin to rubbing alcohol?


Posted by: M/tch M/lls | Link to this comment | 05-16-08 3:30 PM
horizontal rule
228

||

Sir Kraab, in light of the NARAL endorsement's not going down well out in the field offices, as GFR and Dana Goldstein have noticed, is this something you saw coming and collectively agreed with?

|>


Posted by: I don't pay | Link to this comment | 05-16-08 3:32 PM
horizontal rule
229

Mysteriously, it leaves out the important instruction to put some fucking salt in your water before you add the pasta.

Ho ho. Fighting words. Put some fucking oil in the water first, thanks.


Posted by: parsimon | Link to this comment | 05-16-08 3:35 PM
horizontal rule
230

as an example of why SWPL is not satire I offer the following:

http://stuffwhitepeoplelike.wordpress.com/2008/04/04/94-free-healthcare/

Its limitation is that it has no point of view. It pretends to be written by the "other" of a certain urban/urbane whiteness, but that perspective has no political content: it's aware of race but that's all it's aware of; all it can do is reveal the arbitrariness of white taste over and over again. When it tries to become political, it ends up mouthing various dull received notions....

or would somebody want to argue that this particular "argument" on healthcare actually represents a trenchant criticism of liberal orthodoxy?


Posted by: lurker | Link to this comment | 05-16-08 3:37 PM
horizontal rule
231

225: I can get not finding it particularly funny, because it's worth about a chuckle. I can't get getting offended by the premise.


Posted by: Cala | Link to this comment | 05-16-08 3:37 PM
horizontal rule
232

Speaking of white privilege, the very funny movie "the miracle of morgan's creek" has one character say "that is mighty white of you" to another character. This is the only time I ever saw an non-ironic use of this phrase.


Posted by: lemmy caution | Link to this comment | 05-16-08 3:38 PM
horizontal rule
233

231: Probably best not to worry about it.


Posted by: parsimon | Link to this comment | 05-16-08 3:40 PM
horizontal rule
234

Let me earnestly say that in a course (20 years ago) on women & development policy, I was questioning whether I had a legimate critique or perspective or what have you about something or other because I'm white and middle class and otherwise privileged (look, I was young), and my prof said yeah, that's all true, but you also have an analysis. I have always found this a helpful construction.

While looking at demographics and correlations to everything from incarceration rates to wealth to a zillion other important things matters quite a lot, it's really not useful to reduce individuals to their demographics nor to pretend that white privilege subsumes all other forms of non-privilege (class and queerness and gender, par example).


Posted by: Sir Kraab | Link to this comment | 05-16-08 3:41 PM
horizontal rule
235

I can't get getting offended by the premise.

Did anyone get offended by the premise? That seems crazy.

What was potentially much more offensive was the idea that any `meh, not very funny, and not very original' response simply *had* to be an expression of white privilege, and couldn't possibly be anything else. From my recollection, that's what actually drove the previous thread, not the site iteself.


Posted by: soup biscuit | Link to this comment | 05-16-08 3:41 PM
horizontal rule
236

Ho ho. Fighting words. Put some fucking oil in the water first, thanks.

(a) No, I shall not, as I prefer to give the sauce a better opportunity to adhere to the pasta, but you may, if you like.
(b) If you want your pasta to taste insipid on the inside, feel free to leave out the salt.


Posted by: redfoxtailshrub | Link to this comment | 05-16-08 3:42 PM
horizontal rule
237

Is fucking salt anything akin to rubbing alcohol?

More like AbsorbShun.


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 05-16-08 3:43 PM
horizontal rule
238

228: Once Edwards dropped out, that's where I thought he'd go, and it's been clear within CWA that he would make the endorsement at some point. I'm not sure if the timing is tied to Edwards' announcement. Possible, because our membership really is split on the candidates.


Posted by: Sir Kraab | Link to this comment | 05-16-08 3:47 PM
horizontal rule
239

The small ads in the new yorker always crack me up. Your money/sense ratio has to be pretty high to buy some tilley endurables or a poke boat. It doesn't reflect well on the new yorker reader demographics.


Posted by: lemmy caution | Link to this comment | 05-16-08 3:50 PM
horizontal rule
240

The small ads in the new yorker always crack me up.

Me, too. If it weren't for the big words and very nearly perfect copy-editing, I wouldn't go near that rag.


Posted by: Sir Kraab | Link to this comment | 05-16-08 3:53 PM
horizontal rule
241

(a) No, I shall not, as I prefer to give the sauce a better opportunity to adhere to the pasta, but you may, if you like.

Ah, so. With longer-type pastas, I experience a sticking-together tendency. I will admit that I give this oil-adding advice to newbies who are prone to dump the done pasta in the strainer and let it sit there for 20 minutes. You understand. I am trying to minimize the damage. Maybe I should tell them something else.

(b) If you want your pasta to taste insipid on the inside, feel free to leave out the salt.

Well. Well.


Posted by: parsimon | Link to this comment | 05-16-08 4:05 PM
horizontal rule
242

231: 235 gets it exactly right. Offense was always ascribed, never taken.


Posted by: JRoth | Link to this comment | 05-16-08 4:06 PM
horizontal rule
243

Ah, so. With longer-type pastas, I experience a sticking-together tendency. I will admit that I give this oil-adding advice to newbies who are prone to dump the done pasta in the strainer and let it sit there for 20 minutes. You understand. I am trying to minimize the damage. Maybe I should tell them something else.

Better, perhaps, would be something along the lines of "Use lots of water, and don't let the pasta sit in the strainer." But sure, oil in the water won't make their pasta crummy, though letting it sit until it congeals will, oil or no.

Well. Well.

Well, you said they were fighting words! (And I'm right.)


Posted by: redfoxtailshrub | Link to this comment | 05-16-08 4:10 PM
horizontal rule
244

newbies who are prone to dump the done pasta in the strainer and let it sit there for 20 minutes.

But you can always just run hot water over said clumps of pasta, helping to both separate and reheat, without imparting unnecessary flavors/textures.

Also, of course, you should save some cooking water if needed to perfect the consistency of the pasta/sauce combo.*

* Not applicable to cream sauces, dio mio.


Posted by: JRoth | Link to this comment | 05-16-08 4:10 PM
horizontal rule
245

Maybe I should tell them something else.

Like: lots & lots of water. Salt the water. Full boil before you throw pasta in. Drain quickly and immediately add a little sauce & stir. There, no sticking.


Posted by: soup biscuit | Link to this comment | 05-16-08 4:12 PM
horizontal rule
246

Soup is my friend in pasta.


Posted by: redfoxtailshrub | Link to this comment | 05-16-08 4:16 PM
horizontal rule
247

Before this thread goes completely to pasta cooking (and the previous thread on SWPL also ended up with cooking and cookware IIRC—no comment), I just want to reiterate that although I am mostly on the "hater" side, that given Ben's post last night and the specific reference to grammar and the New Yorker, Ogged was right. This was a very good post and the timing was perfect.


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 05-16-08 4:17 PM
horizontal rule
248

It's bad enough that this thread failed to mock Ben; do you now want it to praise ogged? Never! I'll sooner buy the SWPL book.*

* Not really.


Posted by: JRoth | Link to this comment | 05-16-08 4:22 PM
horizontal rule
249

Okay, moving on to cooking, then. I'm back in a cooking mode, and itching to buy a new cookbook. Right now I've got Joy of Cooking, How to Cook Everything, and Deborah Madison's Vegetarian Cooking for Everyone. I use the first a lot, the last almost never, and the Minimalist now and then. What should I buy?


Posted by: Blume | Link to this comment | 05-16-08 4:25 PM
horizontal rule
250

Alternately, tell me that we've had the cookbook discussion here a million times and to check the archives. But I want personal advice! For meeee!


Posted by: Blume | Link to this comment | 05-16-08 4:26 PM
horizontal rule
251

What do you want? Comprehensiveness, precision, cooking instructions, exciting new recipes?


Posted by: JRoth | Link to this comment | 05-16-08 4:28 PM
horizontal rule
252

I think I've got comprehensiveness with Joy of Cooking. I don't need cooking instructions. I also don't bake much, so that would be lost on me. So I guess I'm looking for exciting new recipes.


Posted by: Blume | Link to this comment | 05-16-08 4:32 PM
horizontal rule
253

Like: lots & lots of water. Salt the water. Full boil before you throw pasta in. Drain quickly and immediately add a little sauce & stir. There, no sticking.

If people follow this advice, all would be fine. They do not. It's puzzling, but there it is. No worries, just a fact of life.


Posted by: parsimon | Link to this comment | 05-16-08 4:34 PM
horizontal rule
254

Yes, now that I think about it more, something exciting. Outside of the comprehensive workhorses, I'm lost about what to buy, and I don't trust just any random cookbook at the store.


Posted by: Blume | Link to this comment | 05-16-08 4:35 PM
horizontal rule
255

Does exciting mean show-offy/whimsical, or does it mean encourages you to use unusual foods, or does it mean new-to-you combinations of tastes?


Posted by: Witt | Link to this comment | 05-16-08 4:40 PM
horizontal rule
256

I've enjoyed my big-ass Gourmet Magasine cookbook.


Posted by: Jackmormon | Link to this comment | 05-16-08 4:41 PM
horizontal rule
257

So I guess I'm looking for exciting new recipes.

Do you want to go ethnic? This is a superb into to both Indian and Thai curries - pretty authentic, but not obsessively so. I've made at least half the recipes in the book, and have had no more than a couple failures. I also have a Thai cookbook that I love, but would have to go get to find online. Marcella Hazan is good for Italian, if you want a stern kitchen coach.


Posted by: JRoth | Link to this comment | 05-16-08 4:41 PM
horizontal rule
258

More water almost always helps with pasta, to wash away the exuded stickiness. People don't use enough water (myself included) because it seems to cook just fine in less water, until it clumps.


Posted by: Cala | Link to this comment | 05-16-08 4:42 PM
horizontal rule
259

256 and 257 are the kind of advice I'm looking for. I just want something new, but don't have many particulars in mind, so I'm wondering which ones you like.


Posted by: Blume | Link to this comment | 05-16-08 4:44 PM
horizontal rule
260

258: The real problem with not enough water is that it comes off the boil too much. You want to dominate the cooling effect of pouring in room-temp pasta with lots and lots of mass of boiling water. In a perfect world, pasta water would never, ever, dip below boiling. The more time it spends in cooler water, the worse it cooks, basically.


Posted by: soup biscuit | Link to this comment | 05-16-08 4:45 PM
horizontal rule
261

259: This is really good and a little different.


Posted by: soup biscuit | Link to this comment | 05-16-08 4:46 PM
horizontal rule
262

||
248: Ogged was not only right, he was meta-right.
|>

OK, back to cooking.


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 05-16-08 4:50 PM
horizontal rule
263

If this is the advice thread, I need advice on DC. My sister is up and moving there, and we're (everything in my family is a group project) trying to get a sense of the city and how much money she'll need to get by in a relatively modest lifestyle. We've looked at online cost-of-living translators, and she does seem to have her own potential Flophouse set up in Alexandria, but I guess what I'm looking for is sort of general newcomer advice: can she get by without a car? are things expensive? what are things about it which you had wished you'd known? are the only people who are young and living there surviving due to trust funds?

If anyone can point me towards a resource, or just blather on about DC, that would be great.


Posted by: Cala | Link to this comment | 05-16-08 4:56 PM
horizontal rule
264

Is it reverse-snobbish to say that I have no interest in (non-ethnic) restaurant cookbooks? I have no fear of elaborate recipes with lengthy shopping lists and intensive procedures, but I feel that Contemporary American cuisine just doesn't translate well at home. In practical terms, it tends to rely on perfect ingredients and preparation, including things like ultra-hot ovens and split-second timing, but more than that, it's just not something I want to serve at home. I love it out, but somehow not at home.

Perhaps I'm a bit of a Philistine at heart.

That said, the Balthazar cookbook is gorgeous, with yummy, bistro French food. I made the cassoulet (with my own confit duck legs!), and it was pretty amazing.


Posted by: JRoth | Link to this comment | 05-16-08 5:00 PM
horizontal rule
265

Cala, that question clearly belongs in the climate apocalypse thread. Come on, now.


Posted by: JRoth | Link to this comment | 05-16-08 5:01 PM
horizontal rule
266

Cala, I'll pull that up to a post.


Posted by: ogged | Link to this comment | 05-16-08 5:02 PM
horizontal rule
267

264: My dad bought a bunch of the Moosewood cookbooks years ago, and wow, have they not aged well. The 'Sundays at Moosewood' is particularly bad, Sundays being the night they used to cook 'ethnic' food.


Posted by: Blume | Link to this comment | 05-16-08 5:06 PM
horizontal rule
268

JRoth: I had a last minute oportunity to choose a place for a business meal yesterday and opted for The Bigelow Grille. It seems that they are in a transition, Alchemy is done and Sousa is supposedly heading to someplace in Highland Park. But this may well be old news to you.

</Pittsburgh-specific content>


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 05-16-08 5:08 PM
horizontal rule
269

263: Getting by without a car is simpler in neighborhoods well served by transit, which are more expensive than those without it. Alexandria is big, so it's hard to say if she can easily live carless there (in old town it's pretty easy, but some people do stretch the meaning of "old town"). In DC certain neighborhoods make it really easy, others, not so much. Zipcar is also pretty ubiquitous now, so as long as you don't need a car *much* it's cost-effective.

Things are expensive, but I know a bunch of actors who manage to get by on what they make with their part time jobs. Group houses are the way to go.

The only thing I wish I'd known up front is that the suburbs aren't worth it. You pay a cost premium to live in the desirable parts of Arlington or Alexandria that more than offsets the lower taxes, and you still have to commute into DC. There's no tax benefit at all to living in Maryland. She shouldn't live outside the Beltway unless she's going to work out there.

Also: traffic sucks. If she has a suburban commute she should expect to lose at least two hours a day to it. If you live in DC (*anywhere* in DC, even the awful parts) the time it would take to walk is equal to or sometimes less than the time it would take to get there via transit or in a car.


Posted by: fedward | Link to this comment | 05-16-08 5:11 PM
horizontal rule
270

My dad bought a bunch of the Moosewood cookbooks years ago, and wow, have they not aged well

I have a bunch of the Moosewood cookbooks, but the only ones I use with any regularity (I have roughly 75 cookbooks, many vegetarian or specialized) are the originals: the Moosewood Cookbook and the Enchanted Brocolli Forest. The first has a receipt for eggplant and/or zucchini parmesan I still use.


Posted by: parsimon | Link to this comment | 05-16-08 5:19 PM
horizontal rule
271

268: Yeah, heard about it a couple weeks ago. It's a shame, b/c the Bigelow Grille had really become a special place downtown, and I'm not all that interested in an all-Alchemy menu. It's like we need 2 Sousas, one doing the innovative-but-mainstream stuff that made the Grille great, and the other doing the wacky science food stuff.

No tears over the loss of the old Red Room menu; it was fine and all, but certainly not unique.


Posted by: JRoth | Link to this comment | 05-16-08 9:05 PM
horizontal rule
272

JRoth is right about Marcella Hazan.

Paula Wolfert's Mediterranean Cooking is supposedly masterful, but I don't have it. My ma and pop have a lot of good cookbooks but the only one whose name I can remember now is Cucina Ebraica, Sephardic Italian recipes, because it has a great lamb stew.


Posted by: ben w-lfs-n | Link to this comment | 05-16-08 10:40 PM
horizontal rule
273

Oh, hey, now that I'm at AB's computer, within arm's reach of the cookbook shelf, let me add a couple:

THAI, by Judy Bastyra and Becky Johnson; gorgeous and almost all hits (it's the one I mentioned above). The recipes are right on the edge of too brief, but if you're already familiar with some Thai techniques, it's awesome. This would probably be a desert island cookbook for me (the kind of desert island that features the panoply of Thai ingredients)

best-ever CURRY cookbook, by Mridula Baljekar is by the same publisher as the above, and looks really good. I've only made one thing in it so far, so I can't really vouch for it. Like the curry book I recommended above, it spans from India to SE Asia, plus the Philippines. Lots of Indian bread recipes.

Patrick O'Connell's Refined American Cuisine is an exception to 2 things I said above - it's fancy American, and it's a restaurant cookbook (Inn at Little Washington). But lord, is it good. It's a very beautiful book, the writing has a nice, friendly tone, and the recipes I've tried have all been great. One thing I like is that there's a section in the back with building block recipes - quick veggie stock, tarragon vinaigrette, etc. It's the only restaurant cookbook I've used as a general reference cookbook (it's not super-extensive, but it's nice). Part of the appeal to me is that it's Southern-themed (not exclusively), and I do loves me some Southern food. Macaroni & cheese made with aged gouda and Virginia ham? Sign me up! Oh shit, and the apple-rutabega soup is amazing. "Looks and tastes like liquid autumn." Damn right it does.

Oh, and for the record, I like Rick Bayliss. I have his Mexico One Plate at a Time, and like it a lot. Nice balance between authenticity and practicality, and some real winning dishes. AB requests his Mexican chocolate streusel coffee cake for her birthday every year.


Posted by: JRoth | Link to this comment | 05-17-08 6:55 AM
horizontal rule
274

Thanks for all the suggestions, JRoth. I have the feeling I may end up with several new cookbooks now, instead of just one.


Posted by: Blume | Link to this comment | 05-17-08 9:45 AM
horizontal rule