GAY PRIDE? WHAT ABOUT STRAIGHT PRIDE

November 15, 2010 3:29 PM

Privilege Denying Dude is an Advice Dog/Courage Wolf/Pokeparents style meme that has enraptured Sady Doyle. Make your own on memegenerator.
posted by NoraReed (138 comments total)

Not to deny you your post but this was already deleted.
posted by CitrusFreak12 at 3:39 PM on November 15, 2010

This one has context. The "enraptured" link has a whole damn essay of context (and some funnyz).

I vote let it stand.
posted by LogicalDash at 3:41 PM on November 15, 2010 [1 favorite]

This one could be an AskMe relationship background image.
posted by benzenedream at 3:48 PM on November 15, 2010 [1 favorite]

It may or may not help that I think it's hilarious and mighty germane to internet discussions now and to come.
posted by Countess Elena at 3:50 PM on November 15, 2010 [5 favorites]

The world definitely needs more shallow, snarky one-liners aimed at a fuzzy group of people that don't really exist in any meaningful or cohesive sense.

I like arguments where people actually attack facts and opinions that have actually been presented, instead of insipid cliches.
posted by smoke at 3:52 PM on November 15, 2010

I must be confused about the definition. Does "meme" mean a short lived joke on an internet community or two?

lolfarts
posted by munchingzombie at 3:54 PM on November 15, 2010

less funny and more tautological.
posted by 2bucksplus at 3:56 PM on November 15, 2010

I like arguments where people actually attack facts and opinions that have actually been presented, instead of insipid cliches.

You do know that these are a joke and not a thesis, yes?
posted by Astro Zombie at 3:57 PM on November 15, 2010 [16 favorites]

Who is Sady Doyle?
posted by briank at 3:57 PM on November 15, 2010 [3 favorites]

This is way too abstract and generalized to be funny (to me) (in my subjective opinion).

I really don't think there are many people who go around "denying privilege" at some kind of theoretical level. There are guys who deny that they're privileged as a result of being guys, white people who deny they're privileged as a result of being white, etc. I think for a successful meme you need to pick one of those and let people come up with all the varieties of that one kind of person we all know...
posted by game warden to the events rhino at 3:57 PM on November 15, 2010

Meh. The meme style the post references is funny through irony or through capturing the speech patterns of an internet troll mocking a particular type of person. This junk isn't funny, or clever.
posted by Inspector.Gadget at 3:59 PM on November 15, 2010

It's a stock photo of a guy who could be really sensitive to his inherent privilege and only be crossing his arms and wearing a jacket because you know, jackets look nice, and the photographer asked him to.
posted by haveanicesummer at 4:00 PM on November 15, 2010

This fails the bechdel test, and is therefore sexist and wrong.
posted by Artw at 4:00 PM on November 15, 2010 [7 favorites]

Who is Sady Doyle?

Sady Doyle.
posted by Astro Zombie at 4:01 PM on November 15, 2010 [2 favorites]

Ooh, I got one. "This image... substitutes lazy rhetoric for discourse."
posted by millions at 4:03 PM on November 15, 2010 [6 favorites]

Should possibly be tagged with unclear on the concept...

Context: besides making new content and thus money for I Can Haz Cheezburger, memegenerator is arguably a meta-satire of overearnest forced internet memes. Ms Doyle is probably hurtling towards internet immortality on Encyclopaedia Dramatica even now.
posted by anigbrowl at 4:06 PM on November 15, 2010 [1 favorite]

Ooh.
posted by Astro Zombie at 4:06 PM on November 15, 2010 [18 favorites]

I can see where some people find this funny....

On a deeper level, the entire existence of such a "meme" (not sure this actually is one) implies a certain understanding of privilege in the audience which is creating examples of it, and within the audience to which it is being shown. And that understanding of privilege and what it is and how it can be overt or covert or even invisible, simply by the nature of having that understanding, makes it unlikely that anyone who has really thought about these topics would actually use these to make a point.

So, at its core, this is a joke, or something some think is a joke, which plays best to exactly the audience which is least likely to understand what the joke is.

I think the "meh" crowd on MetaFilter may win this one.
posted by hippybear at 4:09 PM on November 15, 2010

This post isn't complete without the socially awkward/awesome/lazy anipals.
posted by mullingitover at 4:12 PM on November 15, 2010

So, at its core, this is a joke, or something some think is a joke, which plays best to exactly the audience which is least likely to understand what the joke is.

Reminds me of Michael Haeneke's Funny Games.
posted by Sticherbeast at 4:13 PM on November 15, 2010 [6 favorites]

"Had the money.... to spend on this stock photo instead of food and shelter and stuff."
posted by haveanicesummer at 4:13 PM on November 15, 2010

Arguing with straw-men on the internet




you're doing it quite well actually
posted by 2bucksplus at 4:14 PM on November 15, 2010 [1 favorite]

These sites probably kill Richard Dawkins a bit every day: "I am indirectly responsible for this in a slight way" he thinks ruefully as another slight bit of color fades from his cheeks.

Astro Zombie: "Sady Doyle."

This told me she is liz lemon and she smokes, so ok. Thanks smoking liz lemon! What's that courage wolf? I should directly say that LMGTFY is a way of being arrogant by calling someone lazy in a lazy way? Not today, friendo, not today.
posted by boo_radley at 4:14 PM on November 15, 2010

Arguing with straw-men on the internet

If you read the site, you'll see that many of these images are actually taken from comments made on previous images. It's not a straw man argument if it's an argument somebody has actually made.
posted by Astro Zombie at 4:15 PM on November 15, 2010 [17 favorites]

Astro Zombie's got you covered, hippybear.
posted by merelyglib at 4:16 PM on November 15, 2010

I'm a deleted FPP on Metafilter. I know how it feels to be censored.
posted by mullacc at 4:18 PM on November 15, 2010 [5 favorites]

It's not a straw man argument if it's an argument somebody has actually made.

I've certainly made this argument.
posted by Artw at 4:20 PM on November 15, 2010

These are at their funniest when they recontextualize stupid but superficially reasonable-sounding remarks. These are at their least funny when the remarks are already over-the-top, even though I'm quite sure people say things that dumb and far worse every second of every day.
posted by Sticherbeast at 4:20 PM on November 15, 2010 [2 favorites]

Astro Zombie: "You do know that these are a joke and not a thesis, yes?"

I've never understood this argument. So what if it's comedy? Comedy can make arguments too. Why should we give it a free pass?
posted by yaymukund at 4:31 PM on November 15, 2010

This meme closely resembles Milhouse.
posted by I_pity_the_fool at 4:32 PM on November 15, 2010 [3 favorites]

It's not threadshitting / if I don't find the subject of the post worth discussing
posted by Fiasco da Gama at 4:41 PM on November 15, 2010 [7 favorites]

Each morning I LOVE MEMES

Each evening I find that I AM WEARY OF MEMES and everything
posted by everichon at 4:51 PM on November 15, 2010 [1 favorite]

I'VE GOT TO SAY



THAT'S ACTUALLY A REALLY NICE JACKET
posted by dudekiller at 4:55 PM on November 15, 2010 [2 favorites]

I dislike this argument, because the inference is that you chose to be gay and you didn't choose to be ethnic, and so racism is worse than homophobia. Can someone explain to me why that statement is indicative of white privilege?
posted by BuddhaInABucket at 4:59 PM on November 15, 2010

BuddhaInABucket: "Can someone explain to me why that statement is indicative of white privilege?"

It's possible to not know a person is LGBT from a casual glance, but skin color is immediately obvious.
posted by boo_radley at 5:02 PM on November 15, 2010 [3 favorites]

BuddhaInABucket, "privilege denying dude" may be the name of the meme, but that doesn't mean every use of it has to specifically deny a privilege. In that case you linked there, the joke is that oppressed minorities often assume they understand the experience of other oppressed minorities, even when the oppression works rather differently.
posted by LogicalDash at 5:07 PM on November 15, 2010 [3 favorites]

boo_radley: "It's possible to not know a person is LGBT from a casual glance, but skin color is immediately obvious."

I've always felt that's one way in which homophobia is more insidious than racism. Most people's basic propriety will keep them from saying ethnic slurs at people right in front of them, but they'll say anti-gay things in front of 'straight-acting' gay people all the time, not knowing.
posted by BuddhaInABucket at 5:09 PM on November 15, 2010

> You do know that these are a joke and not a thesis, yes?

Sure, but I agree with Anonymous. "None of these memes are funny though. You're doing it wrong," Anonymous (from the site's comments).

Maybe I am too privileged to get it, but as comedy these fail for me. And as social criticism they are also a failure (the LOLcat graphic schtick is tired). It's also underwhelming in it's persuasiveness.

If you read the site's commentary the creator thinks minds will be opened and the world will change all because of LOLhipsterdude.
posted by cjorgensen at 5:09 PM on November 15, 2010 [2 favorites]

This meme does, in fact, preach entirely to the choir.

I don't see anything wrong with that.
posted by LogicalDash at 5:11 PM on November 15, 2010 [7 favorites]

LogicalDash: "the joke is that oppressed minorities often assume they understand the experience of other oppressed minorities, even when the oppression works rather differently."

I dunno, the anti-gay sentiment I've had directed towards me has felt pretty much exactly the same as the anti-middle-eastern sentiment I've had directed towards me. Maybe other races are different.

(I know I'm taking this too seriously).
posted by BuddhaInABucket at 5:12 PM on November 15, 2010

Sorry, Foul Bachelor Frog is still the king of Internet memes. Future generations will treat Foul Bachelor Frog as the Pepys's diary of the early 21st century.
posted by nasreddin at 5:27 PM on November 15, 2010 [3 favorites]

BuddhaInABucket, if you just want to say that the emotional impact is the same, that's probably not too controversial. But if you want to have a discussion about the effects that discrimination has on people's lives, it is probably a bad idea to assume that one type of discrimination has much the same effect as another.

People do anyway. All the time.
posted by LogicalDash at 5:31 PM on November 15, 2010 [2 favorites]

BuddhaInABucket: "I dunno, the anti-gay sentiment I've had directed towards me has felt pretty much exactly the same as the anti-middle-eastern sentiment I've had directed towards me. Maybe other races are different. "

Maybe other people are different. In general, it's pretty obnoxious to presume you (not you specifically, of course) understand someone's position better than them. I think that's what the image was getting at. Notice that it responds to a single dude saying, "I'm gay, so I know exactly how you feel." If he had said "I'm gay, so I understand certain aspects of racism" nobody would debate that. But that isn't snappy enough for a meme.

Anyway, imo this business of ranking oppressions is a race to the bottom.
posted by yaymukund at 5:36 PM on November 15, 2010 [2 favorites]

LogicalDash- Ha, wow- I guess it's a sign of some kind of privilege that I assumed emotional impact is the only effect racism could have on a person. Thanks for the explanation.
posted by BuddhaInABucket at 5:42 PM on November 15, 2010 [5 favorites]

You're welcome!
posted by LogicalDash at 5:44 PM on November 15, 2010 [1 favorite]

I dislike this argument,

Hey man, sorry that one of these was pointed in your direction. That must suck.
posted by Dano St at 5:44 PM on November 15, 2010 [1 favorite]

IF IT'S OBVIOUS WHAT THE BOTTOM TEXT IS GONNA SAY

[picture of something]

IS IT STILL CONSIDERED A JOKE
posted by 23skidoo at 5:56 PM on November 15, 2010

I've met this guy a million times.

And there's a little bit of him inside of each of us.

Me and some friends used to play a similar game called "my manarchist boyfriend."
posted by entropone at 5:59 PM on November 15, 2010 [7 favorites]

THE IMAGE MACRO DE JOUR / IS FOR ASSHOLES
posted by Lentrohamsanin at 6:07 PM on November 15, 2010 [1 favorite]

"the joke is that oppressed minorities often assume they understand the experience of other oppressed minorities, even when the oppression works rather differently."

Jesus... I hate the "you just don't understand, man" argument. Humans were built with this amazing thing called empathy. It's great because I don't have to experience the exact same thing as you to understand what you feel like. But who needs to connect other humans when you have self-righteous anger?

When you read or hear, "you just don't understand," there's a fair chance that you can just translate it into, "I don't want you to understand."

Yay, snarky self-satisfied jpegs! Boo humanity!
posted by En0rm0 at 6:28 PM on November 15, 2010 [8 favorites]

DECLARATION OF INFERIORITY / ASSERTION OF SUPERIORITY
posted by Fiasco da Gama at 6:40 PM on November 15, 2010

Good post ;)
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 6:40 PM on November 15, 2010 [1 favorite]

but En0rm0, when you say "boo humanity," you're not allowing yourself to bother to understand where the snarky but valid points made by the meme (if abbreviated and packaged for entertainment rather than discourse) may be coming from, right?

so, what's up with that?
posted by entropone at 6:40 PM on November 15, 2010

Favorite meme generator = Sassy Gay Friend!
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 6:42 PM on November 15, 2010

I'm shocked that the internet meme has existed for so long without privilege denying dude. It's almost like it was too obvious. The recursiveness of the whole thing is the best part.
posted by Nixy at 6:42 PM on November 15, 2010 [2 favorites]

When you read or hear, "you just don't understand," there's a fair chance that you can just translate it into, "I don't want you to understand."

But there's a much better chance that you really cannot understand exactly sometimes what that person's experience is like and you need to respect and trust their narratives and not try to insert yourself into the discussion.
posted by jfwlucy at 6:43 PM on November 15, 2010 [6 favorites]

I found out about this through my culture is not a trend. There have been quite a few more posts since I saw this earlier today, but they're worth wading through. I've seen some of these statements here on MeFi (not to mention Livejournal, FB, Twitter, etc). The macros might get through to people when a 2000 word essay on "don't be a dick" wouldn't.
posted by crataegus at 6:54 PM on November 15, 2010 [3 favorites]

Maybe I am too privileged to get it, but as comedy these fail for me. And as social criticism they are also a failure (the LOLcat graphic schtick is tired). It's also underwhelming in it's persuasiveness.

cjorgensen, my impression from the "enraptured" Tiger Beatdown article is that the people who love this aren't thinking it's going to change anyone's mind.

Rather they are enjoying the catharsis of seeing That Guy, the guy who drives them into a rage by saying these sorts of things in their daily lives, all over the internet, and right here on MetaFilter, transformed into an obvious buffoon. It's the catharsis of laughing at what usually scares or enrages you.
posted by straight at 7:10 PM on November 15, 2010 [22 favorites]

When you read or hear, "you just don't understand," there's a fair chance that you can just translate it into, "I don't want you to understand."

More often, you should read it as, "You think you understand, but you don't yet. And you're not going to understand until you realize that."
posted by straight at 7:12 PM on November 15, 2010 [6 favorites]

EVERYONE IS ALLOWED
TO BE A BIT OF AN ASSHOLE SOMETIMES
posted by Casimir at 8:13 PM on November 15, 2010 [1 favorite]

THEY SEE ME PRIVILEGIN'
THEY CRITIQUIN'
posted by Fiasco da Gama at 8:19 PM on November 15, 2010 [10 favorites]

If someone is privileged
Astro Zombie will remind us.
posted by Kraftmatic Adjustable Cheese at 8:39 PM on November 15, 2010 [4 favorites]

LET ME MANSPLAIN
posted by hermitosis at 8:40 PM on November 15, 2010 [9 favorites]

My white ancestors fought hard for this privilege I enjoy, and I think it's very disrespectful of their sacrifices that I be asked to give it up.
posted by Kraftmatic Adjustable Cheese at 8:51 PM on November 15, 2010 [12 favorites]

I'M A STOCK PHOTO MODEL
I DIDN'T SEE THIS COMING
posted by His thoughts were red thoughts at 8:52 PM on November 15, 2010 [10 favorites]

More often, you should read it as, "You think you understand, but you don't yet. And you're not going to understand until you realize that."

"Yet" implies the will to share and to understand. "Yet" implies optimism that the human condition translates accross vastly different experiences. "Yet" is not strident or superior. "Yet" promises that the discourse will continue. I love "yet."

There is no "yet" in pages upon pages of smug sound bites complemented by the same inane image over and over again.

I get that there are plenty of idiots out there who think feminists are just bitter hags who can't get laid. I don't like them either (the idiots, not the feminists). But gorging yourself on hundreds of these caricatures is plain ol' gluttony. Maybe the Privilege Denying Dude doesn't deserve better than that but anyone who has actually been marginalized deserves much better.
posted by En0rm0 at 9:04 PM on November 15, 2010 [4 favorites]

gorging yourself on hundreds of these caricatures is plain ol' gluttony

I ATE THE MEMES THAT WERE IN YOUR TUMBLR
FORGIVE ME THEY WERE SO BITTER AND SO COLD
posted by Fiasco da Gama at 9:10 PM on November 15, 2010 [6 favorites]

straight has why I find it funny -- the catharsis. Because I'm pretty sure they memed my Congressman for this -- I swear he's said half of those things on camera -- and obviously people here like him well enough to keep voting for him, so sometimes I feel lonely in my bitterness. But Privilege Denying Dude reminds me that other people think he's an asshole too!
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 9:29 PM on November 15, 2010 [3 favorites]

If it wasn't for white male privilege the world would be perfect.
posted by ian1977 at 9:30 PM on November 15, 2010

NONE OF YOU FUCKERS
ARE AS OPPRESSED AS ME!
posted by PeterMcDermott at 10:51 PM on November 15, 2010

Whenever a particular oppressed group does something for their own amusement, there are always people who aren't part of that group who tell us that it's not funny or useful because it won't persuade anyone to stop oppressing that group.

But sometimes people just want to laugh about a frustrating experience they have in common. It's better than getting increasingly angry then turning on others who don't get it.
posted by harriet vane at 11:15 PM on November 15, 2010 [7 favorites]

If someone is privileged
Astro Zombie will remind us.

Meh. I don't find this funny. Way to straw man. Not worth discussing. The world definitely needs more shallow, snarky one-liners. I dislike this argument.
posted by Astro Zombie at 11:42 PM on November 15, 2010 [6 favorites]

YOU MOST LIKELY DON'T BELIEVE IN ORIGINAL SIN






EXCEPT IN MY CASE
posted by silentpundit at 12:05 AM on November 16, 2010

These are at their least funny when the remarks are already over-the-top, even though I'm quite sure people say things that dumb and far worse every second of every day.

They certainly do.
posted by harriet vane at 12:12 AM on November 16, 2010

Heh.

I love these. Love them. Thank you, internet.
posted by EatTheWeak at 1:08 AM on November 16, 2010 [3 favorites]

If you read the site, you'll see that many of these images are actually taken from comments made on previous images. It's not a straw man argument if it's an argument somebody has actually made.

I don't know about this.

Wikipedia seems like a fair go-to on this:

The straw man fallacy occurs in the following pattern[s] of argument:

1. Presenting a misrepresentation of the opponent's position and then refuting it, thus giving the appearance that the opponent's actual position has been refuted.[1]
2. Quoting an opponent's words out of context — i.e. choosing quotations that misrepresent the opponent's actual intentions (see contextomy and quote mining).[2]
3. Presenting someone who defends a position poorly as the defender, then refuting that person's arguments — thus giving the appearance that every upholder of that position (and thus the position itself) has been defeated.[1]
4. Inventing a fictitious persona with actions or beliefs which are then criticized, implying that the person represents a group of whom the speaker is critical.
5. Oversimplifying an opponent's argument, then attacking this oversimplified version. Person B attacks position Y, concluding that X is false/incorrect/flawed.

posted by silentpundit at 1:22 AM on November 16, 2010 [3 favorites]

4 doesn't apply - these aren't fictitious statements, they're ones that have really been made. It's just that there aren't photos of all the people who originally made those statements, so cheesy stockphoto dude gets used instead.

I'm not convinced by 3. The statements are things that have been refuted time and again in discussions of racism, sexism and homophobia. The fact that noobs keep repeating them because they're not aware of those previous discussions doesn't mean that they're defensible statements.

PS: If anyone doesn't like Astro Zombie's contributions to these types of discussions, feel free to refute his statements rationally instead of drive-by snarking.
posted by harriet vane at 2:12 AM on November 16, 2010 [2 favorites]

Finally, all the flawed glibertarian comments from across the internet, condensed into a single smug meme!
posted by Marisa Stole the Precious Thing at 2:28 AM on November 16, 2010 [3 favorites]

4 doesn't apply - these aren't fictitious statements, they're ones that have really been made. It's just that there aren't photos of all the people who originally made those statements, so cheesy stockphoto dude gets used instead.

"Privilege Denying Dude" is clearly a "fictitious persona." It's some kind of Emmanuel Goldstein-esque amalgamation of many out-of-context, oversimplified, deliberately offensive statements. There has never been a real person to have said all these things in exactly this way. Ergo, there is no real speaker being engaged in an honest debate. Ergo, it is a straw man fallacy.

Aside from that, the clear implication is that Privilege Denying Dude "represents a group of whom the speaker[s] [are] critical." It seems fair to say he's meant to represent all straight, white guys who have ever expressed any degree of skepticism that they are pieces of crap simply because of their skin color, gender, and sexual orientation. He's a straw man in a nearly literal sense. He's propped up there, immobile, smug smirk held in place eternally, while people take turns hanging signs on him.

I'm not convinced by 3. The statements are things that have been refuted time and again in discussions of racism, sexism and homophobia. The fact that noobs keep repeating them because they're not aware of those previous discussions doesn't mean that they're defensible statements.

Wait a second. They've been 'refuted' to your satisfaction. Clearly, not to everyone's. There is plenty of room for honest debate on this very complex social matter.

Also, that third point explicitly states that to use the worst arguments you've ever heard as examples of an entire general point of view constitutes a Straw Man argument. It's the same as Kirk Cameron going out with a camera crew and asking laypeople on the sidewalk to prove that evolution is real, and when they can't, that's somehow evidence that evolutionary biologists couldn't have done a better job.

True, Privilege Denying Dude is making indefensible arguments. But, Privilege Denying Dude doesn't seem to know any defensible arguments, because he's a puppet, and the puppeteer's goal is to make the puppet as loathsome, and as difficult to empathize with, as possible.

The (admittedly pretty obvious) question is: How is this any different than if someone made an image of literally any other social stereotype and set about making it say dumb things that satisfy someone's negative confirmation bias of the stereotype? And then sent it around the internet with the goal of shaming anyone who might superficially fall under that stereotype?
posted by silentpundit at 3:46 AM on November 16, 2010 [3 favorites]

If anyone doesn't like Astro Zombie's contributions to these types of discussions, feel free to refute his statements rationally instead of drive-by snarking.

Now that's funny!
posted by Dano St at 3:49 AM on November 16, 2010 [2 favorites]

*Joke that stereotypes women*

HA HA HA HA

*Joke that stereotypes people of non-WASP ethnic backgrounds*

HA HA HA HA

*Joke that stereotypes white guys*

that's not funny
posted by Kattullus at 5:59 AM on November 16, 2010 [12 favorites]

How is this any different than if someone made an image of literally any other social stereotype and set about making it say dumb things that satisfy someone's negative confirmation bias of the stereotype? And then sent it around the internet with the goal of shaming anyone who might superficially fall under that stereotype?

yeah and why isn't there a white history month
posted by FAMOUS MONSTER at 6:12 AM on November 16, 2010 [9 favorites]

yeah and why isn't there a white history month

Hey, maybe somebody should put that on the macro. It wouldn't be at strawman at all because somebody said it once on the internet.
posted by Dano St at 6:21 AM on November 16, 2010 [1 favorite]

also this:

It seems fair to say he's meant to represent all straight, white guys who have ever expressed any degree of skepticism that they are pieces of crap simply because of their skin color, gender, and sexual orientation.

Look, dude, you can say the above, or you can accuse other people of using a strawman, but if you're gonna do both then I just don't know.
posted by FAMOUS MONSTER at 6:36 AM on November 16, 2010 [3 favorites]

*Joke that stereotypes women*

HA HA HA HA

*Joke that stereotypes people of non-WASP ethnic backgrounds*

HA HA HA HA

*Joke that stereotypes white guys*

that's not funny

I think you've got it backwards.
posted by 23skidoo at 6:37 AM on November 16, 2010 [4 favorites]

Yeah I pretty much knew this would happen.

Notice how I'm not saying "HEY COME ON MAKE THAT WHITE DUDE A CHICK AMIRITE"
posted by silentpundit at 6:41 AM on November 16, 2010

Notice how I'm not saying "HEY COME ON MAKE THAT WHITE DUDE A CHICK AMIRITE"

Yes, I noticed that! What it has to do with anything at all, I have no idea, but I noticed it.
posted by FAMOUS MONSTER at 6:55 AM on November 16, 2010

Okay, you win. My secret agenda all along has been that I have privileges and hate anyone who isn't like me and am a big baby when I get a taste of my own oppressive medicine.

I'll get started severely ratcheting down my self-esteem. I promise never, ever to feel like a good person. Ever, ever.
posted by silentpundit at 7:10 AM on November 16, 2010 [1 favorite]

(See, that was a straw man argument. It does feel good, though, and represents an emotional catharsis rather than a good-faith effort to find common ground and solve problems. I will start Google Image Searching for a picture to represent how dumb people are that want to keep DADT in place; then I can be helping too!)
posted by silentpundit at 7:13 AM on November 16, 2010

They've been 'refuted' to your satisfaction. Clearly, not to everyone's. There is plenty of room for honest debate on this very complex social matter.

Yes, extending human rights to everyone, not just straight white men, is a very complex social matter. Telling people who've historically been denied those rights that they should ask for them more nicely, or that they don't know what real oppression is, or that you're afraid that they'll retaliate by removing your rights when they don't have the power to do so, are not honest contributions to debate and deserve to be mocked.

Why am I even discussing whether or not joke macros are strawman arguments? They're not arguments - they're stupid jokes on the internet, meant to be shared among people who get the joke. I wouldn't bother to investigate whether or not they're examples of a tu quoque fallacy or if they were affirming the consequent... I'm off to bed before I waste any more time looking for logical fallacies in something that's got a stripey pink and purple background.
posted by harriet vane at 7:28 AM on November 16, 2010 [5 favorites]

Has this thread turned into an argument between two white guys yet?
posted by shakespeherian at 7:29 AM on November 16, 2010 [7 favorites]

My response to all of you.
posted by thsmchnekllsfascists at 7:52 AM on November 16, 2010

Slamming something as a "straw man argument" makes no sense if it's not trying to be an argument, which these aren't, which is right in the Sady Doyle link if you'd bother to read it:

But this is the actual Internet: Blowing off steam, entertaining us, making us feel better. [...] This is what we sound like when we’ve given up on getting approval. When we just think it’s funny. When we’re not trying to do anything but vent.

But never mind that, tell me again how you'd totally buy into social justice if only minorities would work on their tone a little bit.
posted by Zozo at 8:04 AM on November 16, 2010 [4 favorites]

I don't really care about tone. I care about the inherent hypocrisy that we all know exists but we're not supposed to care about it because, what, white males are the only ethnic group who can handle irrational hatred?

When Rush Limbaugh and his listeners laugh at a similar Photoshop joke entited "Driving Miss Nancy," it's time to talk about how this is such a great example of what racist sexist dicks they all are.

But hey, come on. They're not trying to make an argument. They're blowing off steam. They're making themselves feel better. That's what they sound like when they've given up on getting approval.

When you 'give on up getting approval' you can pretty much expect not to get any, when you're being really really offensive to someone.
posted by silentpundit at 8:29 AM on November 16, 2010

When you 'give on up getting approval' you can pretty much expect not to get any, when you're being really really offensive to someone.

Out of curiosity, who do you think these are being offensive to? And what is the offense?

The target is very specific: People with privilege who dismiss the experience of others. It's not a broader critique in any way. It's an assemblage of dismissive phrases, presumably actually heard by the people who submit them, placed atop a single jokey character.

Are privilege denying dudes a specific class of humanity? Or do you think these jokes are understood to be extended to all of white males everywhere, and that's why they are offensive? If so, why?
posted by Astro Zombie at 8:52 AM on November 16, 2010

The target is very specific: People with privilege who dismiss the experience of others. It's not a broader critique in any way. It's an assemblage of dismissive phrases, presumably actually heard by the people who submit them, placed atop a single jokey character.

I think what he's getting at is that people who share the broad goals of social justice, inclusiveness, and so on, but don't talk about it the way certain groups of activists do, tend to get lumped in with the "deniers" and treated as dismissively as actual racists. And then activists pat each other on the back for not having had to educate a racist and for having defeated yet another racist tone argument.

I'm pretty neutral on this issue, but I've seen the reactions (which are similar to harriet vane's but usually more overtly hostile) and I can see why someone would find this kind of back-patting troubling.
posted by nasreddin at 8:58 AM on November 16, 2010 [2 favorites]

And then activists pat each other on the back for not having had to educate a racist and for having defeated yet another racist tone argument.

And how does this relate to this specific joke?

It strikes me that some people are reacting defensively, as though the joke implicates them. But, if you have never said any of these things, it doesn't. Sometimes it helps to know when something is not about you.
posted by Astro Zombie at 9:03 AM on November 16, 2010

So... yes, then?
posted by shakespeherian at 9:06 AM on November 16, 2010

Well, that's up to you, innit? But at least people would be responding to the actual joke, and not the joke they imagine it to be.
posted by Astro Zombie at 9:16 AM on November 16, 2010

I was talking about this.
posted by shakespeherian at 9:18 AM on November 16, 2010

Oh. I think it started out that way.
posted by Astro Zombie at 9:22 AM on November 16, 2010

So... yes, then?

Does that refer to this? I dunno, has it? I don't make it a habit of peaking into every commenters' underwear to see if they have the requisite skin tone and genitals to contribute to the conversation. But apparently you do, so please tell us what you've found.

Go on, go ahead and say it out loud: those two white guys (whoever you are referring to) shouldn't be participating in a discussion about a caricature of white guys. They simply have no business in the matter, their experience is irrrelevant, and by sharing them what they are actually doing is refusing to listen to the oppressed. That's what you're thinking right?

Please provide your ethnic, sexual and gender profile so I may properly cast you in a meme.
posted by Dano St at 9:28 AM on November 16, 2010 [1 favorite]

I care about the inherent hypocrisy that we all know exists but we're not supposed to care about it because, what, white males are the only ethnic group who can handle irrational hatred?

Because, "I'm so sick of hearing these stupid arguments, let's hold the arguments up for ridicule" = irrational hatred of white males.

When Rush Limbaugh and his listeners laugh at a similar Photoshop joke entited "Driving Miss Nancy,"

You realize that, unlike Limbaugh hurling demeaning insults at specific people (Obama and Pelosi), Privilege Denying Dude is just a stock photo? This not attacking a particular person, it's holding up specific arguments for ridicule.

It's not a straw man argument because there's no man here (also because it's not meant to be an argument). It's picking out specific statements and saying, "These statements are stupid, no matter who says them." It's not saying, "These are the best arguments that Rush Limbaugh can make, (or the best arguments that Republicans can make, or whoever) and here, I have refuted them."
posted by straight at 9:29 AM on November 16, 2010 [4 favorites]

I'll get started severely ratcheting down my self-esteem. I promise never, ever to feel like a good person. Ever, ever.

Some people look at this and say, "Yeah, I shouldn't say stupid shit like that." Other people look at this and say, "I guess I should hate myself now, because I can't possibly stop saying stupid shit like that."
posted by straight at 9:36 AM on November 16, 2010 [6 favorites]

Go on, go ahead and say it out loud:

It is my observation that, generally speaking, every thread on Metafilter that is about privilege turns into two people who enjoy that privilege arguing with each other, and that is pretty frustrating.
posted by shakespeherian at 9:43 AM on November 16, 2010 [4 favorites]

Okay, I think this thread has gone Meta-Meta, because I can't figure out who's joking and who's being serious as they deny privileges about assuming the right to have the only authoritative opinion on this thread.
posted by kalessin at 10:07 AM on November 16, 2010 [1 favorite]

Or to put it in meme language:
KILL WHITEY
OH WAIT, IS THIS A JOKE?
posted by kalessin at 10:11 AM on November 16, 2010

Hitler.
posted by Uther Bentrazor at 10:21 AM on November 16, 2010 [1 favorite]

That site makes me want to not give a shit about my privilege.
posted by Anything at 10:25 AM on November 16, 2010 [1 favorite]

That site makes me want to not give a shit about my privilege.

Well, that's your ... er, what the word I'm looking for?
posted by Astro Zombie at 10:49 AM on November 16, 2010 [3 favorites]

> It strikes me that some people are reacting defensively, as though the joke implicates them. But,
> if you have never said any of these things, it doesn't. Sometimes it helps to know when
> something is not about you.
> posted by Astro Zombie at 12:03 PM on November 16 [+] [!]

My approach is better. I say stuff like that all the time and it still doesn't implicate me.
posted by jfuller at 10:53 AM on November 16, 2010

Can someone explain to me why that statement is indicative of white privilege?

Why does it have to be white privilege?

This meme is awesome because the content literally writes itself.
posted by mrgrimm at 10:58 AM on November 16, 2010

Your skills at self-satire are impressive.
posted by Astro Zombie at 10:58 AM on November 16, 2010

> Your skills at self-satire are impressive.

Self-effacement. It's all about making friends and influencing people through humility.
posted by jfuller at 12:43 PM on November 16, 2010

It is my observation that, generally speaking, every thread on Metafilter that is about privilege turns into two people who enjoy that privilege arguing with each other, and that is pretty frustrating.

But everyone (OK, nearly everyone) who accesses and participates in MetaFilter is privileged ... so how can we avoid that? Guest commenters?

because I can't figure out who's joking and who's being serious as they deny privileges about assuming the right to have the only authoritative opinion on this thread

That would be the genious of the meme. It's pre-emptively self-deflating. Or something.

Memegenerator's getting slammed. I have lots to add .. I'm tempted to grab them from old MeFi threads...

OK, just one.
posted by mrgrimm at 12:47 PM on November 16, 2010

Dude, I didn't say white guys can't comment in this thread. Come down off your cross, we can use the wood.
posted by shakespeherian at 12:48 PM on November 16, 2010

Any thread that ends in obviating its own existence emphatically does not also need Godwin's law. Seriously.
posted by kalessin at 1:12 PM on November 16, 2010

Looks like The Art of Defending Racism probably would fit most of the memes (obviously, adjust to other oppressions accordingly). (self-link)
posted by yeloson at 2:00 PM on November 16, 2010

It seems to me that making fun of all white males because they are white males, and making fun of the idiotic, self-contradicting things a particular subset of very rich, thin, white, Christian, English-speaking, closed-minded males perpetually say due to a bubble of proudly limited worldview, are two very different things. You could even do an equivalent meme with any other in-group. You coud change the stock photo to someone else and it would still make sense. So I'm having trouble understanding why people think this is the former. Maybe because every single white male they know is like this, so the two things are equivalent in their minds? I hope not.
posted by Nixy at 3:44 PM on November 16, 2010

So I'm having trouble understanding why people think this is the former.

Probably because if you put a woman in the middle of an Advice Dog-style meme and made her say some stupid things, and then said "No, I don't think that ALL women are like this, but I do think SOME women are like this, and I'm making fun of THOSE women", people would call you sexist. Stick a black guy in there, make him say stupid stuff, explain that you're only mocking a segment of black guys, and people are going to call that racist. So you stick a white male in there, do the same thing, and the same thing happens. That's why some people think it's the former.
posted by 23skidoo at 4:19 PM on November 16, 2010 [4 favorites]

It's not about white men, it's about Dickheads. As a self-identifying Dickhead, and speaking on behalf of a societal group who have historically been looked down on by temporarily non-Dickheaded people (TNDPs) I simultaneously take exception to the meme and find it hilarious.
posted by Fiasco da Gama at 4:27 PM on November 16, 2010

> making fun of the idiotic, self-contradicting things a particular subset of very rich, thin,
> white, Christian, English-speaking, closed-minded males perpetually say due to a bubble
> of proudly limited worldview

You can never be too rich, too thin, too white, too Christian, too English-speaking, too closed-minded, or too male.
-- Dorothy Parker, or maybe Joan Rivers, Rose Kennedy, Diana Vreeland, Wallis Simpson, or Babe Paley. (If Paley, then maybe ghosted by Truman Capote.)
posted by jfuller at 4:35 PM on November 16, 2010

Probably because if you put a woman in the middle of an Advice Dog-style meme and made her say some stupid things, and then said "No, I don't think that ALL women are like this, but I do think SOME women are like this, and I'm making fun of THOSE women", people would call you sexist. Stick a black guy in there, make him say stupid stuff, explain that you're only mocking a segment of black guys, and people are going to call that racist. So you stick a white male in there, do the same thing, and the same thing happens. That's why some people think it's the former.

As someone who, because of the internet, now assumes all penguins are awkward and all wolves are sociopaths, I agree with this statement. And, after all, it's not as though white men are represented in a broad variety of ways in a broad variety of media. Certainly, it's not as though they dominate mainstream American culture.
posted by kagredon at 6:05 PM on November 16, 2010 [1 favorite]

I was prepared to hate this, but some of them made me laugh out loud. However some of the funnier ones "I don't rape any women, what more do you feminists want?!??" - come across like deliberately and flippantly stupid here's-how-much-I-care-about-your-dumbass-cause things someone might say just to be an asshole. Kind of like saying "I love animals, they're delicious!" to an animal rights activist.
posted by L.P. Hatecraft at 1:42 AM on November 17, 2010

deliberately and flippantly stupid here's-how-much-I-care-about-your-dumbass-cause things someone might say just to be an asshole.

Somewhere, Denis Leary sits in a dark room, hunched over his keyboard as he goes to memegenerator.net, giggling like a schoolgirl at his own in-your-face-ness.
posted by Marisa Stole the Precious Thing at 5:03 AM on November 17, 2010 [1 favorite]

It's not about white men, it's about Dickheads.

See, though, if you were going to make a Venn Diagram (Venn himself being a white man), and you were going to diagram the intersection of white men, privileged white men and dickheads, the contemporary conceit is that you'd find a very high percentage of overlap.
posted by kalessin at 5:04 AM on November 17, 2010

Probably because if you put a woman in the middle of an Advice Dog-style meme and made her say some stupid things... people would call you sexist. Stick a black guy in there... and people are going to call that racist. So you stick a white male in there, do the same thing, and the same thing happens.

♫ One of these things is not like the other ♫
posted by Zozo at 8:44 AM on November 17, 2010

♫ One of these things is not like the other ♫

ummmm, suuuure, but I was focusing on the ways they are alike in order to illustrate the reason why some people think this meme is about all white dudes. I'm not trying to defend their reasoning, I'm just trying to point out why people might not get the joke.
posted by 23skidoo at 9:25 AM on November 17, 2010

Probably because if you put a woman in the middle of an Advice Dog-style meme and made her say some stupid things... people would call you sexist.

Feels good man
posted by Uther Bentrazor at 12:00 PM on November 17, 2010

That Feels good man is both sexist and funny. But that's kind of the point, isn't it? To be sexist and funny?

Depending on your definition of racism/privilege/prejudice, Privilege Denying Dude is absolutely in an analogous space.

Here's a difference, though, as a feminist, I am somehow able to acknowledge that Feels good man frog is absolutely offensive, sometimes funny and also NOT TAKE IT PERSONALLY AND NOT BE FLAUNTING HOW VICTIMIZED I AM BY THE WHOLE THING.
posted by kalessin at 5:01 AM on November 18, 2010 [1 favorite]

Privilege Denying Dude is absolutely in an analogous space.

Analogous possibly, but even I (as someone who oftens himself on the 'wrong' side of internet gender discussions and who's kinda been called PDD here before, though not that newly-minted phrase of course) recognize as many or more differences than similaries. Most notably, the endless sexual obsession and degradation in Bachelorete Frog that simply isn't present in any of the PDD images I've seen.

How are they most alike? "If you find them distasteful, then you don't get the humor" is just as much bullshit in either case. (Which is not saying it's entirely bullshit, just they share the same degree of bullshit.)
posted by Dano St at 6:20 AM on November 18, 2010

Tumblr has taken it down.

:'(
posted by NoraReed at 12:30 AM on November 21, 2010

From the jezebel.com link: a template for feminist commentary.

Apparently the aspiring young copyright infringess (and/or jezebel) didn't get the memo that these are just cathartic jokes rather than arguments.
posted by Dano St at 5:47 AM on November 21, 2010

How do you get from commentary to arguments? Snarky comments ≠ reasoned arguments, never has.
posted by harriet vane at 12:54 AM on November 22, 2010

How do you get from commentary to arguments?

The jezebel link implies there may be more behind Tumblr decision than simple copyright issues, that Tumblr may have actually taken down the PDD images because somebody had a problem with their message. It argues that "fair use" should allow the copyrighted image to be used for "feminist commentary".

Obviously these macros are not sustained and supported arguments of logic. You and I may be using the word "argument" differently so we may be just disagreeing on semantic grounds, but I think the position of the jezebel article (and probably of the PDD creator herself) is quite clearly that PDD represents more than just stupid jokes on the internet (your earlier words in this thread).

I mean, how can one believe these 'snarky comments' that violate Tumblr's terms of service are simultaneously both inconsequential and worthy of censorship? If they are so frivolous, the infringement is plenty reason enough for them to be taken down. No other (more paranoid) narrative for the action is required.
posted by Dano St at 8:29 AM on November 22, 2010

The images were taken down because the copyright-holder was aggressive about his rights, and there was no incentive for the meme originator to hire an IP attorney to counter his arguments.

PDD could ride again if someone were to use a public domain photo, or to just plain have a smug-looking white guy, one in on the joke, pose for a new photo.

No, it's not fair that PDD gets in trouble for copyright infringement while other Tumblrs and other memes revel in copyright infringement, but what are you going to do. I'm sure that if the wolf behind Insanity Wolf knew he was online and knew he was having all sorts of unflattering nuttiness ascribed to him, then he would try to take that down, as well.

From the comments on Jezebel, FWIW:

im the owner of this photo: www.vela-photo.com.
First and foremost I am distressed that my model is being used for these purposes. Both of us are surprised and want to pass the page on this subject as fast as possible. It has got way out of hand.

In order to put an end to this I must look at the law and the agreements, since they are the only tools at my disposal.

As mentioned in the comments there are various problems:
1- The buyer bought the image but did not add a disclaimer to each image saying that the model did not endorse the messages
2- The buyer uploaded the image to memegenerator which basically caused the fast reproduction of the image violating the agreement she agreed to when purchasing the image.
3- Every person who uses the image from memegenerator is basically violating the copyright each time.

If you want to buy an image on a stock page, then please read the terms. Stock images do not allow you to do whatever you want. There are protections which are there to protect photographers and models. We are not celebrities so we need this protection.

I hope you all understand
Luis

I think the can of worms is well open on this one already, but once again, what are you going to do.
posted by Sticherbeast at 10:16 AM on November 22, 2010

Only use images under a Creative Commentary license.
posted by benzenedream at 10:26 AM on November 22, 2010 [1 favorite]

Update! There's a new one.
posted by NoraReed at 12:55 PM on November 27, 2010