0 comment Wednesday, September 17, 2014 | admin
Via Steve Sailer's blog, a post from the Stuff White People Like blog, called Being Offended:
To be offended is usually a rather unpleasant experience, one that can expose a person to intolerance, cultural misunderstandings, and even evoke the scars of the past. This is such an unpleasant experience that many people develop a thick skin and try to only be offended in the most egregious and awful situations. In many circumstances, they can allow smaller offenses to slip by as fighting them is a waste of time and energy. But white people, blessed with both time and energy, are not these kind of people. In fact there are few things white people love more than being offended.
Naturally, white people do not get offended by statements directed at white people. In fact, they don�t even have a problem making offensive statements about other white people (ask a white person about "flyover states"). As a rule, white people strongly prefer to get offended on behalf of other people.
It is also valuable to know that white people spend a significant portion of their time preparing for the moment when they will be offended. They read magazines, books, and watch documentaries all in hopes that one day they will encounter a person who will say something offensive. When this happens, they can leap into action with quotes, statistics, and historical examples. Once they have finished lecturing another white person about how it�s wrong to use the term "black" instead of "African-American," they can sit back and relax in the knowledge that they have made a difference.''
I originally found the Stuff White People Like blog via Steve Sailer, and I blogged about it then. As I said then of the blog:
Is it all in good fun, or does it contribute further to the disparaging of white people which is so popular today? And assuredly this kind of self-ridicule (I am going on the assumption that the blogger is in fact white) is hardly fresh or new; I've (unwillingly) watched parts of movies of the last ten years or so in which caricatures of white people were a central basis of the 'humor', movies like 'White Chicks' or 'Undercover Brother'.
Reading the many, many comments following, I am still left asking myself who the target audience of the blog is. Is it the upper-middle-class or affluent liberal whites who seem to be the subject of much of the ambiguous 'humor'? I suppose such people would greatly enjoy laughing at themselves, or at somewhat grotesque caricatures of themselves; after all, their lives are centered around guilt and self-examination, and seeing themselves satirized or lampooned feeds into their sense that they are flawed, morally inadequate people, and also at the same time very important people. They like being the center of attention, even if the attention is unflattering to some degree or another.
Am I stereotyping white people? I hope not, because the stereotyping is one of the things I find unenjoyable about the blog, SWPL. One segment of white people, mainly liberal, PC, urban or suburban, affluent, educated, (probably over-educated) and mostly young, is made to represent all white people, and that is grossly inaccurate. White people are so much more varied than the blog implies, and the people described therein simply as 'white people' or 'whiter people' (whatever that means) are a small and unrepresentative segment. Yet they are made to stand for all white people. What is the message behind that? It could be that the blogger is himself part of that group, and feels more comfortable aiming barbs at his own group, or it may be that the blogger is part of that group and, having had contact mostly with that rather ingrown group, really considers them to be representative of the white race.
Is the blogger secretly pro-white and politically incorrect? Some claim this to be so, but I'm not convinced. The commenters (and there are many) all seem to see something different in the blog: some see it as an indictment of liberal political correctness, while others think, seemingly, that the satire of liberal young whites is meant to discredit them, deservedly. Some seem to think that the blog is rather anti-white, and therefore hip, since anti-whiteness is hip these days. Most of the young (white) people in my vicinity seem to think that anything which humiliates or caricatures whites is high hilarity, and well-deserved by whites.
The approach of the blog is successful, certainly, in terms of the traffic it draws, and the attention it has gotten. The blogger has also obtained a sweet book deal. However, I think the quality of the comments leaves much to be desired; I don't enjoy reading the comment threads at all.
Nevertheless, despite the uneasy feeling the blog evokes in me, the post in question makes some good points about white people (I would say liberal, PC white people) and their exasperating habit of taking offense on the behalf of their non-white 'wards'. Or should I say their non-white charges? Clients? My previous blog entry about 'The White liberals' burden' relates to this habit of theirs. They are so caught up in being the advocates or self-designated protectors or champions of minorities that they react as if they themselves are wounded when they perceive any slight or slur against their dependent clients, non-whites.
For some whites, specifically liberal/leftist PC whites, their protectiveness of nonwhites extends as far as wanting to adopt them, literally, and thus make non-whites part of their literal family, under their tutelage and protection. Is this a God complex? A desire to be the Savior or saint? For many liberals, their political and social belief system is a substitute for a non-existent religious faith, and in the cases where the liberal is actually a churchgoer, they affiliate with a church which serves their liberal agenda, so their social gospel beliefs are the center of their religious practices.
But just as with all the other manifestations of this attitude, this taking of offense on behalf of others is condescension, and it should be seen as somewhat of an affront to the one who is supposedly the target of the offense, real or imagined.
Taking offense for somebody else assumes that the person supposedly being defended cannot judge for himself when offense has been given, or that he is unable to speak up for himself, being either too ignorant or inarticulate -- too childlike.
I suppose a more generous assessment of these self-righteous liberals is that they have so fully identified with the minority groups that they truly do take offense at some careless word or phrase, feeling personally wounded by it. Even if that is the case, however, it's still unnatural and rather weird. There is a significant sub-group of (mostly young) white people who seem to have convinced themselves that they are non-white, adopting the styles, speech habits, and tastes of non-whites, usually blacks. I have always found that behavior somewhat embarrassing; I feel embarrassed for the whites who try their best to appear non-white. There are many manifestations of this; we see a lot of it on college campuses with young liberals sporting dreadlocks, piercings, and tribal tattoos, who get involved in drumming or other multiculti 'arts'. And there are those who dress in thug style and listen only to rap or other black styles of music. There are those who wear kaffiyehs, in solidarity with Palestinians.
It's not a new phenomenon; back when I was in college, however, whites who wanted to be non-white usually chose to be 'Native American' but apparently that has fallen from popularity somewhat, although Ward Churchill has stayed true to his calling to white Indianhood all these years.
In the 1970s there was a comedy movie, 'Made For Each Other,' in which actor Joseph Bologna, playing a confused young Italian-American man, goes to college and takes up black militancy, and harangues his baffled Italian-American parents about the wrongs done by 'whitey.'
I found that scene especially laughable in the context of today, wherein such attitudes among liberal young people are not as incredible as they appeared when the movie was first shown. There are plenty of young liberal whites who have been convinced by years of indoctrination at school, by the media, and by their deluded peers, that whiteness is a mark of Cain. It's these young people who are out marching alongside illegal Latinos, throwing projectiles at their white elders and calling them names. It's these who are trying to assuage their guilt and attain redemption from the stain of whiteness by swooning over Obama, listening to rap music, dating interracially -- and excoriating anybody who utters a politically incorrect word.
These people are not so much something to be laughed at or about; they are the scourge of anyone who wishes to practice free speech and to utter truth. We all complain about the controlled, PC media, and about our one-world, globalist ideologue politicians, but a bigger part of our problem is that the professional offense-takers, those who have made it their personal crusade to censure and vilify those they disagree with. This 'democratic censorship' only makes the job of the thought police that much easier. At this point, people are more or less being kept in line by these PC vigilantes who will make a citizen's arrest, as it were, of those who utter heresies. The result is a much more cautious conversation among people in general; many of us have to censor our speech closely or risk having someone publicly condemn any forbidden thought we express out loud.
The offense-takers are a plague in our society.
Yet they are our own people -- aren't they? Or by their willful choice to side with everybody but their own, have they in effect renounced their citizenship among whites? These days I am inclined to say the latter. They won't own any connection with people like me because they see us as the enemy; so be it.
Maybe interracial adoption isn't such a bad thing; those who have chosen to identify with others, and only with others, should be adopted into their chosen group and make their home there, instead of staying behind to antagonize and work against their biological kin.
To be offended is usually a rather unpleasant experience, one that can expose a person to intolerance, cultural misunderstandings, and even evoke the scars of the past. This is such an unpleasant experience that many people develop a thick skin and try to only be offended in the most egregious and awful situations. In many circumstances, they can allow smaller offenses to slip by as fighting them is a waste of time and energy. But white people, blessed with both time and energy, are not these kind of people. In fact there are few things white people love more than being offended.
Naturally, white people do not get offended by statements directed at white people. In fact, they don�t even have a problem making offensive statements about other white people (ask a white person about "flyover states"). As a rule, white people strongly prefer to get offended on behalf of other people.
It is also valuable to know that white people spend a significant portion of their time preparing for the moment when they will be offended. They read magazines, books, and watch documentaries all in hopes that one day they will encounter a person who will say something offensive. When this happens, they can leap into action with quotes, statistics, and historical examples. Once they have finished lecturing another white person about how it�s wrong to use the term "black" instead of "African-American," they can sit back and relax in the knowledge that they have made a difference.''
I originally found the Stuff White People Like blog via Steve Sailer, and I blogged about it then. As I said then of the blog:
Is it all in good fun, or does it contribute further to the disparaging of white people which is so popular today? And assuredly this kind of self-ridicule (I am going on the assumption that the blogger is in fact white) is hardly fresh or new; I've (unwillingly) watched parts of movies of the last ten years or so in which caricatures of white people were a central basis of the 'humor', movies like 'White Chicks' or 'Undercover Brother'.
Reading the many, many comments following, I am still left asking myself who the target audience of the blog is. Is it the upper-middle-class or affluent liberal whites who seem to be the subject of much of the ambiguous 'humor'? I suppose such people would greatly enjoy laughing at themselves, or at somewhat grotesque caricatures of themselves; after all, their lives are centered around guilt and self-examination, and seeing themselves satirized or lampooned feeds into their sense that they are flawed, morally inadequate people, and also at the same time very important people. They like being the center of attention, even if the attention is unflattering to some degree or another.
Am I stereotyping white people? I hope not, because the stereotyping is one of the things I find unenjoyable about the blog, SWPL. One segment of white people, mainly liberal, PC, urban or suburban, affluent, educated, (probably over-educated) and mostly young, is made to represent all white people, and that is grossly inaccurate. White people are so much more varied than the blog implies, and the people described therein simply as 'white people' or 'whiter people' (whatever that means) are a small and unrepresentative segment. Yet they are made to stand for all white people. What is the message behind that? It could be that the blogger is himself part of that group, and feels more comfortable aiming barbs at his own group, or it may be that the blogger is part of that group and, having had contact mostly with that rather ingrown group, really considers them to be representative of the white race.
Is the blogger secretly pro-white and politically incorrect? Some claim this to be so, but I'm not convinced. The commenters (and there are many) all seem to see something different in the blog: some see it as an indictment of liberal political correctness, while others think, seemingly, that the satire of liberal young whites is meant to discredit them, deservedly. Some seem to think that the blog is rather anti-white, and therefore hip, since anti-whiteness is hip these days. Most of the young (white) people in my vicinity seem to think that anything which humiliates or caricatures whites is high hilarity, and well-deserved by whites.
The approach of the blog is successful, certainly, in terms of the traffic it draws, and the attention it has gotten. The blogger has also obtained a sweet book deal. However, I think the quality of the comments leaves much to be desired; I don't enjoy reading the comment threads at all.
Nevertheless, despite the uneasy feeling the blog evokes in me, the post in question makes some good points about white people (I would say liberal, PC white people) and their exasperating habit of taking offense on the behalf of their non-white 'wards'. Or should I say their non-white charges? Clients? My previous blog entry about 'The White liberals' burden' relates to this habit of theirs. They are so caught up in being the advocates or self-designated protectors or champions of minorities that they react as if they themselves are wounded when they perceive any slight or slur against their dependent clients, non-whites.
For some whites, specifically liberal/leftist PC whites, their protectiveness of nonwhites extends as far as wanting to adopt them, literally, and thus make non-whites part of their literal family, under their tutelage and protection. Is this a God complex? A desire to be the Savior or saint? For many liberals, their political and social belief system is a substitute for a non-existent religious faith, and in the cases where the liberal is actually a churchgoer, they affiliate with a church which serves their liberal agenda, so their social gospel beliefs are the center of their religious practices.
But just as with all the other manifestations of this attitude, this taking of offense on behalf of others is condescension, and it should be seen as somewhat of an affront to the one who is supposedly the target of the offense, real or imagined.
Taking offense for somebody else assumes that the person supposedly being defended cannot judge for himself when offense has been given, or that he is unable to speak up for himself, being either too ignorant or inarticulate -- too childlike.
I suppose a more generous assessment of these self-righteous liberals is that they have so fully identified with the minority groups that they truly do take offense at some careless word or phrase, feeling personally wounded by it. Even if that is the case, however, it's still unnatural and rather weird. There is a significant sub-group of (mostly young) white people who seem to have convinced themselves that they are non-white, adopting the styles, speech habits, and tastes of non-whites, usually blacks. I have always found that behavior somewhat embarrassing; I feel embarrassed for the whites who try their best to appear non-white. There are many manifestations of this; we see a lot of it on college campuses with young liberals sporting dreadlocks, piercings, and tribal tattoos, who get involved in drumming or other multiculti 'arts'. And there are those who dress in thug style and listen only to rap or other black styles of music. There are those who wear kaffiyehs, in solidarity with Palestinians.
It's not a new phenomenon; back when I was in college, however, whites who wanted to be non-white usually chose to be 'Native American' but apparently that has fallen from popularity somewhat, although Ward Churchill has stayed true to his calling to white Indianhood all these years.
In the 1970s there was a comedy movie, 'Made For Each Other,' in which actor Joseph Bologna, playing a confused young Italian-American man, goes to college and takes up black militancy, and harangues his baffled Italian-American parents about the wrongs done by 'whitey.'
I found that scene especially laughable in the context of today, wherein such attitudes among liberal young people are not as incredible as they appeared when the movie was first shown. There are plenty of young liberal whites who have been convinced by years of indoctrination at school, by the media, and by their deluded peers, that whiteness is a mark of Cain. It's these young people who are out marching alongside illegal Latinos, throwing projectiles at their white elders and calling them names. It's these who are trying to assuage their guilt and attain redemption from the stain of whiteness by swooning over Obama, listening to rap music, dating interracially -- and excoriating anybody who utters a politically incorrect word.
These people are not so much something to be laughed at or about; they are the scourge of anyone who wishes to practice free speech and to utter truth. We all complain about the controlled, PC media, and about our one-world, globalist ideologue politicians, but a bigger part of our problem is that the professional offense-takers, those who have made it their personal crusade to censure and vilify those they disagree with. This 'democratic censorship' only makes the job of the thought police that much easier. At this point, people are more or less being kept in line by these PC vigilantes who will make a citizen's arrest, as it were, of those who utter heresies. The result is a much more cautious conversation among people in general; many of us have to censor our speech closely or risk having someone publicly condemn any forbidden thought we express out loud.
The offense-takers are a plague in our society.
Yet they are our own people -- aren't they? Or by their willful choice to side with everybody but their own, have they in effect renounced their citizenship among whites? These days I am inclined to say the latter. They won't own any connection with people like me because they see us as the enemy; so be it.
Maybe interracial adoption isn't such a bad thing; those who have chosen to identify with others, and only with others, should be adopted into their chosen group and make their home there, instead of staying behind to antagonize and work against their biological kin.
Labels: Cultural Marxism, Ethnic Identity, Ethnic Solidarity, Free Speech, Multiculturalism, Political Correctness, Treason