I predict this thread will get no comments.

If loving my stand mixer is wrong, I don't want to be right.

There's also the fact that white people -- meaning the rich and powerful urban white people, mainly -- have long had a habit of doing "disinterested" descriptions of other groups, ranging from travel guides to anthropological accounts. Turning around and doing it to the group that believed they had the "view from nowhere" is funny.

The problem with your description, in short, is that it is ahistorical, treating "white people" as just one group among many without taking into account the particular kind of relationship "white people" have taken up toward other groups. A site like this about black people, even if written by a black person, would not be the same thing -- it's funny, insofar as it is funny, because it's about white people in specific.

I predict this thread will get fewer than three comments.

Of course, Di has to ruin it with her stand mixer love.

I wonder if there are people, white or otherwise, who use stand-mixers for sexual stimulation.

this reasoning would be a lot more convincing if the "Stuff White People Like" blog wasn't funny, but it is.

Surely to ask the question is to answer it.

I always thought SWPL was funny (in theory, anyway) because it was treating the majority, mainstream culture as if it was just another subculture. The tone, and the position of exclusion that the writer takes, is sort of like those old-school comedies of aliens visiting earth, and being oh so shocked about our idiosyncratic ways.

I thought of the humor as coming from that majority-minority place.

SWPL could be funny. It is a purely contingent fact that it is not.

I wonder if there are people, white or otherwise, who use stand-mixers for sexual stimulation.

It's delivered power when I needed strength, a delicate touch when that was all I asked for. Consistent and reliable like few others -- whether human or appliance. It is a love that transcends the merely sexual.

Majority, mainstream culure in Denmark maybe.

In this country it's James Lileks and Dave Barry who carry out the role described in 9.

In the interests of rigorous primary research I just had another look at it and yes, it's still hilarious.

SWPL could be funny. It is a purely contingent fact that it is not.

I totally agree with this. I get irritated that every single entry paints white people as assholes, not merely idiosyncratic and blind to their mainstream identity.

You know, it's the same reason Christopher Guest movies irk me - they are just relentlessly mean. There is never a mix of good parts in with the ridiculous parts of a character.

14: the mounting irritation of white people at

a) how unfair it is to them and
b) how they can't complain about a) without sounding absurdly privileged and whiny

is the whole joke and it keeps on delivering long after the site's actual single-joke conceit has palled.

As always, heebie is totally right.

The last two interpretations in the post strike me as convincing and those of us who don't find it funny are just not the audience for this sort of humor.

My idea that no one would comment on this thread didn't fail, because it's never been tried.

Fourth possibility: it's less about 'White People' and more about the stuff. "Hey, this thing or behavior we think is normal and natural is, from a different perspective, kind of ridiculous" is pretty standard comedy.

because it was treating the majority, mainstream culture as if it was just another subculture

The problem with this idea is that it is far more narrowly targeted than the majority, mainstream culture. Population-wise, it's a tiny percentage. Culture-wise, perhaps a bigger slice.

10 is correct.

I knew I'd find standpipe's blog eventually.

16 illustrates quite well what I don't get: (a) why some of the people who find it funny are soooo invested in convincing everyone else that it really is, empirically, funny; (b) why it is necessary to deride those who don't find it funny as "absurdly privileged and whiny."

16: I'm looking at the front page, which is mocking white people for sweaters, faux diversity, faux irony of adults playing children's games, faux progressivism, being offended, bumper stickers, grammar rules, Ivy League, scarves, and I'll stop there because I grow weary. Anyway, none of those illustrate 16.

No one commenting on a SWPL thread has never failed; it has only been failed.

Also, pace Madison, if white people were angels, no stuff would be necessary. If angels were to govern white people, neither external nor internal comments on stuff would be necessary.

Although angels are stuff white people like.

I repeat my thesis: it's utterly conventional, unoriginal, not-well-executed David Brooks style white-liberal-yuppie baiting, which is deemed cutting edge satire because, 1. it lacks Brooks' transparent bad faith partisan motives, 2. they called it "stuff white people like" instead of "stuff white liberal yuppies like."

25: I thought that was pretty much the consensus last go-round.

(Calling it "stuff white people like" convinces a lot of people who are normally smarter that it's a cutting edge satire on White Privilege, and also makes white liberal yuppies defensive & annoyed, which in turn confirms the first group's mistaken belief that this must actually be a cutting edge satire on White Privilege no matter how much it sounds like David Brooks.)

26: but if we reached consensus before, why will this thread reach 400 comments?

You know, it's the same reason Christopher Guest movies irk me - they are just relentlessly mean

And also not funny.

How long until Unfogged goes "all swipple, all the time"?

but if we reached consensus before, why will this thread reach 400 comments?

Because people are too afraid to just embrace their love of the stand mixer. It's okay people! Be proud. Say it with me, "I love my dough hook!"

Christopher Guest is overrated. Right on, heebie!

I haven't explored the site much, because I resumed it wasn't really about "white people" but about

white people -- meaning the rich and powerful urban white people, mainly

Do these "white people" like Nascar, power tools, macaroni & cheese, and backyard barbecues?

So it is laughing at consumerist in-group signals among what I would call yuppies, which I presume would partially overlap with signals of buppies but not completely (maybe buppies prefer jazz to hiphop or something).

I also presume the radical chic or real radical/green crowd, or the really rich are not the targets. Whatever. I don't care to examine it that closely.

Pwnd by Heebie & Katherine, I guess. Part of the joke apparently is saying it is about "white people" when it isn't. Unless yuppieness defines itself as white. Wouldn't know, I'm trailer trash. Just kidding.

28: Presumably because we lack the courage to kill ourselves.

I couldn't care less about SWPL but you those of you who disparage Christopher Guest are nuts. I grant that much of his stuff is not very funny, but TIST and BIS more than make up for the rest.

Who is Christopher Guest?

Has McArdle posted about swipple yet?

I mean, I have seen comedies making fun of the signaling of almost every subculture, middle-class hispanics, buppies, LGBT's, stoners, junkies, Christians, Jews, Arab-Americans. lots of suburbans.

What seems to hurt here is the "white" Why?

36: The guy that did Best In Show, Waiting For Guffman, Spinal Tap, A Mighty Wind.

What's a buppie?

||

How come nobody told me that Jesse Taylor was back at Pandagon again?

|>

39: Ah. I remember liking Best in Show -- that's the dog movie, right?

I'm guessing "buppie" is the Boomer version of a yuppie?

40- I don't remember why, but it was intentional.

Black Urban Professional.

41: black version, I think.

40: Sorry to fail you, apo, but it was mentioned at Atrios and elsewhere.

As a white male, I assume I should feel some sort of guilt that I didn't much read Pandagon during JT's absence.

42 is funny.

25 & 27 nailed it, I will just repeat to reach 500 comments.

There could be a deeper analysis using exclusion/inclusion, having/being, work/behavior/action, he-who-may-be-killed-but-not-sacrificed, zoe vs bios, and I think it really might be in SWPL somewhere. The politicization of bare life. But it would take me awhile.

38- I don't remember why, but I did find the 'Things Middle-Class Hispanics Like' post here very funny.

Fourth alternative, floated before: it is funny because of in-group loyalty, but not in the way the final interpretation says.

A member of an in-group making light of her own in-group is often a rich vein of comedy. And people who are members of an in-group can make fun of it in a way that people outside the group can't. (e.g., 'that one' Chris Rock routine; the big fat Greek wedding lady, Nia Vardalos, quite a lot of ethnic humor is self-referential.) No othering at all.

My first reaction to this site was that it was funny because it was so obviously someone sending up his own in-group (plus what the Comment Frog said); LB said she wasn't sure whether it was someone on the outside making fun of swipple. If you think it's othering, it's probably not funny (it's not really funny when white frat boys go 'that is so true!' at Chris Rock routines), but there's no reason to think that it is othering. Particularly since the primary author is a swipple himself, as he's said 'yes, that's my bicycle, that's me eating dim sum, this describes me and my friends..'

But if it were othering, it would be funny in a "just deserts" kinda way.

||

The bass line in "Rain" by The Beatles is just too awesome.

|>

I don't get it. Isn't gently mocking ones own group a way of expressing in-group loyalty?
Black comedians like Dave Chappelle do it all the time. It's the same deal as Jeff Foxworthy's "you might be a redneck if..." routine.

The idea being, that being a member of the in group, you can spot the subtle features unique to that group an mock them in ways that resonate with other members of the group.

The author of the website obviously identifies with "white people". I'd expect "white people" like me to react much the same way black people react to Dave Chappelle making jokes about grape drink.

I support the idea of posting new ideas on previously discussed topics.

I find myself mulling over unfogged discussions moderately frequently and coming to new conclusions several days later.

With the conversations as fast moving as they are, it can be good to have a chance to explicitly re-visit subjects.

People love for attention to be paid to their group. Failing television shows and advertisements carefully and obviously made for your group's detailed tastes, it may be necessary to compromise with some guy's website.

I've always been creeped out by Seinfeld for the reasons cited here (not particularly competent, uniformly mean).

I though BIS was hilarious, but I don't like dogs, and am pretty much OK with anti-dog owner humor. I think a lot of catalog copy is funny in exactly the same way, but recognize snickering to be a sophomoric impulse, something that should be suppressed. I have friends who are sincere and unreflective about much of what's being mocked. Basically, I think that it's a mistake to mock people for superficial properties. When I do it myself, I see it as a failing. But I'll still laugh, and for friends that have the right sense of humor, give them grief.

what is UP, haterz? SWPL is funny. thus, the ineluctable laws of logic demand that heebie is wrong, while dsquared is right.

also, stuff educated black people like is interesting though not funny. interesting in that some of it I could think up on my own and some is, like the washcloth, stuff I don't know shit about. sperry deck shoes? but doesn't the very non-funniness of this site cast into relief the humor of SWPL?

I suppose I should be honored to be pwned by Cala.

Oh, and making fun of powerful other-groups is always funny. Is Dave Chappelle being 'othering' when he does his 'white face' voice? I don't know, but holy crap, that's funny.

The less powerful get to make fun of the more powerful. When it goes the other way, it's not funny.

SWPL is funny.

Assumes facts not in evidence. There's a chuckle-worthy 1 page bullet list build in there somewhere, but that's about it.

55:SEBPL looked pretty funny to me.

Particularly since the primary author is a swipple himself, as he's said 'yes, that's my bicycle, that's me eating dim sum, this describes me and my friends..'

I thought Ogged said he was a Canadian of Filipino ancestry.

55: "dsquared is right" qualifies a reductio ad absurdum.

So by the laws of logic, SWPL is not funny.

s/b "qualifies as a".

Maybe I'd find it funnier if it didn't sound exactly like the law school classmate who read "Bobos in Paradise" the year before, & liked to explain how everything I did was a function of my white guilt/desire to appear bohemian/whatever the fuck else. Approx. 1/3 of it is cribbed from conservative attacks on liberals--e.g.:

They feel guilty and sad that poor people shop at Wal*Mart instead of Whole Foods, that they vote Republican instead of Democratic, that they go to Community College/get a job instead of studying art at a University.

ogged was fucking with you or something. the dude who writes the blog is the supremely toolish guy in the recycling photo, currently heading the page in a sweater, etc. I wondered where he found those photos, and if someone was mad at being made to look so idiotic on a now-big website, but when I found it was the writer I was very happy and amused.

63 was quoting from this.

and come on, would you ever have read without SWPL?

I din't need that damn blog to teach me to read.

63: See? Nothing is funny about people voting Republican.

^"this"

68: I dunno, I thought this was funny about people voting Republican.

Even Heebie nods.

66: Actually, I heard about that guy on NPR....

it was mentioned at Atrios and elsewhere

I'm going to have to start reading other blogs again, I guess.

I wonder if there are people, white or otherwise, who use stand-mixers for sexual stimulation.

If not, KitchenAid should get on this right away. It would fit perfectly with the concept of their product line extension, which consists of making "attachments" for the stand mixer that serve various other functions (meat grinding, sausage stuffing, ice cream making, pasta making), all of which cost at least as much as a single-purpose device (i.e. meat grinder, pasta maker) to the same function. The sales pitch goes something like "you get the benefit of the powerful Kitchenaid motor, the likes of which cannot be found in more plebian devices." But after accounting for the loss of efficiency from the power takeoff and u-joints, I'm not sure there is any benefit at all, except the satisfaction of knowing that I Made Sausage With My Standmixer.

Anyway, a KitchenAid vibrator accessory would presumably be made of attractive stainless steel and would cost approximately $90 at Williams Sonoma. Look for it next year in early February.

Every time you do one of these comments about how thoroughly unprogressive it is to say mean things about white liberals, the baby Jesus cries chuckles and says "hahaha yes, those sweaters are pretty lame. And grown men playing Frisbee, for My sake".

Still working on 47, "natural" vs "constructed" identities. This topic does go with what I'm reading, Homo Sacer, and well, the Enlightenment as fashion, and well, EVERYTHING, because that's how my mind works, when it does.

Is Chris Guest playing on the difference between "I sing folk songs" and "I am a folksinger?" When what you choose to do (mostly consume) starts to define who you are, your choices and identity become political and inclusionary/exclusionary, your private life becomes a conscious social relation/statement.

This is not about authenticity.

Dsquared is right. I had a read again, and yeah, it's still quite funny.

75, 77: it's just another chance to laugh at americans for you, right?

re: 78

Nah, at least two of the things on the front page apply pretty much directly to me, too.

In fact, looking, it seems funnier to me now than it did first time round.

I also just read a compilation of PJ O'Rourke's 1980s journalism and ... it's funny.

Must remember to dig out my Bill Hicks video - I put it away in the attic years ago when I realised that some of his jokes might be considered as being targeted at some people who have some of the same political views as me, but now I'm on this "but nevertheless it's still funny" kick, I might end up laughing after all!

"cutting edge satire" is all very well in its place, but I tend to find that after a while the world becomes a rather grey, grim and laughless place.

74: Washable silicon, surely.

I tend to find that after a while the world becomes a rather grey, grim and laughless place.

Comity!

I Made Sausage With My Standmixer

Is that what the kids are calling it these days?

It's not automatically unfunny to make fun of white liberals, but it's neither original or funny when you've heard exactly those same jokes from David Brooks. And you definitely need more to make it funny than "Oh my god, he said white liberal yuppies like the Daily Show! And I like the daily show. And Barack Obama, and I like Obama! And scarves, and I own a scarf!"

O'Rourke was at least a bit better executed, if I remember correctly. Christ, the guy got his book deal; can't you just revel in his hilariousness & success?

re: 85

I don't think that's fair. Some of the write-ups are pretty funny. The scarf one made me laugh, anyway.

I'll tell you what's wrong with that site: fart.

Fart, fart, fart, fart, fart, fart, fart.

87: well, after a certain point, there's no arguing taste, but there are reasons for not liking it beyond "defensive because its critique of white privilege hits too close to home."

Ah come on:

By far, the easiest way to befriend a large group of white people is to organize and then participate in a game that is normally played by children. Unlike the practice of having their parents help with rent, this activity is a pleasant reminder to white people that they have not fully severed their ties with childhood.

I simply don't see how anyone could not find that funny. The only thing that could make it funnier would be a 200-post comment thread full of aggrieved Ultimate Frisbee players swapping hard luck stories about how they certainly never got any help with the rent from their ever so ever so working class parents .... nope, it's got one of those too.

This is Spinal tap is objectively funny, but I'm pretty meh about Best in Show. The only time I laughed out loud was when the announcer said interrupted himself to say "I know that woman from somewhere."

I'll sum up the objective truth about SWPL, so that we can achieve comity before comment 500:

a) It's mildly funny.
b) Many of the jokes are recycled right-wing talking points.
c) It's funny in so far as it is keenly observed in identifying white-people-cultural markers that you would not otherwise notice.
d) The fact that it reduces the category of "white people" to "Ultimate Frisbee players who live in the Bay Area, plus various upper middle-class people Ultimate Frisbee players in the Bay Area might have met one time" is a striking (and somewhat offensive) form of cultural elision, for standard lit-crit-type reasons.
e) The fact that the authors of the blog make fun of themselves is more stereotypically white-person behavior (using the site's definition of "white person") than any observations on the site. A segment of white people (which does not include, say, NASCAR fans) grow up believing that they can achieve a universal neutral disinterested point-of-view. When they discover that they can't, they react with rage that manifests itself in i) pointing out over and over again that white people can't achieve a universal neutral disinterested point-of-view, and ii) thinking that pointing this out is an amazing never-before-heard insight.

If you continue to argue after this summary, I am prepared to put my points in convenient Powerpoint form.

Shorter SWPL:

White people like to justify.

87: I don't think it's unfair. A small percentage of the write ups are funny, but they are drowning in sea of boring.

" It's funny in so far as it is keenly observed in identifying white-people-cultural markers that you would not otherwise notice"

Yes: separate posts on Toyota Priuses AND recycling AND farmers' markets AND organic food AND Whole Foods and Grocery Co-Ops AND bicycles. I never would have had the keen observational skillz to think of those as common cultural markers!

c) It's funny in so far as it is keenly observed in identifying white-people-cultural markers that you would not otherwise notice.

This is another way of saying what I said in 10.

SWPL becomes much, much funnier once you learn that the site is written by Linda Hirshman.

"Wil Shipley, a Seattle software developer, uses his iPhone at the Whole Foods fish counter to check websites for updates on which seafood is the most environmentally correct to purchase. He quizzes the staff on where and how a fish was caught. Because he carries the Internet with him, "I can be super-picky," he said."

I'm likeing it more and more, and my mate the Baby Jesus is practically pissing himself:

If you ever need to make a white person feel indebted to you, wait for them to mention a book, film, or television show that features a character who is the same race as you, then say "the representation of was offensive and if you can't see that, well, you need to do some soul searching." After they return from their hastily booked trip to land of your ancestors, they will be desperate to make it up to you. At this point, it is acceptable to ask them to help you paint your house.

this one's doubly offensive because it's actually a joke at the expense of non-white people. and yet even so ...

I didn't know dsquared was a yuppie. Less surprising in retrospect.

You figured he was one of them finance hippies?

The only thing that could make it funnier would be a 200-post comment thread full of aggrieved Ultimate Frisbee players swapping hard luck stories about how they certainly never got any help with the rent from their ever so ever so working class parents .... nope, it's got one of those too.

I thought dsquared was exaggerating, but that post actually has over 470 comments by now. Some people really do seem to like slagging frisbee to an unhealthy degree, it seems.

pf, no one will take you seriously until you learn to put things in bullet-point form.

Nah, I thought he was older.

D^2 came to fame as a "fat young man without a kind word for anyone*"

He's supposedly less fat, and obviously less young, but I still haven't seen him with a kind word for anything that didn't make fun of Unfogged commenters.

* or -thing; I don't recall

||
A softer world made a shirt for unfogged:
|>

Well he's not here for the huntin'.

To me the emergence of the stand mixer as the ur-symbol of coastal-sipping lattes is a bit surprising having grown up with one as a fixture of my mother's very non-coastal elite kitchen. (she did bake a fair bit). I realize that recontextualization is not an infrequent path for consumer goods, but I'd still love to see a timeline of the demographics of stand mixer ownership. (Not to mention what did she do with her old one?)

Remember back when Emerson had a huge crush on dsquared? Good times. I also miss his attempts to produce threadjacks about bestiality.

Do you guys just not consider #3 worth addressing at all? I'm wondering where I went wrong, such that 100 comments later, it's only been mentioned once -- and that only to make the obvious claim that the "white people" of the site don't represent all white people ever.

109: I think that the angle in 3 was pretty heavily covered in the Original SWPL Thread, and hasn't come up as much in SWPL Thread Redux or SWPL At Rest.

I think that the consensus on that point was that the faux-anthropological move A. has been done, and B. doesn't get the author very far WRT cleverness/insightfulness.

I addressed comment #3 in 91 point e.

RE: PJ O'Rourke

It's been a long time since I've read all of anything by him, but I think that the key distinction - aside from him just being funnier* - is that PJO'R is motivated by dislike of the target group (a group that he is still in some ways a part of - he's an insider/outsider), and that this position - sneering - allows him to be much more incisive and, I would argue, insightful. Too often PJO'R does little but sneer, but the sneer is very helpful when it's in service of a larger thought. SWPL, by contrast, is motivated by guilty self-regard, but not the self-loathing that might lead to some incisiveness.

None of which gainsays 10

* Even if you find SWPL humorous, I don't think it's plausible to claim it's funnier that O'Rourke

Honesty? 3 is exactly what I'm talking about as far as people idiotically convincing themselves it's a critique of White Privilege, that liberal white yuppies are good targets because they're the most powerful white people, that the hostile reaction is due to this powerful group's privileged feeling that they're above mockery rather than that we've heard the same jokes about 250 times before from David Brooks et. al. It annoyed me too much to respond to.

Sorry to have missed your oblique reference, Walt.

I think the more interesting question than whether it is funny is why it makes people so angry. That was what was shocking to me in the original discussion -- not that people would think it was lame, or that it'd been done a million times, or whatever, but that they got so fucking angry about it.

The discussion of whether/why it's funny is a red herring from that perspective. The fact that people got really angry shows that the blog is performing a function beyond just being funny (or failing to be).

I was hoping that Dsquared was a fat, grumpy, pasty-faced, short, dark, dirty. geeky-looking guy, which is more or less how he represented himself, but he turned out to be disappointingly cute, with rosy cheeks, red hair, and shit. Fortunately, shortly after that I found out that I don't actually have any Welsh ancestors.

Is it bestiality when a bear has sex with a Canuck? Liberal-minded bears say no.

113: But who the fuck mentioned David Brooks or conservative critiques in the initial discussion? NO ONE.

113: Bless her heart, she does get exercised, doesn't she?

114: Because having people act like played out David Brooks routine are insightful critiques of White Privilege is really annoying, and having them decide your annoyance shows how insightful a critique of White Privilege the site is is extra special annoying.

doesn't get the author very far WRT cleverness/insightfulness

this is the thing; some people prefer cleverness and insightfulness and some people prefer a laugh. De gustibus and all that; personally I think it's a shame when one can't appreciate both but it's a bad idea to confuse the two.

people idiotically convincing themselves it's a critique of White Privilege

no, #3 was in large part correct about this; it is, among other things, an entirely valid critique of a certain kind of patronising tendency among white liberals which has been irritating non-white people who mix with liberals since the days of Martin Luther King. And which is no worse for David Brooks (apparently, and it's not like Brooks is the fucking antiChrist or anything!) having also said it.

The specific fact that "Stuff White People Like" mocks white liberals for occasionally being clueless and patronising, and wanting to be praised all the time while oblivious to their own privileges, is one of the reasons why the site is so bloody popular with middle-class leftish black people (and it is, my god).

Interestingly, the equally valid criticism of white urban liberals for being a little bit patronising and hypocritical in their attitudes to the working class (which also does not magically turn to radioactive Hitler just because David Brooks has possibly said it) doesn't seem to make it popular with working class white people, who AFAICS hate it, but I don't know why because I don't know many working class white Americans.

114: I don't recall anyone getting angry at the site. I recall a few people getting annoyed, perhaps even angry, at being repeatedly told that the only possible reason that they didn't find the site hilarious and insightful was because it cut too close to the bone.

Which was really quite a stupid position to take. But perhaps my memory of it is off. Or are you perhaps talking about people commenting at that site? In the latter case, I haven't read any -- but it's pretty hard to find any subject at all that won't generate angry commentary with a sufficiently open comment policy.

People were angry in the original discussion before anyone started defending it as a critique of white privilege. They were directly angry about the site itself. If the comparison with David Brooks was the motivation, they were so blinded by rage that they couldn't even bring themselves to speak Brooks's vile name.

So what I'm saying here is that you're maybe not broadly representative, Katherine -- and I say that based on the extremely large data set we're working with at this point.

De gustibus and all that; personally I think it's a shame when one can't appreciate both

Absolutely agreed; For myself, I didn't find the occasional chuckle over there worth wading through all the other pap. Not claiming that's inherent, others obviously found it funnier.

They were directly angry about the site itself.

Where? Here? Did we read the same thread?

as I've mentioned, this growing anger and frustration is part of the joke, although I suspect that isn't going to help - I suspect that there are quite a lot of commenters here who could watch a fat policeman being kicked up the arse and think "well that wasn't very insightful or satirical". NTTAWWT and all; but Peter Cook was the acknowledged master of satire, and in the end he concluded that the "Derek and Clive" albums were actually the true road to wisdom, and he was right.

116: um, about a dozen people, if I remember correctly, but I don't feel like going through the archives. I don't know if David Brooks specifically came up, but if you haven't noticed "limousine liberals"/volvo driving latte drinking San Francisco Democratics/liberal northeastern elites/Cambridge liberals/bobos/etc. etc. etc. ad infinitum are actually a known group in U.S. culture & politics & have been parodied for decadeds, sometimes far more successfully than by this site, & you have to basically be living under a rock to find it startlingly original.

123: Yes, we did. When I saw the thread/link, I looked at the site, thought it was funny, and thought, "I bet the Unfogged crew loves this shit!" Then I saw an extremely negative reaction, within the first few comments -- not only dismissing it as unfunny (which is fine, people have different senses of humor), but seeming genuinely upset that all the positive and beneficial practices of white people were being mocked. I remember FL being especially pained at the implicit criticism of Netflix. The people defending the site obviously racheted up that anger, but the only reason it became so extreme was that people were deeply annoyed at being mocked to begin with.

I don't find it startlingly original! Jesus Christ, move goalposts much?

And there's nothing especially wrong with mocking yuppie white liberals, it's just been done 100x before, often better executed (see e.g. "Love Me I'm a Liberal"), but because this guy named his site "Stuff White People Like" instead of "Stuff White Liberal Yuppies Like", he gets a lot of ardent supporters & detractors instead of a "um, yeah, so?", and a book deal.

this growing anger and frustration is part of the joke,

and by this, you mean Katherine?

I think the more interesting question than whether it is funny is why it makes people so angry.

I didn't think it was the site itself that made people angry. I thought it was all the people insisting that anyone who didn't find it funny was just being defensive (whiny, privileged... ) that made people angry.

DID SOMEONE MENTION NETFLIX RRAWWWRRRRRR!

The real response to 3 was 27, I should have left it at that.

126: Huh. I'll have to have a look at again, 'cause that's not my recollection at all. The only frustration I remember was at the silly claim mentioned before.

Liberal-minded bears say no.

Damn you, Emerson. When you make fun of our liberal-minded Canadian wildlife, you sound just like David Brooks.

(Also, I'm amazed by the level of irritation at SWPL. So white liberals are supposed to be immune from criticism, or even from some basically good-natured and fairly mild humour?)

133: I'm with sb and others in that I do not recall any initial "anger". There were varying opinions, and various reasons people stated for not liking it, but not much anger or anything approximating that. (But my mind is going, of course). I did not mention Brooks, but I do recall bringing up Denis Miller relatively early on.

I'm amazed by the level of irritation at SWPL

I suspect the majority of it is meta, here.

It's not the site so much as the moronic reactions.

David Brooks is the anti-Christ. When Dsquared is wrong, he's very wrong indeed.

OMG OMG! I've got it! We should denigrate the site because it seems to be allied with one of our in-group's enemies, the accursed David Brooks!

Maybe we should also come to the conclusion that in American society, upper-class white liberals are an oppressed group, despite their righteousness. HOW LONG O LORD?!

Netflix is wonderful. Why, via Netflix I can discover things that I'd never seen like Battlestar Galactica and The Sopranos and completely lose my productivity!

139: Well I guess at least one of us is wound up about this site, even if it's not clear to me why. Bizarre.

130 totally pwned by soup.

As for the growing anger, let me tell you, I have vast and expansive expertise in that particular variant of anger which is almost invariably aroused by being repeatedly told that you are angry.

"What are you so angry about?"
"What? I'm not angry."
"You just seem kind of angry."
"No, really I'm not angry."
"Because I really don't see what there is for you to be so angry about."
"I just said I wasn't angry. What the hell?"
"Hey, just because you are pissed off, that's no reason to use that kind of language. I wish you'd just tell me what you are so angry about..."

140: Just don't let your commenting fall too low, ok? One procrastination tool at a time...

The initial anger (or mild irritation) I remember was mostly people thinking along the lines of LB's #3: they weren't sure whether the guy was hating on liberals or excluded from the people who could attain standmixersattva.

129: I was thinking more of the site's own comments (and the frisbeeers are an absolute delight), but yeah, you and her are also, presumably involuntarily, part of the joke by your reaction; and I appreciate this must be annoying. Andy Kaufman is, of course, the guy who took this particular kind of humour to its ultimate extension.

Actually, Katherine's complaints make me wonder if the reaction is related to the LGM/S,N! dust-up over "latte-sipping elitist." White educated liberals have gotten a lot of rhetorical shit over the past decade or two, and SWPL's "haha white people are funny" has a non-negligible overlap with the GOP's "haha real americans do farming things."

142. I've had that exact conversation.

So white liberals are supposed to be immune from criticism, or even from some basically good-natured and fairly mild humour?

Maybe we should also come to the conclusion that in American society, upper-class white liberals are an oppressed group, despite their righteousness. HOW LONG O LORD?!

See, these are exactly the stupid-ass accusations / defenses of SWPL that actually do produce anger.

When "I don't think it's funny" automatically gets turned into "So you don't think white people are mockable???!!!? WHY ARE YOU SO ANGRY?!!!1!??", well, yeah, I tend to get a bit annoyed.

And it's not that Brooks-style humor is so evil, but a not-very-skillfull rehash of all that stuff would not normally be wildly successful. Only the guy was clever or lucky enough to name it "stuff white people like" instead of "stuff white liberal yuppies like," which makes some people defensive, & makes other people think it's a satire of white privilege, and they fight, doubling the obnoxious-factor for the former group & the latter's conviction that this is a well-done satire of white privilege & you get enough attention from both camps (combined with people who can never get enough "white liberal yuppies like stand mixers! and the Daily Show! And they drive Prius's!") to get millions of links & a book deal.

I'm willing to downgrade to initial annoyance that shifted to outright anger in response to the site's defenders, but it was never simply a matter of not finding it funny -- people also found it actively annoying, which is different. For instance, I don't think Garfield is funny, but it doesn't irritate me.

dsquared, while describing the humor of the site, is pretty adept at singling out the signature nonfunny aspects of it.

Look at the weird definition of "white people." White people, according to SWPL, are upset that poor people vote Republican - and yet poor people as a group don't actually vote Republican, while white people as a group actually do.

This is the standard rhetorical inversion that is associated with "political correctness." People who think "political correctness" is an endless source of humor will find SWPL very funny indeed. SWPL isn't about actual white people, it's a lampoon of "politically correct white people" that contrasts them with "salt-of-the-earth-Real-American-white-people."

And ironically enough, shortening "politically correct white people" to "white people" is just a cowardly way of avoiding the genuinely nasty edge that attaches to harangues against the politically correct. That is, SWPL is too gutlessly politically correct to come out and admit that it's lampooning political correctness.

I find the site funny, partly for reasons demonstrated by Kathy G's commenters in her recent post Satan is Real!, about why the Louisiana governor's history of exorcism performance isn't going to hurt him much.

Sorry for being oblique, Zippy. Though the fact that you don't find Garfield actively annoying makes me question your sanity.

I think at this point it's irritation about the argument rather than irritation about the site. Everyone has probably forgotten what their original reaction was.

And people, we need to get this straight once and for all: Real Americans blow tranny hookers under the West Side Highway.

Anyway, this is all a brilliant illustration of why I didn't respond to Zippy's initial comment in the first place.

I did a farming thing just yesterday. I chatted with a farmer about the pesky wild turkeys ravaging his soybeans. So I'm clean.

In related news, my sister gets interior decorating advice from a gay North Dakota wheat farmer who comes to metropolitan Wobegon during the off season. He has farming things up the yinyang, right next to the effete metrosexual things up there.

150: I think you are confusing people finding your pro-SWPL schtick annoying with people finding SWPL itself annoying. Seriously.

145:

I don't follow, really. I don't care about it, and didn't get worked up about the site itself. I had a look at first, thought it was pretty mediocre, and got sucked into a meta-discussion here. So maybe you mean that the fact I'd get sucked into a meta discussion is part of the joke.

Only problem with that is, I can get sucked into a meta discussion here about nearly anything. So I suspect if that says anything, it says it about unfogged.

149 and 151 get it right.

I'm willing to downgrade to initial annoyance that shifted to outright anger in response to the site's defenders, but it was never simply a matter of not finding it funny -- people also found it actively annoying, which is different. For instance, I don't think Garfield is funny, but it doesn't irritate me.

The site does not exist outside its context. People discover these things by seeking that other people have linked to them. The first encounter anyone has with a website like this is by someone else saying "ZOMG This website is hilaripus". In other words, people encounter the "defenders" of the site before encountering the site itself, therefore there is no moment at which someone is responding purely to the site instead of to the combination of the site and the people building it up to be something.

By the way, I can thoroughly recommend Alenka Zupanacic's "The Odd One In" as an entirely thorough and interesting read[1] on why the comic is comic. I do think it's hilarious, though, that we apparently need to find out who the joke is on before we can decide whether it's funny; the trouble is that as Zizek will tell us, even when we get the actual interview with the guy himself and he tells us exactly who it's a "satire" on, we still won't know! Oh the frustrations!

When "I don't think it's funny" automatically gets turned into "So you don't think white people are mockable???!!!? WHY ARE YOU SO ANGRY?!!!1!??", well, yeah, I tend to get a bit annoyed.

well if you look up the original thread, this wasn't actually how it went down. The original link was posted with "hey, funny", and pretty immediately everyone was all like "but you shouldn't mock people who are liberal and nice".

[1] much better than any of that analytic crap, I can tell you.

Good grief, Zippy's gone over the edge.

Also, if D^2 thinks that the humor at SWPL is broad like a fat policeman getting kicked in the ass, then he's gone over the edge as well.

Wow, speeding up around here. 160 to 139.

farming things up the yinyang

I hear prostate-massaging futures are at a record high right now.

142, 147: It's a standard template:

The Dude: Just take it easy man. Walter: I'm perfectly calm dude. The Dude: Yeah, waving the fucking gun around. Walter: Calmer than you are. The Dude: Just take it easy. Walter: Calmer than you are.

The Big Lebowski has attained scriptural status, as far as I'm concerned.

The original link was posted with "hey, funny", and pretty immediately everyone was all like "but you shouldn't mock people who are liberal and nice".

Nonsense.

I'd add that the kind of conversation described in 142 can often be extremely funny. Perhaps not if you're on the receiving end, but then a fat copper getting kicked up the arse isn't funny to the copper.

Rome was another netflix high point for me. I can't remember if the latte-sippers here gave it a thumbs-down or not. Roman execution for the irritatingly self-satisfied was usually administered with a sword straight down right next to the neck. Petronius describes the treatment of failed comedians, who are merely made the subject of public humiliation and fed inferior foods in the course of ritualistic feasts that leave social station unambiguous and feature fabuluous hairstyle choices.

165: Sure, but it's funny because the person doing the `why are you so angry' is being an idiot. It helps when they know this, and play it for the laugh.

166: Rome was great.

Well, I visited the site before I myself commented, so whatever annoyance I detected in the thread was not a direct result of my comments in the site's favor -- unless I've developed time travel! Which I have.

I have also repeatedly said that I found the initial reaction surprising, which would, under normal circumstances, make the initial unfolding of the thread pretty memorable to me.

167: spoken truly like a schoolteacher. Actually it's funny because it's a somewhat nasty way of making someone lose their temper; Zupanacic has a really good discussion of why that's comic.

I mean really:

When asking someone about their biggest annoyances in life, you might expect responses like "hunger," "being poor," or "getting shot." If you ask a white person, the most common response will likely be "people who use 'their' when they mean 'there.' Maybe comma splices, I'm not sure but it's definitely one of the two."

[...]

Fortunately, this situation can be improved if you ask a white person to proof read your work before you send it out. "Hey Jill, I'm sorry to do this, but I have a business degree and I'm a terrible writer. Can you look this over for me?" This deft maneuver will allow the white person to feel as though their liberal arts degree has a purpose and allow you to do something more interesting.

Don't worry, it is impossible for a white person to turn down the opportunity to proofread.

how can you not love it?

Just for the sake of the historical record, see this comment (not by me) from what I think is the first unfogged thread on this:

Oh, look. You can catalog people by their political views and consumer tastes. This is news? Not everything has to be news, I guess, but if it's not news it should perhaps be funny. You could do that with any group, and it would either come off racist or as the sort of faux reverential exoticizing of the supposed salt of the earth that David Brooks specializes in. In fact, that blog is one half of a David Brooks column, complete with the attitude that those decadent coastal elites are shallow and empty in their aspirations, and the invitation to punish oneself for liking yoga or sushi or biking or kitchen appliances

Sure, but it'snot funny because the person doing the `why are you so angry' is being an idiot abusive/antagonistic fucking jackass. It does not helps when they play it for the laugh think it's funny.

Though, possibly I'm being oversensitive now...

I will certainly agree that the quoted comment in #171 is hilarious.

172, 167: I note that kicking policemen in the buttocks is also quite a violent and unpleasant thing to do. Does everyone really think that the set {funny} is meant to be a proper subset of {all things bright and beautiful}?

170: SWPL boldly allows D^2 to laugh at liberal arts majors. What an achievement.

In fairness, it's decently funny, but let's not miss that the one who's finding it funny generally likes mocking the target. A site allowing me to laugh at Republicans isn't necessarily accomplishing much.

Actually it's funny because it's a somewhat nasty way of making someone lose their temper;

You're confused and/or I was unclear, we're saying the same thing. It's funny only if it's done well, but the person saying `why are you angry' etc. is knowingly full of shit. They know the other person isn't angry -- yet.

It doesn't work well as comedy if the person taunting is serious.

how can you not love it?
Easy. Got something better? I guess that ones a pretty good example of how narrowly the original is targeted: white, privleged/sheltered upbringing, liberal arts degree, etc. I guess it depends who you know.

145: The fact that dsquared finds Andy Kaufman funny explains so much.

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

You might expect that if you have no idea what an annoyance is.

175: thanks for at least admitting that the quoted extract was funny; I was questioning my own sanity there.

178: The bit about their vs. there hit too close to home, didn't it, Ben?

Does everyone really think that the set {funny} is meant to be a proper subset of {all things bright and beautiful}?

My biggest annoyance is people who think that "{funny}" denotes the set of all funny things, rather than the singleton set whose sole member is whatever "funny" is supposed to denote here. Maybe you mean something like "{x | funny x}"?

174: also worth noting, the set {funny} is a tiny, tiny subset of the set {things people do thinking they'll be funny}.

This is really ridiculous that people don't remember how annoyed everyone was at first. Ogged wasn't "defending it" initially -- the title of his post indicated that he thought the satire hit its target, but the body of the post was just a link. There was a whole lot of defensiveness that went far beyond a negative assessment of the site's humor value.

Obviously, one could dismiss the "defensiveness" charge as replicating the "Why are you so angry?" routine, but I just don't know how else to characterize the initial reaction.

It's a simple matter to look the thread up if someone wants to disprove me.

178: good point Ben; I spotted one more error of drafting, did you get that one too?

Was it in one of your footnotes? I never make it that far.

180: well, no, not really, not if hitting close to home requires that I feel discomfited, and the reason is precisely that given in 178: annoyances are minor things that bug you, not major things like not being able to provide for oneself or fear of getting shot. No one is annoyed that he or she is starving.

Starving people probably don't have time for a lot of annoyances, but that's different, of course. The pitch is off on that particularl swpl.

Andy Kaufmann is a genius of theater, the more so for being known to most people through television. Is there anyone half as good working now?

I think a white person could pull off being annoyed that they're starving.

This is really ridiculous that people don't remember how annoyed everyone was at first

What's this "everyone", pal?

Andy Kaufmann funny

113: But who the fuck mentioned David Brooks or conservative critiques in the initial discussion? NO ONE.

It's a simple matter to look the thread up if someone wants to disprove me.

You might try looking up and actually reading the thread yourself, Zippy.

I have also repeatedly said that I found the initial reaction surprising, which would, under normal circumstances, make the initial unfolding of the thread pretty memorable to me.

It would probably make you vividly remember your own take on the thread, but that in no way automatically correlates to you remembering the thread accurately.

I think a white person could pull off being annoyed that they're starving.

Maybe that's so—but it completely undermines the author's contention!

I win again, Zippy!

White people don't *get* angry.

Katherine linked the original thread above. The first person to express annoyance was Adam Kotsko, whoever he is.

Right, I literally meant "everyone."

I'm coming to realize that part of the problem with a vicious cycle of defensiveness, meta-defensiveness, etc., etc., is that it's structurally impossible for me to get anyone to admit that such a cycle is what is in fact happening. I might need to give up.

186: hmm, although you could bring the categories together by saying something like "If asked 'what really pisses you off'?, most people would say being shot, not having food etc, but white people would say 'punctuation outside of the quote marks when it's part of the quotation'!". Or something. But that wouldn't fit in with the style of the posts; I suspect the guy will do better when he gets a chance to redraft for his book because I think (as I have mentioned once or twice) that he's really rather a good comic writer.

This is really ridiculous that people don't remember how annoyed everyone was at first.

Actually, God help me, I just reread the first 100 comments, and I'd say that there's virtually no annoyance there. Some joking about the contents, some [meta]critique*, some discussions by commenters who didn't think it applied to them, and a fair few comments pointing out that it's not that funny.

All of which I take to mean that there's no "annoyed at first" to talk about - no one jumped into being really annoyed until others started to insist that the only way not to find it funny was to be defensive.

* Which I guess could be considered "annoyed," but only really tendentiously

When I'm starving, I'm actually very irritable and easily annoyed.

I find this thread annoying and also boring, but I'm still reading it, because I'm borderline mentally ill.

Aren't the first 100 comments of that thread mostly taken up with people itemising which of the SWPL categories do and don't apply to them though? That's a sort of introductory defensive toccata to the eventual overture of defensiveness.

I suspect the guy will do better when he gets a chance to redraft for his book because I think (as I have mentioned once or twice) that he's really rather a good comic writer.

I suspect the book will be better because he'll have an editor who will make him be funny.

More boring than annoying, though that has no real bearing on my mental illness.

SWPL reminds me of humor books that were very popular in the 80s like the Preppie Hanbook, and the JAP Handbook, and Real Men Don't Eat Quiche.
The parts of those books that I read I didn't find funny either.

No it isn't!

183: Simple indeed, since Katherine linked to it above. But I will link to this salient comment as well, just to make it even simpler.

200 is funnier than any single thing at SWPL.

Although, technically, it's not a very good summary of those first 100 comments; there are maybe 5 in that category, depending how you count noted non-White People AWB and minneapolitan disputing the site.

199: Yes, I think I may have that illness too.

204 to 200.

Oddly, in the liberal blogosphere mental illness is not treated as a disability, but is harshly condemned. It seems to me that people should be more considerate and accepting.

199 is the best comment in history.

Many people are irritable and easily annoyed (at other things) when they are hungry, but that's not the same thing as being annoyed that they are starving (actually starving, not just really hungry).

186: hmm, although you could bring the categories together by saying something like "If asked 'what really pisses you off'?, most people would say being shot, not having food etc, but white people would say 'punctuation outside of the quote marks when it's part of the quotation'!". Or something.

Yeah, I guess. Being shot might not be the best thing there, but "what really pisses you off" has the necessary breadth.

I'm starting to resent SWPL just because of these endless threads we have about it, even though I haven't looked at it since ogged linked.

Toccatas normally introduce fugues, as in "fugue states", which are a form of mental illness that I rather enjoy. There may be toccatas introducing overtures, but fuck them. Overtures are introductions anyway themselves.

Malcolm X: "Once someone tries to kill you, your friendship will never be quite the same". That sound pretty close to annoyance to me.

It might be more rational to resent the threads here, themselves, but I have a mental block about that.

214 is weird.

The thing I love about these threads is they make me feel so not-guilty about hijacking the blog for my real estate angst. Plus, you know, it's really considerate of us all to confirm the rightness of Ogged's decision to bail like this.

213: A nice quote and evidence that Malcom X never watched Desperate Housewives

Comin back to this thread after doing some working-class stuff, 91 & 92 are very good

A segment of white people (which does not include, say, NASCAR fans) grow up believing that they can achieve a universal neutral disinterested point-of-view. When they discover that they can't, they react with rage that manifests itself in i) pointing out over and over again that white people can't achieve a universal neutral disinterested point-of-view, and ii) thinking that pointing this out is an amazing never-before-heard insight.

White people like to justify.

Y'all just won't listen to me on the irrantionalism & Enlightenment liberalism & law stuff.

186: For the record, 180 was a joke. If you didn't find it funny it's because you are being defensive.

"If asked 'what really pisses you off'?, most people would say being shot, not having food etc,

Of course, that wouldn't actually work either, since the non-White answers would include things like Rosie O'Donnell, or country music, or loud American tourists. Most First Worlders (even poor ones) get pissed about minor annoyances. Even in quite dangerous city neighborhoods, things like litter are complained about by people who have far bigger things to worry about.

I suspect this varies in truly destitute places, but I honestly have no idea. I've never met an American who wouldn't be able to produce an impressive list of stupid things that annoy them out of all proportion to reality.

Which isn't to say that grammar bitching isn't a topic for mockery; it's just to say that, as usual, I don't think the guy did a good job with the material.

What really pisses me off is that the current choices are this or the goddamn golf thread, and it's the first time all week that I've had time to sit and comment. AND Ogged went and quit.

(as I have mentioned once or twice) that he's really rather a good comic writer.

Here's the actual disagreement then. I think he's a rather mediocre comic writer. I guess we'll (well, anyone who gets hold of a copy) if an editor can bash him into better shape or not.

I'm coming to realize that part of the problem with a vicious cycle of defensiveness, meta-defensiveness, etc., etc., is that it's structurally impossible for me to get anyone to admit that such a cycle is what is in fact happening. I might need to give up.

Given that this is your first mention of said cycle in this thread, you should probably actually make some attempts to convince before you decide to give up.

Also, "structurally impossible"?

220: What's with that, anyway? Some of us are trying desperately not to do real work.

219: Whereas a wise Hindu, one with the All, will sit there impassively with a slight smile on his or her face while a rat gnaws on his or her foot. Americans!

The author may sincerely think he's satirizing white privilege. Or he may be in character, in which case this line is actually impressive:

This is the stereotyping of people who have tried to distance themselves from what they perceive as white stereotypes: the white trash, the Republican," says Lander, 29, who works as a copywriter at Schematic, a new media marketing company. "Well, you're still white, you still have white privilege. It still exists, believe it or not. No matter how much you donate to charity or how much organic food you eat, you still have white privilege."

it's really considerate of us all to confirm the rightness of Ogged's decision to bail like this.

Anything for an imaginary friend.

My thought was that d^2's participation in this thread was an homage to Ogged's trolling, and that we acknowledged it and honored Ogged by going through the motions.

227: It's just that sort of day.

What's with that, anyway? Some of us are trying desperately not to do real work.

I suspect this thread has convinced the potential new front page posters to decline the offer, leaving a void in the expected post schedule.

220: We could talk instead about how I decided this morning that I was going to start smoking again, dammit, and then, after two cigarettes, decided I totally wanted to puke and therefore changed my mind.

I'm starting to resent SWPL just because of these endless threads we have about it, even though I haven't looked at it since ogged linked.

Preach it, brother.

I decided this morning that I was going to start smoking again, dammit,

Ooc, what made you come to that decision?

The problem with Zippy's analysis in three is that it makes the humor entirely dwell in what the guy is doing, and not really in how he's doing it, so any number of people can justifiably say that any number of the actual posts on the site are poorly written and not funny, etc. (Hence "it's funny, insofar as it is funny", I guess.)

I dunno. I thought that several of the ones that were current when ogged linked (the sandwiches one, eg) were funny simpliciter, without the theoretical backdrop—though it's probably also true that I wouldn't have enjoyed a similar site with a different target, for perhaps related reasons.

I suspect this thread has convinced the potential new front page posters to decline the offer, leaving a void in the expected post schedule.

Shiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiit. You mean I may have to publish something?

227 is really kind of a touching spin.

the current choices are this or the goddamn golf thread

You could comment on my thread, B. It's an entirely more entertaining topic than this.

I've actually decided to take a nap, since I'm flying the damn redeye again tonight. But thanks, and you're right.

oh god, the link in 225 is hilarious: "why white people didn't watch "The Wire.""

232: I was in a really rather crappy mood and back when I was more regularly in a really crappy mood, smoking was comforting. Turns out, when you've up and gone clean, it's actually a pretty disgusting habit!

238: I thought the "The Wire" was something white people like? Maybe they really were just screwing with the Globe reporter.

What really pisses me off is that the current choices are this or the goddamn golf thread, and it's the first time all week that I've had time to sit and comment. AND Ogged went and quit.

At least you're not starving or getting shot at, whitey.

The people in that article sound like tremendous tools.

Slight topic shift: what would be a better way of working against white privilege?

243: Actually working against it as opposed to dismissing attempts to work against it because"No matter how much you donate to charity or how much organic food you eat, you still have white privilege"?

It's unclear to me how eating organic food works against white privilege in specific (granting that it's a good thing to do).

What could possibly be more effective than a blog?

I for one subscribe to netflix only because I believe there's a conspiracy to keep quality independent films out of mainstream theaters.

Next Zippy will tell us that playing hackysack doesn't undermine white privilege.

245: It's unclear to me too, but then it's the author of SWPL who's making the assertion.

243: Affirmative action is a good start. Also, recognizing that stand mixers and scarves are not really good illustrations of what "white privilege" is. Though, admittedly "#412: routinely getting hired and promoted at rates disproportionate to their representation in the population" and "#413: no being singled out for harassment and prosecution in the criminal justice system" would be even less funny SWPL entries.

Next Zippy will tell us that playing hackysack doesn't undermine white privilege.

You have to put a little bit of white privilege inside your hacky sack. Then when you hack, so to speak, your sack, you're pummeling and tenderizing the privilege as you play.

250: I agree that poaching the most talented minorities to work for white-dominated institutions is important.

251: then you can take it out of the hacky sack and tape it to a frizbee. Nothing like making your white privilege dizzy.

238, 240: That's pretty astonishing. WTF do they think watches The Wire? Black drug dealers from Baltimore? Aren't HBO drama series pretty much a perfect SWPL?

253: I find a stand mixer does a better job of that.

254: Maybe the sites demo didn't watch the wire, who knows. It's pretty obvious that white people did.

Affirmative action is a good start.

I was thinking about linking to one of Frowner's comments about the problems of non-profits serving communities of color in which all of the executive power is held by white women.

I note, however, that Frowner approved of SWPL -- for reasons similar to those given by dsquared, despite reservations

254: IIRC it's specifically listed on the site; I think that one's the reporter's fault.

255: sure, lord your stand-mixer ownership over us.

I agree that poaching the most talented minorities to work for white-dominated institutions is important.

Bring back the Negro Leagues!

252: You're right. If we just keep excluding minorities from getting desirable jobs at these white-dominated institutions, why, they will surely feel very empowered to get out there, pull themselves up by their bootstraps, dagnabbit, and start up their own separate but equal institutions.

Pwned by a pithier JRoth.

261: White people apparently don't like ambiguity.

But white middle-class liberals rarely face comedic barbs unless they're the target of black comics such as Dave Chappelle or Chris Rock.

Or an obscure comedian who calls himself Harry the Cable Guy. Or, you know, the RNC.

I mean, seriously, how clueless is this? I understand that there's some cluelessness among privileged whites, whether liberal or conservative, but White People have been told that they're not Real Americans for years. This is one of the things that has always baffled me about huzzahs for the site (I realize this is basically the Brooks-clone critique); there is nothing the least bit new about this stuff. Which means it has to be funny on its own to work. Which, more often than not, it isn't.

Pwned by a pithier JRoth.

Which is what I've always argued that site lacked.

White people apparently don't like ambiguity.

There's nothing ambiguous about the words "poached" and "white-dominated." Be serious.

Speaking of white people: Bloomsday or no, Garrison Keillor should never, ever read Molly's closing monologue again.

259: Dude, I hate stand mixers. All of my privelege-dizzying is done by hand. It's artisinal.

1. Insofar as David Brooks' bit is similar to the site, he claims to be doing actual sociology while SWPL is satire. The tone is different.

2. The fact that conservatives like Brooks make a superficially similar critique of liberal culture doesn't mean that the site is objectively pro-Republican, or what have you. The site is not saying anything about Real Americans, or the greater authenticity of red-staters, etc.

It's hard to spell when you're dizzy, you know.

267: pshaw. Everybody knows that Authentic privilege-dizzying is done with a hand-worked stone and wrought iron tool called a furkem.

268: I'm not sure about #2.

Speaking of white people: Bloomsday or no, Garrison Keillor should never, ever read Molly's closing monologue again.

Aaaah! Aaaah! Oh my god, did he really? I think my skin may have crawled entirely off my body.

The site is not saying anything about Real Americans, or the greater authenticity of red-staters, etc.

Um, yeah it is.

doesn't Brooks claim to be doing "comic sociology", & explain how it's satirical when people note the various factual inaccuracies? I mean, real sociology involves endless regressions on STATA; that's not really Brooks' bag. And see 63.

Dude, I hate stand mixers

Blasphemy!

going like mad and yes whistly nose breath I said yes I will Yes

275: White people like orthodoxy.

The article in 225 actually made me a little more sympathetic to the site. As in this site serves a useful purpose as a gentle introduction to "being white is a culture" for people who have never thought critically about it before.

I still don't think it's actually funny. And seriously, am I the only one here who feels defensive when they read it?

278: Did you feel defensive watching Waiting for Guffman?

By "ambiguity," I was referring to affirmative action itself, not my own statement, you willfully misinterpreting douche-cock.

As in this site serves a useful purpose as a gentle introduction to "being white is a culture" for people who have never thought critically about it before.

I guess, but why describe a small percentage of the white people living in this country then? You could have done the same thing for far more common characteristics.

I got bored of it before reading enough of the site to be sure, but my impression was that this was intentional, the author just picked an easier target.

Did I miss Bloomsday again?

Firesign Theatre doing Molly was way cool, but Jeez you could not believe how stoned I was when I first heard it. With headphones, falsetto YesYessYeesss spiralling thru my head like the end of Pretty Things Parachute.

Zippy needs a time out.

I'm astonished at the vitriol this subject generates. After all, we're at least nominally talking about a minor website that got its 15 minutes.

And seriously, am I the only one here who feels defensive when they read it?

Surely not, but you are probably one of the few who admit it.

281: I think he picked the target because it's his own in-group. More familiarity.

280: I think the more interesting question is why you're so angry, Zipzip.

Oh my god, did he really?

He did. It would have been unendurably icky had it not been so lame.

278/284: I'm pretty sure (but too lazy to check) that several people said they did, first time round.

||

Mr. Sulu makes the obvious (?) `gay marriage' joke
|>

Did you feel defensive watching Waiting for Guffman?

I think I felt mean, like I was being invited to laugh at the retards.

you willfully misinterpreting douche-cock.

Ambiguous!

I think he picked the target because it's his own in-group. More familiarity.

Yeah? Ok, I'll go with that, it's the charitable interpretation.

Jeez you could not believe how stoned I was when I first heard it

Bob, you'd have to have been fatally stoned for me to feel disbelief.

Anyway, about the swipple thing, you should remember that Heebie is both funny and right, so reread her comments and consider the matter settled.

288.1: My recollection as well.

I tend to get worked up if I feel I'm being ignored or misunderstood.

271/73: Where? I don't remember seeing that suggested anywhere in the site itself, except maybe in reference to comparisons that 'white people' themselves make.

I tend to get worked up if I feel I'm being ignored or misunderstood.

The I would have expected you might understand why people could get annoyed, maybe even angry, when, for example, they get accused of being angry and defensive for not thinking SWPL is funny.

296: Oh, Jesus Christ.

297: Seriously? Afaics, that's a pretty much perfect description of what was going on initially.

I wasn't paying much attention, but I thought Zippy was saying that he thought SWPL was ultra-racist.

There are two different issues at play: not finding it funny and being defensive about it. If you don't find it funny, fine. I find it to be flat-footed at times. Whatever. It's the conflation of the quality issue with the kind of reaction it evokes in people that is pissing me off. It seems like an empirical fact that some people, including many people in the initial thread, were and are defensive about the site. There were also people who thought it was lame simpliciter. Obviously all the people who felt defensive are going to find it unfunny. Yet there are many other reasons to find it unfunny.

Saying, "You're just acusing me of being defensive because I don't find your precious little site funny" is missing the point: I'm directly accusing people of being defensive, and trying to diagnose that, not trying to come up with a way to feel superior to or bully people who don't agree with me about the humor level of the site.

"You're just acusing me of being defensive because I don't find your precious little site funny" is missing the point:

It isn't missing the point if that was a, if not the, majority of what was going on.

pretend that sentence made sense before I edited it.

Garrison Keillor should never, ever read Molly's closing monologue again.

I hate you for telling us about that, because now I can imagine it in my brain.

seriously, am I the only one here who feels defensive when they read it?

No, you're the only one who admits it.

When I read it I thought "Why is this claiming to be about 'white people'? What it is actually about is the people David Brooks makes fun of. I am annoyed that this moderately funny site is becoming more popular than it should be via the attention-getting device of claiming to be about 'white people'."

I thought that was what most other people thought, but maybe not.

Some entries are funny, some are not. As with most humor, the funny ones are the ones that were unexpected. In other words, the ones that I hadn't already read before in columns by David Brooks or P.J. O'Rourke.

I think feeling defensive when you're being made fun of is a natural first-order reaction, not requiring further analysis.

I would probably find the site funnier if I lived someplace where the lampooned stereotypes were thicker on the ground. My experience here in Red State America is that white people drive Ford F-350s to the grocery store, deny global warming, and cluck over the fact that in 50 years Europe is going to be majority Muslim.

Soup, it's not the site that inspires vitriol. It's you, you fucker. I can't eat soup or anymore, thanks to you.

It's you, you fucker.

My work here is nearly done.

I thought that was what most other people thought, but maybe not.

That was my impression too, but either I'm wrong or there is some sort of parallel universe thing going on (at least in the minds of commenters)

Garrison Keillor seems white, but he's actually Canadian. He admits to Loyalist sympathies WRT the American Revolution.

After running a clip of the offending segment, which originally ran Dec. 5, she said, "This apparently was very offensive to a lot of Asian people. So I asked Judy, who's Asian and works here in our hair and makeup department. I said, 'Was it offensive to you?' And she said, 'Well, kinda. When I was a kid people did tease me by saying ching-chong.'

"So apparently 'ching-chong,' unbeknownst to me, is a very offensive way to make fun, quote-unquote, or mock, Asian accents. Some people have told me it's as bad as the n-word. I was like, really? I didn't know that."

Right, it wasn't "making fun" or "mocking" it was only "quote-unquote" those things. And it's about "accents" and not language.

Later in the article about the "quote-unquote" "apology":

Last weekend, O'Donnell's rep, Cindi Berger, said in a statement: "She's a comedian in addition to being a talk show co-host. I certainly hope that one day they will be able to grasp her humor."

I would probably find the site funnier if I lived someplace where the lampooned stereotypes were thicker on the ground. My experience here in Red State America is that white people drive Ford F-350s to the grocery store, deny global warming, and cluck over the fact that in 50 years Europe is going to be majority Muslim.

Same here.

The "white people" being made fun of on SWPL are, at my estimation, maybe 75% white in real life. Whereas the people who tend to make fun of them in real life are, in real life, maybe 100% white. Hence my insistence that "white people" is not an accurate term, which is then interpreted as defensiveness on the part of a white person who does not enjoy being made fun of.

Basically, in my years on the internet, I have found that the most foolproof argumentative strategy, the one most guaranteed to make your interlocutor either become pathetic and desperate or reconsider his position and actually consider that he is probably wrong, is to accuse your interlocutor of defensiveness. Which is not as easy as it sounds, as the person has to first be accused of something else, and then respond negatively.

Saying, "You're just acusing me of being defensive because I don't find your precious little site funny" is missing the point: I'm directly accusing people of being defensive, and trying to diagnose that

I'm not sure how this is supposed to work. Rereading the original thread*, there was really very little defensiveness, at least until B showed up in full troll mode, accusing anyone who didn't think it was funny of being humorless and defensive (her words). So there's just about no one for you to have this discussion with; most of us thought it was on a spectrum between lame and unfunny, and while some of that must be informed by defensiveness, there's no good way to tease that out.

FWIW, the defensiveness I see is in 2 basic categories:
A. dislike of being pigeonholed/analyzed/picked-on
B. disagreement with the apparent premise that being White is bad (regardless of whether the guy writing it is self-mocking, there's no denying the negative judgment of Whiteness)

A is presumably disreputable, since everyone else gets pigeonholed/analyzed/picked-on, whereas B seems like a reasonable discussion, but causes BPhD to say "GAWD you people are lame!"

* Although the thread for FL's followup may have included more defensiveness; I'm not willing to wade into that one

||

Fucking Sam Nunn for VP. God damn it.

(Just a rumor).

|>

but causes BPhD to say "GAWD you people are lame!"

And no doubt I'll say it again.

|>

I've noticed that in news stories people like Sam Nunn are often referred to as "D-GA", decades after they stop holding any sort of political office. Isn't this a bit inaccurate of the media, to allow no possibility whatsoever that somebody's alliance with a political party could change over time?

||

Sam Nunn is as sweet as Tupelo honey.

312: I'll eat my hat if that's true. Actually, first I'll buy a toolish hat, and then I'll eat it.

Fuck, you people are letting me down. I'm in danger of getting some work done.

I'll pick on B. She's always up for a good blog fight. B is the exact kind of neurotic white liberal that would think SWPL is funny. Really, if Obama wants to win in November, he has to distance himself from guilty white liberals by picking Sam Nunn as his VP.

Just the rumor in itself pisses me off. If it turned out to be true I'd go completely ballistic.

Yay, Ari's here!

If Clinton was the nominee, she'd never pick Sam Nunn.

No, as someone who does not remember Sam Nunn's pre-1995 days in Congress, I know him best as the person who gets articles periodically written about his leadership of the anti-loose-nukes movement. He has totally rehabilitated himself in the eyes of at least the high-information guilty white liberals.

No, Obama needs more of a Zell Miller type.

308: You mean I'm not white?

312: If he's good enough for Peggy Noonan, he's good enough for me.

319: Walt, what do you do with yourself when I'm not around? Wait, don't answer that. This might become a family blog now that Ogged's leaving.

People, this is classic Rovian misdirection, just setting us up for the inevitable nomination of Lieberman - don't get sucked in!

I'll cop to neurotic, but most of my guilt is parental.

B feels guilty about being such a good parent. Because there are orphans in the world who have no parents at all.

Hence my insistence that "white people" is not an accurate term, which is then interpreted as defensiveness on the part of a white person who does not enjoy being made fun of.

This is just the flip side of Chris Rock's bit about black people vs uh, the other word. And of course obscures the fact that while maybe 75% of the people SWPL makes fun of are white, they compose 99% of the commenters at Unfogged.

This is just the flip side of Chris Rock's bit about black people vs uh, the other word.

Exactly! 100% of Chris Rocks in the world are black!

whereas less than 100% of the people who adopt ghetto mannerisms he derides are black.

We white people are actual at the vital center, with the darker peoples on one side, and the Canadians, Finns, Scots, and Irish on the other. Its sort of a skewed bell curve.

And Welsh.

325: Actually I'm feeling really sad b/c Mr. B. has put the kibosh on the "let's foster/adopt" proposal. So there.

the apparent premise that being White is bad

"Is ridiculous", you mean. there's a distinction and the failure to make it may be the source of all the thin skins and twisted knickers round here.

Is a kibosh one of those funny little hats?

330: Oh, I'm really sorry. I'll bet you lunch that he'll reconsider if you still want to adopt after your financial/house situation resolves itself, PK gets a bit older, and all this eschatological climate change foofaraw dies down a bit. Either that or you can have our baby, who's so pissed off that he can't talk yet that all he does is scream nonsense at the top of his lungs. Is infanticide something white people like? Or not?

All kidding aside, I really am sorry. And I really do think that if this is something that you still actively want a few years from now, Mr. B well might change his mind. I know that I plan to cave on this subject; but I'm going to hold out for three or four years so as to appear strong.

Is a kibosh one of those funny little hats?

I knew that you were mean to me all those times because you're an anti-Semite.

"Is ridiculous", you mean. there's a distinction and the failure to make it may be the source of all the thin skins and twisted knickers round here.

This is largely right, except that at least some of the entries are clearly leaning towards "bad" rather than "ridiculous."

Of course that impression may be exacerbated by Ogged's subsequent post calling us all little Eichmanns, or whatever he was getting at.

all this eschatological climate change foofaraw dies down a bit

I doubt that Mr. B's position on adoption has anything to do with stras's comments around here.

Is a kibosh one of those funny little hats?

If by "funny little hat" you mean "cap of death," then maybe so.

"Cie bias" .... pronounced "ky bosh".

Creative spelling got the Irish to where they are today.

but I'm going to hold out for three or four years so as to appear strong.

Well, it's important to keep up appearances, Ari. Otherwise, what would the neighbours think?

322: I get work done. When ogged gets cancer again, it'll be because I could have been curing it, yet I was commenting on Unfogged instead.

330: That what I keep saying.

340: Does that mean that you're a cancer researcher? Or just that you might stumble on a cure while at the local skatepark perfecting your ollies?

If the new front-page posters don't put up something soon to distract from this damn topic, I'm going to give someone the ASCII finger.

Just kidding.

....................../´¯/)
....................,/¯../
.................../..../
............./´¯/'...'/´¯¯`·¸
........../'/.../..../......./¨¯\
........('(...´...´.... ¯~/'...')
.........\.................'...../
..........''...\.......... _.·´
............\..............(

If only one of the regular posters could give us a Mexican perspective on this whole controversy...

Since no one has responded to 295, I will point out that criticism of cosmopolitan liberalism as a lifestyle can and does come from the left as easily as from the right. People have attributed a right-wing ('bad guy') tendency to it, though, based on nothing but their own expectations about where such a critique must be coming from; in other words, they are being defensive.

343 to 344

346: I meant Ogged!

330: I'm really sorry to hear it, B. I hope he'll reconsider at least enough that you can reach a "We decided... "

The single greatest regret I have in the whole crappy marriage/bitter divorce melodramatic mess is that the mother fucker stole my chance to have more children. I'll never forgive him for that.

343: John, John, I was kidding. I don't even know how to do that thing.

Fucking Sam Nunn for VP.

Is that how they're deciding it this time around?
This does explain why Mark Warner rejected the slot.

aw, di, you can have more kids!

I'll donate.

That's sweet, will. In a creepy kind of way. But sweet.

On a separate pity-me-I'm-pathetic topic... Anyone have good advice on treating muscle pain? I actually exercised Saturday and I apparently did something to make my left arm very, very angry.

Adopt.

354 to 353. Adopt a new arm!

353: What sort of exercise were you doing and where does it hurt? (The answer is probably Advil and ice and/or heat, anyway.)

I second 356. Moaning is also comforting.

356: Um, various machines and free weights... I don't suppose I know what I'm doing enough to remember what exactly I did. Mostly the muscle on the opposite side of the upper arm from the bicep (tricep?) and to a lesser degree the forearm.

moaning is providing some relief, psychologically, but not so much physically.

Are you sore or did you strain something?

354: I'd love to, but I'm not so sure that's manageable on my own. I may change my mind in a few years, though...

I think it's just sore. But the fact that the left arm hurts so much more than the right makes me wonder if I didn't mess something up.

Doesn't being sore feel great? I totally love it. Hopefully it's that.

I like right-after-exercise soreness but next day soreness makes me feel kind of decrepit...If this is anything more severe than that, it'd probably just be a mild muscle strain, so Cala's ice & advil sounds about right. (Advil reduces swelling as well as being a pain reliever--I've sometimes been told to take three tablets every 6 hours or so for a couple days for minor lower back pain, & my husband did the same for a swollen leg muscle that was bugging his knee.)

But you don't remember anything like an owie, right? Are you right-handed? I find that when I return to lifting or something, my left arm always hurts more because the muscle development is much better on my right, but I try to do the same weights on both sides.

In any case, if it's just a sore muscle (no joint pain), take some Advil, and maybe a nice warm bath.

Ice cream helps, I find.

Or heat. A heating pad was the other really good thing for my (exceedingly mild) back problems.

I didn't actually mean that she should put the ice cream on her shoulder, Katherine.

362: Yeah, I used to feel that way. This, however, actually sucks. Usually I just run and do machines that work the legs. Even if I swim, I kick more than anything. But no. I decided I should really try to work on upper body stuff. Stupid upper body!

360: Adopt while your other child is still at home and able to take care of a babY!!!

Okay, I think I'll make myself an Advil-chip ice cream sundae and try the heating pad.

367: mmm! Moose tracks cold packs!

370: Remember to unplug the heating pad before cutting into it.

Thanks all.

C'mon people, do not let this thread die. Anything less 500 comments in an SWPL thread would be an insult to the memory of Ogged.

(Not that he's dead, of course. Just dead to these interminable comment threads while he goes off to live his real life).

less than 500 comments...

736!

okay, I have not gotten this thread padding off to a good start.

Well, you know, Mean Gene...

an insult to the memory of Ogged

On the contrary.

Who's Ogged?

re: 368

It could just be DOMS -- how familiar are you with how really bad DOMS [the sort you'd get after a major workout after a long lay off] can feel? It usually feels different from a genuine strain [although can still be bloody sore].

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delayed_onset_muscle_soreness

Huh. I guess thinking people were going to seize the opportunity to talk about Haidt was a mistake.

Sorry, Emerson.

Not that he's dead, of course.

As far as you know.

380: That plus what Cala said in 364 seem like a pretty good diagnosis. I actually didn't think it had been all that major a workout, but it's certainly after a long lay off and muscles that, even when I used to be pretty good about exercise, I never really worked. I'm familiar with next day soreness. This couple of days later thing is new.

re: 383

Yeah, sometimes the delay can be a little odd. I've had it really bad a couple of days after a competition. Felt fine the next day [a bit stiff], day after that, could barely walk.

Cala's Advil advice is good.

What I don't understand it why you're so angry and defensive about your muscle pain, Di Kotimy.

And also why you're not complaining about important annoyances like getting shot at and not having enough to eat. Muscle pain? So white.

386: If you couldn't bend your arm enough to do a proper ponytail, you'd be angry too.

388: Can't you get your stand mixer to do a proper ponytail for you?

389: My daughters' My Little Pony Styling Salon has a feature that twists the ponies' manes into a braid. I'm thinking you could rig up a similar attachment for the stand mixer.

When I used to lift in college, the first few times I could barely wash my hair the next morning. Most skinny nerds would realize it was a bad idea to go lifting with guys who played football all through high school, but not me.

I will point out that criticism of cosmopolitan liberalism as a lifestyle can and does come from the left as easily as from the right.

Somebody above did mention Frowner's approval of Swipple.

353: White people like to have the right gear. Stretch well and learn foam rolling stretching.

393 was just a rounding error.

400 to 28.