New Yorker magazine alert thread

it's not that people are looking for a reason to be offended

― da croupier, Saturday, June 29, 2013 12:12 AM (22 seconds ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

You think this person isn't looking for a reason to be offended?

that person is looking to attract pageviews for slate.com afaict

otm

i'm referring to the people on this thread and people like tyler coates http://flavorwire.com/401071/the-new-yorkers-bert-and-ernie-doma-cover-is-infantilizing-and-offensive

also slate is slate

and to be clear, i'm not saying it's wrong to think it's fine and cute and whatevs. but complaining that oversensitive liberals can't take a joke is never a good look.

Generally I agree. But between "Blurred Lines" and now this, this has felt like the week of people getting upset over absolutely nothing.

it's the same cutesy & kinda trite sense of humor as every other new yorker cover

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/culture/130311_2013_p465.jpg

This is subtly a perfect distillation of how your average liberal views the Pope: sexless, harmless, inoffensive, childish, silly, and ultimately mere fodder for the condescending entertainment of straight people.

i like the new yorker's whimsical covers. "the borowitz report" on the other hand is the least funny thing in the world, not just of comedy things but of all things.

article about the iron mine in guinea was kind of the perfect new yorker article

Louis Menand on the Voting Rights Act.

article about the iron mine in guinea was kind of the perfect new yorker article

― Lamp, Monday, July 1, 2013 5:40 PM (3 hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

it was good yeah

lcd display article had some interesting parts but was stylistically so annoying. could have fit way more cool facts about lcd display production in there if the author had taken out all the pointless quirky "funny" background stuff. i'm pretty sure they described every single meal they ate while in korea researching the article.

Don't think I've ever posted on this thread. That article on the Voting Rights Act, though. Yeah.

yeah!

croup i know you've stated previously your position on this kind of stuff is "if someone out there is offended by something i'm in no position to judge" but like... what if it's just some wack undergraduate concern trolling that's like 99.9% projection... Not necessarily saying that this bert & ernie cover thing is it, but i was just wondering... i mean, like, i guess what i'm asking is do u think there exists a reason for being offended by something misguided enough for you not to withhold judgment? also what do you think of Hurting's post that "sometimes the modern mainstream left feels like a sensitivity contest"? do you agree and if so do you think that's a good thing? asking because i'm curious about your opinion, not trying to be a dick

like in this thread the og complaint with the freddie post was that sexless muppet is not a common liberal stereotype of homosexuals. that's a fair point and has to do with the content of the actual justification for why we should be offended about the cover, not just some lazy "oh god can't we focus on something actually offensive for a change" ... but u don't seem impressed

the inside cover is the same shot from the other side, and ernie and bert have the faces of roberts and scalia

― i don't even have an internet (Hurting 2), Friday, June 28, 2013 4:36 PM (4 days ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

roberts and scalia cuddling, muppet supreme court on the tv, just spitballin

The new Kanye record is often dumb and misguided enough for me not to withhold judgment, and, yes the mainstream left often feels like a sensitivity contest because mainstream culture is often insensitive, dumb, and misguided. It's up to you to pick your battles though.

i make no claim on the bert & ernie cover, though i'm inclined to say it's cutesy which could be seen as infantilizing

there is def a point where people sense of offense can be ignored cf.:

This amazingly stupid story about a professor at York University (Toronto) accused of antisemitism

tibetan self-immolation piece felt too short. interesting coming on the heels of the japan suicide piece though.

the inside cover is the same shot from the other side, and ernie and bert have the faces of roberts and scalia

― i don't even have an internet (Hurting 2), Friday, June 28, 2013 4:36 PM (4 days ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

roberts and scalia cuddling, muppet supreme court on the tv, just spitballin

― lag∞n, Tuesday, July 2, 2013 1:08 AM Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

I like it

http://www.theonion.com/video/sesame-street-bert-and-ernie-are-not-gay-they-are,33028/?utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=SocialMarketing&utm_campaign=LinkPreview:2:Default

"if someone out there is offended by something i'm in no position to judge"

I'd amend that slightly. If they say they are offended, you are better off assuming they feel offended than assuming they are lying for ulterior motives. You can listen to them as they explain what they see when they look at the NYer cover and why they find it offensive. Again, there's no need to judge them as insincere.

But if they are making an argument as to why their pov should be adopted by others, including you, then it is perfectly possible and admissible to judge the force and cogency of their argument to see if it persuades you. If it doesn't persuade you, you aren't judging their feelings or their right to defend them. At times, you may even find their argument so weak as to be ridiculous. That's cool as long as you don't generalize that judgement any further than is warranted and extend it to judging their worth as a person.

the part abt the griot in the mali piece was pretty out there

Wow, I'd been waiting for something like the Mali piece for a while. That was pretty incredible.

Loved the Lepore piece on Jane Franklin!

^^^

I can't figure out if pop music is particularly ill-suited to the New Yorker, or if S F-J is just particularly ill-suited to write about it there. I find his pieces only so much wheel spinning in service of flimsy theses that never quite resolve themselves. Why make up some nonsense about a hard rock revival? How could he deride Creed et al, but then conveniently ignore Pearl Jam, the band that begat them, which continues to thrive at hard rock? Especially if he's going to talk about Nirvana as some sort of torchbearer? And calling "Nevermind" one of "four or five" perfect hard rock records? Why even add that? Why not just call it perfect? And then why in the world would you call it "explicitly indebted" to Aerosmith's "Rocks?" In what way?

The first page of that piece is basically gibberish.

Exactly. It's like he dictated it over the phone while driving around. And then it was edited down while he was unreachable.

That Lepore piece is one of the most beautiful things I've read in ages.

It was so, so good, wasn't it? And not the sort of thing I would normally go for.

Didn't Lepore (or another NYer writer) do something a few years ago on Jane Franklin? Maybe a NYer.com blog post?

It's almost something that Janet Malcolm would attempt.

An op-ed for the Times, I think. Having read that made this feel a little warmed-over, but the framing with her mother was a lot more effective than that device usually is. Mostly because she's a very good writer.

I can't figure out if pop music is particularly ill-suited to the New Yorker, or if S F-J is just particularly ill-suited to write about it there. I find his pieces only so much wheel spinning in service of flimsy theses that never quite resolve themselves. Why make up some nonsense about a hard rock revival? How could he deride Creed et al, but then conveniently ignore Pearl Jam, the band that begat them, which continues to thrive at hard rock? Especially if he's going to talk about Nirvana as some sort of torchbearer? And calling "Nevermind" one of "four or five" perfect hard rock records? Why even add that? Why not just call it perfect? And then why in the world would you call it "explicitly indebted" to Aerosmith's "Rocks?" In what way?

I know he's royalty/divinity around here, but he's really not a very good writer.

his Tourettic impulse to offend

I know he's royalty/divinity around here, but he's really not a very good writer.

― 誤訳侮辱, Sunday, July 7, 2013 6:01 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

he used to post here, but other than that i don't think he's worshipped or anything. i agree with josh that i don't really care to read about pop music in the NYer though

though i'd read it if nabisco were given his job

Oh, for sure. I love his writing, and always have. He and Mark R. are the two most thoughtful Fork peeps who could really live it up in that slot.

I think the ilxor take on SFJ was mainly that he has to write for a New Yorker audience, not a music fan audience--which means that when he writes about QOTSA he has to take into account that the last hard rock band most of his readers spent much time thinking about was Nirvana.

Somewhere writing well must have factored into the grand plan, but that appears to have fallen by the wayside.

x-post

yeah!

― A deeper shade of lol (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn),

Yeah as well to the history of the Voting Rights Act article.

SFJ in the NYer always reminds me of an overly-parentally-attached teenager trying to explain trends to his "cool" mom.

announcing in passing that there are "four or five perfect hard rock albums" is definitely something a teenager would do

actually, to his cool mom and his skeptical dad who will never be interested no matter what he says

is the guy ever coherent when he's trying to navigate between different strains of rock? Let's not forget, his most famous moment was when he wanted to know why indie rock wasn't funky like Mick Jagger and the Clash anymore.

Saying there are "four or five" gives him some snob wiggle room, so that when you suggest an album he can say "no, not that one."