What Does Your Social Media Reaction to the VMAs Say About You?
Edited. Because humor is art and art is a work in progress. Or something.
She’s growing up too fast. What happened to the innocent Hannah Montana we all loved?
You terrify the small children in your life by threatening to confine them in enclosed spaces so they won’t grow up.
Leave poor Miley alone.
You live in a bubble that is, whether you know it or not, simultaneously the bane and the envy of your friends.
I thought it was hot, just like Hannah Montana was.
You are a washed-up local stand-up “comedian” open-mike-night regular who still thinks that “too old” is a funny joke.
ZOMG, ew, she was twerking onto some gross old guy’s junk!
You like to pretend that you don’t know who Robin Thicke is even though your hate-watching is why the Blurred Lines video has over 150 million views.
Stop slut-shaming Miley! She can dance however she wants to! Girl power!
In conversations about sexual objectification, you pointedly talk about how Playboy’s advent meant “sexual liberation for both genders.”
What’s a Miley Cyrus?
You like to tell people about your ignorance of pop culture so that they can confirm that you have good taste.
I don’t know who Miley Cyrus is but based on the way you all are reacting, she must’ve eaten a baby on stage last night, right?
You like to tell people about your ignorance of pop culture so that they can confirm that you have better taste than they do.
[noticeable radio silence on the entire matter]
You actually don’t know and/or don’t care who Miley Cyrus is. That, or you were too afraid to react because you were afraid you’d do it wrong and be subjected to the social justice wrath of your friends.
How come so many of you are talking about Miley Cyrus?! For shame!
You’re into giving humiliation but don’t want to get your arse down to your local dungeon.
How can you care about some washed-up child star when Irrelevant Issue continues to be A Thing?
Everyone, including you, will be much happier that inevitable day when your only remaining friends are people who care about the one thing you care about. Continue to hasten it, my hedgehog friend.
Since when does softcore porn set the standard for TV performances?
You’d never admit it aloud, but you think that women should cover up more. Not burqa-level, mind you, but could they leave something to the imagination?
Wait, MTV still plays music videos? I thought it was all trashy “reality” shows now?
You have strong opinions on how overpriced and overhyped something like, say, Monster cables, are.
I liked this better when it was called Britney Spears.
You feel jaded most of the time.
What’s the big deal? The VMAs are all about pushing the envelope. Madonna, amirite?
You are jaded.
*yawn* She isn’t even that racy. Just look at Jay-Z and Rihanna’s reactions. We’re only upset because she used to be Hannah Montana.
You both feel jaded and are aware there’s some racial component to all of this.
She’s just trolling. Stop paying attention to her and she’ll go away.
You think #SolidarityIsForWhiteWomen is mean-spirited and divisive.
That was supposed to be twerking? LOL. She’s not even that good at twerking.
You shoot down all criticism of Macklemore, PETA, and/or The Pink Ribbon Campaign with “Well, at least they’re raising awareness.”
I bet Billy Ray Cyrus’s heart is pretty achy-breaky right now.
Arrested Development is your favorite show but not for the reasons that almost everyone else likes it.
The most offensive part of this is that both Thicke and Cyrus are famous only because they have famous parents.
You went apoplectic with rage when people cared about the Royal Wedding and the Royal Baby.
Eh, she’s been appropriating for a while now.
You’re well aware of the racial component to all this and are jaded.
Remember when black folks twerked and it was censored and white people had a National Outrage over it?
You’re well aware of the racial component to all this and aren’t that jaded (yet).
Stop slut-shaming her! There’s plenty of other things she did that were problematic.
You self-identify as a feminist but are, as an intersectional one, well-informed about the legit reasons why someone might reject the label.
[insert joke that somehow manages to talk about both Miley Cyrus and the Batflek]
You still think Girltalk is a brilliant, original innovator.
[insert meta-commentary about people’s reactions in lieu of a genuine reaction here]
You’re a smug asshole.
Yes, I realize that some of this is intended to be tongue-in-cheek, but it is, nonetheless, disappointing. For some time, I found Skepchick to be an interesting site for finding discussion of feminist issues as they relate to issues of critical thinking and to the “skeptic movement”. The fact that there was both discussion and acknowledgment of the many different current and historical strands of feminism, as well as issues such as race, class, and privilege, made for fascinating reading. Even when I disagreed, I still came away with something to think about.
Increasingly, as of late, the tone has become “there is one, and only one correct way to think/react/feel about issue X!” and those of us who are looking for actual discussion are dismissed. Hell, in this particular case, I find that I am dismissed with “Boy, do you know that you are superior to everyone else or what?” for the apparently abhorrent crime of not actually being aware of what was broadcast on MTV (I have plenty of low-brow pop culture biases, MTV just doesn’t happen to be one of them – it’s just disinterest, not a sense of superiority).
So, I went and looked this one up..and while issues of race and gender are perfectly valid lenses through which to view this particular uproar, they aren’t the only ones. Anything that takes place on a public stage like this takes place in a web of different roles, rules, and expectations that, yes, include gender and race, but also include a huge range of other issues through which this could be interrogated (for example, how does our view of economic class play into this? Our views of the purpose of public art? Our views of the role of the media in both informing and distracting?) All of these are valid lines by which to interrogate an issue like this…but apparently if we aren’t viewing it only as an issue of gender and race, we are somehow failing as humans and beneath contempt.
It’s not people who don’t know about MTV to whom I refer, but people who feel the need to tell people that they don’t watch MTV as if they are better somehow for it. If my overall message was lost in the humor, I’m sorry and will do my best to ensure that any future jokes are better.
You’re right — there are many lenses by which to view this. Indeed, yesterday, I saw many interesting takes on the matter from a wide variety of perspectives. The widespread disregard of the racial lens, however, was quite troubling to me especially since it seemed to be mostly unintentional. One cannot discuss the aesthetics, tone, and elements of her performance(s) without taking to account that she’s obviously and very consciously attempting to emulate/appropriate Black culture.
Thanks for the comments, they were helpful. I have made significant edits with your feedback in mind. Let me know what you think.
“You like to tell people about your ignorance of pop culture so that they can confirm that you have better taste than they do.”
I don’t know why, but the way this is phrased is very funny to me. It’s rather Onion-esque.
There is nothing particularly wrong with the basic idea of the post. Where my own reaction comes from is that, while you have a list of things that people say and responses to them which are dismissive and/or insulting, when you get to a few specific ones towards the end, you are basically congratulatory. The result is something that comes off less as an attempt at humor, and more as a way of trying to point people towards the “correct” answers (or, at least, the “correct” things to focus on).
This can be an effective tool at times, but when you are dealing with something as multi-faceted as the way that a large portion of the population reacts to a media event – which is filled with issues surrounding race, gender, media control, and a variety of other factors, it looks like a smug attempt at “correcting” the views of someone who may view the event through a different lens – or who prioritizes the issues differently – and something that could be funny or make someone look at their own attitudes more critically (or, ideally, both) just becomes alienating.
As I said, this is something that has been happening with surprising frequency on Skepchick for the last year or so. It is happening within a broader context where almost every “public skeptic” feels inclined to take a side on issues of gender and race, leading to an increasingly irrational discussion in which everyone on all sides are setting fire to straw men, and so it is disappointing, but understandable. For quite a while, this site was one of the few where open discussion was possible, and you would, for example, see divergent views on what it means to be a feminist, or ways to think about race, and so on. But, increasingly, this is fading away and Skepchick is becoming more or less like the other sites, where there seems to be “one true view” on fairly complex topics. It is understandable, but seeing this happen is one of the reasons why I have begun to distance myself from organized skepticism – the dissent and argument necessary for critical thought as it pertains to these issues is being snuffed out in pretty much all quarters.
Onion-esque was the idea. I’m glad at least that much was clear.
Come on. You’re a smart guy. You cannot possibly believe this is the case. Do you seriously believe that Skepchick is a hivemind where we all conspire to have the same opinions that are forced on everyone who comes here and that we never allow dissent? Even as you post a dissenting comment that is received respectfully and leads to the editing of a post which you found problematic? Is this thread not a perfect of example of how you’re completely and absolutely wrong about that?
If you’re going to stand by this statement, you need to produce some evidence. You need to link to and provide examples of how we squelch good faith efforts at discussion and how a hivemind is pervasive on this site. Otherwise, you should probably consider taking a page from Heina’s book.
I was going to be a bit rude, but thought better of it. Your criticism is certainly reasonable, so I’ll address it as best I can at the moment.
I have no objection to the commentors or even the way that comments are policed. I will note that many voices that I used to see represented (and sure to provide dissent whether for good or ill) have faded away, though I don’t think that this was due to any intentional action on anybody’s part.
Several years ago, after “elevatorgate”, I was pleased to see that the initial reaction to the backlash/uproar on this site was one tempered with humor and rational discussion. The absurd responses from many quarters (such as Richard Dawkins claiming that it was horrible for Rebecca to complain about the incident when women elsewhere had it worse) was lampooned, and rightfully so, but there was also meaningful and reasoned discussion about the underlying issues that were being dealt with. As time went on, and this site began to take on broader related issues, it was a delight to see that different Skepchick writers would have often radically different takes on things and would be willing to discuss them intelligently when everyone else was throwing accusations and creating “straw-feminists” who were allegedly out to destroy everyone else’s fun.
I was further happy to see the Skepchick writers, and related bloggers, overcome the, frankly irrational, dislike of “post-modern” concepts that had long been used as boogeymen. And so, concepts such as privilege, for example, began to be discussed…it did my social scientist heart good.
However, in the last year the blog posts have become much more uniform in both intent and content. Consider, for example, that the term “privilege” – a complicated and in some ways problematic, yet very useful, term in the social sciences – tends to get used with little discussion as to the problems with the term. Although lip service tends to be paid to the fact that privilege is a complicated and layered topic, it is then used as if it were a straightforward one that can be applied without detailed discussion. Similarly, while people are, with good reason, cautious about victim blaming, this, too, especially in the context of general crime as compared to sexual assault, a complicated and difficult issue…but one that is treated as if it were absolutely straightforward in all situations. The same is true for concepts such as rape culture, again a difficult but useful concept in the social sciences, treated as if it were a clear and straightforward thing in this site. These are all valuable concepts which can be deployed to help define and discuss problems…but they need to be used by writers who are clear not only on their meaning, but also on the problems with and complexity of the concepts. When I was introduced to these concepts as an undergrad and later graduate student, a large part of the process of learning about them was seeing people try to deploy over-simplified versions, and then have to argue with faculty, other students, and compare them to reality…a process that forces people to deal with the advantages and shortcomings of these intellectual tools, and a process for which an analogue is missing in the skeptic/atheist blog-o-sphere.
Heina has written some very interesting posts, even in the past year, about the differences in how she views some of these issues vs. other (typically white, affluent) writers on this site. That is extremely valuable…but not discussed as often as it once was, and when it is discussed by writers other than Heina, typically it is done in a very simplistic way.
And, then, there’s the creation of new targets of mockery and new boogeymen. For example, we have the caricatures-of-humans that are mocked as Mens’ Rights Advocates, deployed in a manner eerily similar to how the Evangelical Christians of my youth invoked those wicked secular humanists, alternatively as targets of spite and targets of ridicule.
Why, aren’t you magnanimous? You can be rude. Trust me, I can take it. But I really don’t see why you feel that you had to be rude when my comment was not rude in the slightest. I told you that your claim was ludicrous and you either needed to provide evidence for it or take Heina’s lead and apologize and clarify yourself. Instead, after I ask you to provide explicit and exact examples, you come back and just reiterate what you already said but in more verbose and mansplainy language.
All that stuff you just spewed about concepts being nuanced and complex–no fucking shit. We know that. We have discussed that here on Skepchick and on various sister sites (do you even read the content of the sister sites?). I know I have specifically engaged in what I thought was a good faith dialogue with a couple of people who turned out to be assclowns from the Slympeit on what privilege is and how the concept is used. I can remember this thread off the top of my head, where a few of us spent many comments attempting to explain privilege as a concept to some guy who insisted that it didn’t exist and who had posted in previous threads complaining that we talked too much about political stuff. I just posted a series of posts over three days fisking some assclown’s crap on Slate/Quora because of his lack of nuance and his ignorance of gender and evolution. I’m really quite baffled that you can come here and say with a straight face that we do not talk enough about the problematics of language and fault us for regularly employing what you admit are quite useful terms. It’s as if every time we write the word “privilege,” you expect us to attach a thesis about the problems with the words we’re using.
Also, you seem to be contradicting yourself. According to you, Skepchick has managed to simultaneously increase the diversity of writers, increase the diversity of topics, and increase the critical lens through which we look at those topics, and yet somehow we have also become more uniform in our intent (what does that even mean?) and content.
So, once again, your complaint is nebulous and sounds rather like the same shit we hear from the Slymepit. If you want to continue this discussion in good faith, you need to produce some E V I D E N C E for your claims. What, exactly, do you want from us that we are not doing now? Where are some posts that you’ve seen that were missed opportunities to talk about certain topics or ideas? Were you in those threads bringing up those topics or ideas? Be specific. Give us something to go on, or just stop with this echo chamber hivemind crap.
You have a blog (one that I used to visit often). If you’re so concerned that people aren’t talking enough about the nuance of language used in the social sciences and in social justice movements, why don’t you write about it there instead of trying to dictate to us what content is acceptable? Or, in addition, why don’t you join in the conversation here more often?
I mean, have you seen manboobz? It’s not as if SKEPCHICK went and invented MRAs to mock them. They exist and they say and do really stupid, harmful shit. If you think MRAs are some sort of boogeyman that doesn’t exist except in our imaginations, you haven’t been paying attention.
The full quote is:
“I was going to be a bit rude, but thought better of it. Your criticism is certainly reasonable, so I’ll address it as best I can at the moment.”
So, what I was attempting to say was that I was going to have a rude response, but thought about your criticism, realized that you had a good point, and I should try to respond to you. Basically, it was my very muddled attempt at saying “hey, I was going to be an ass, then realized that you had a point, and I should mellow out and respond appropriately.”
I apologize that it came off as me being even more of a dick and being insulting (not the intention). It was not my best written sentence ever.
As to the rest – look, I have been a reader of this site when I have had a chance (usually at least 3 times a week), and I have tried to read the sister sites when I have the time (which, is, unfortunately, not as often). Okay, maybe my experience as a reader is not reflecting what is actually going on here, I suppose that’s possible, but it is the only thing that I have to go on. And what I have seen is the frequent over-simplification of complex concepts and a narrowing of opinions on many subjects. Now, perhaps this is mitigated or nullified by the presence of the sister sites (which, as noted, I do not get to read very often). If so, then pointing that out is an excellent way to counter anything I have to say. I can not respond, and will have to bow to your greater experience on this point. That’s fair.
The reason why I am not providing the multitude of links that you desire and the reason why I don’t contribute here more often (or write my own blog, as you note) are one in the same: time is limited for me. I wouldn’t even be carrying on a comment discussion with you right now if I wasn’t having to take time off of work today. As a result, I have a choice between attempting to discuss this with you at all, or digging through the web site for specific links in the hopes that I can get back to you some day. You won’t be satisfied without me doing this…and, actually, I see where you’re coming from. We have different subjective experiences of reading this website, and you want me to explain why mine is more correct than yours. So, I have to say that I concede the argument, as I have not the time to go back through and dig up the information I would need to address your points. I still will contend that my own experience of this website is as I have described, but I am aware that this is subjective and possibly due to having read non-representative posts over the last several years.
Yes, I have seen and have mocked Manboobz. I have also worked in a family law office and seen many other people who could be labelled “MRAs” who don’t meet the profile that one would expect from reading about them here. Whether or not I agree with them (frankly, I tend not to agree with most of what they have to say), when you actually deal with the people and not the web sites, you have to accept that they aren’t this weird sub-species of humanity. It’s a bit like assuming the Jack Chick’s tracts describe all of Christian thought – you can disagree with the whole and still realize that most of it’s not as stupid as a given example.
As to your comment that my statements are “rather like the same shit we hear from the Slymepit”…well, you state that you used to read my blog. So, you should know quite well that my views are rather radically different from those to whom you are here comparing me. I am, by any reasonable measure, a feminist, I am a person who is concerned about sexual violence, I favor sexual harassment policies at conventions, I think that we need to consider carefully how and why elements of other cultures are appropriated into our pop culture, etc. etc. etc. However, if you honestly think that I am some misogynistic asshole out to do damage, then just report me and try to have me banned.
Actually, you know, I am going to do something different here. You can read the other reply post, certainly, but here’s the deal:
I apologize. I am responding to my subjective experience of this site, which, as I described int he other response post, may not be accurate. I apologize for pushing your buttons (it wasn’t my intention, but re-reading what I wrote, I can see that I really should have phrased most of what I wrote differently). I apologize to Heina for reacting as I did.
No, this is not sarcasm. I actually do think I’m in the wrong here. And I apologize.
First, thanks for the apology. Accepted! ;)
Second,
I think you need to look at that site again. It’s not an MRA site that is mocked, but is a site that documents MRA stuff.
Speaking of recognizing subtleties in language use (which, btw, is a valid concern, but just one I think you severely overstated), MRA is a very specific label that describes a certain kind of person, not just anyone who argues for men’s rights. I disagree with the the Men’s Rights Advocates movement, but I do not disagree with men’s rights. MRAs are misogynist, anti-feminist assholes who plague the internet. A clueless dudebro who says something misogynist is not necessarily labeled as an MRA. There are specific kinds of things they do and say that earn them the label around here (and, btw, it’s a label they also use for themselves).
Lastly:
Yes, this is accurate. Which is why I was so bothered by your comment that generalized us in the same way that denizens of the Slymepit mischaracterize us. I’ve followed your blog for a while now and have enjoyed it immensely, so I was rather let down by this exchange. I don’t think you’re a misogynistic asshole, nor do I think you’re an MRA, nor do I think you’re actually a member of the Slymepit. And you were never in any danger of being banned. =P I just think you overgeneralized about Skepchick based on your own confirmation biases and began to double-down when called on it. You’ve certainly re-earned my respect by recognizing this, and I think we can both rest assured that neither one of us are the enemy of the other.
“Second,
Yes, I have seen and have mocked Manboobz.
I think you need to look at that site again. It’s not an MRA site that is mocked, but is a site that documents MRA stuff.”
Yep, I had intended to say that I have been known to mock some of the low-lifes documented there. As you can say, I am being astoundingly articulate today.
Suffice to say, I think there are some valid criticisms of how issues concerning sexism and racism are dealt with within the organized skepticism movement(s), and I was trying (poorly) to articulate some, and instead insulted you and Heina and made myself look like an ass, and came off sounding rather like people that I’d really rather not sound like.
Fatigue, grumpiness, poor judgement, and an internet connection are a dangerous mix.
I understand. It happens. And sorry if I got a little defensive, but I think you understand why that sort of stuff puts me on high alert. Especially from people I respect. ;)
Heina, you’re my favorite smug asshole.
“You are old, or at least old-at-heart.”
I appreciate what you are trying to do here, Heina but ageism has been tossed around a lot lately and I am disappointed to see it here.
Edited with your feedback in mind. Thanks. I will avoid ageism in future.
Ageism? She didn’t make a value judgement on old people (unless you think old is an insult here), and the original comment she was “replying” to was written in a pretty lighthearted, affectionate manner. As well, it’s better than a real ageist judgement of the statement – that the speaker is incapable of respecting the difference between one generation’s envelope pushing and another, or how things have changed. Or that Madonna is no longer a cultural icon and several people may not even know who she is.
Honestly, the accusation of ageism is confusing. “Old” isn’t even a slur, it’s a descriptor. The only time “old” is used as a slur is in chintzy teen comedies or sardonic jokes on youth culture. “Old” in this kind of context almost always means parents and politicians (and teachers, et al) in their 40s who are actually in control of the world around them, never referring to anyone that is in a position of weakness.
I personally agree with Amy on this. It was an oversight and I don’t feel it needs to be defended.
Thank you Heina. Your grace and willingness to listen while being critiqued is very much appreciated and others could learn a thing or two from how you have handled yourself here. Cheers.
Sorry Heina, but this reads like a horoscope on Facebook.
What horoscopes talk about sexism and racism? I want to subscribe to those! (;
I was referring to the if you are/think x then you are/think y form.
I think this is an important issue that we should discuss, I’m just not sure that pigeonholing people with limited input is the best way to do that.
Sorry if it wasn’t clear, but I was avoiding talking about it as an Important Issue. There are lots of links in the text to places that do so.
Fair enough. :)
This whole thing makes me feel like a compass at the north poll, I’m spinning around and every angle makes me uncomfortable.
In my defense, Monster Cables are overpriced and overhyped. Heck, there’s a whole branch of Skepticism dedicated to examining the claims of various audiophile manufacturers. They’re as bad as the dowsers.
You’re right, I AM a well-informed intersectional feminist who is well-liked by others and smells fantastic! Your article is spot on!
Sigh.. #1: Softcore actually involves nudity. #2: Most of it, other than some bits of silly stuff that might as well be play acting, isn’t going to show anything more, other than some moaning and dialog (you are suppose to imagine they are actually doing something, even when you would be a total idiot to not see the faking going on), and, in fact far less, than you would get if they walked around naked, and posed for the camera. In fact, some of the stuff you literally *never* even see anything beyond breasts. Its.. insane, and even more pointless than “real” porn. #3: MTV is about “performances”, but, there have been a few “rare” cases of brief, full, nudity, on some shows (OMG the human body! Hide the kids!), which, again, show more flesh that this silly flash of video, or even the so called porn they are comparing it to.
All in all, WTF? lol But, then, the most common “problem” most of these people probably have is the old, “Child stars are not supposed to grow up!”, thinking some people have. The rest, is just clueless idiocy (And, no, the “cultural” thing I don’t find relevant. People borrow culture from each other all the time. Some times, it makes them look like total idiots, when they don’t understand the context, other times.. who gives a damn.) Personally, I didn’t see anything that, under a different name, or circumstance, wouldn’t have been chalked up to, “Dirty dancing”, or some other theme, though, I didn’t have the sound turned up, so I might have missed rap in there or something… lol
Okay, so I finally got around to watching it (I make no claim to intellectual superiority; I just don’t listen to a whole lot of music, though I was fully aware of who Ms. Cyrus is, and kind of liked her most recent ‘look’ [the short-hair one] before this one).
And to be honest? The last half of her part of the act was merely unimpressive. The ‘underwear’ outfit didn’t really fit her body type well; the color was too close to her skin tone to be a costume and too far away from it to be faux-nude, leaving it as the worst of both worlds, and the dancing was definitely not very well done.
But the first half? The bit with the teddy bears and the leotard? The thing that, near as I could tell, was meant to evoke peeping at a twelve-year-old girl’s bedroom? Yeah, that was creepy as shit.
And after watching it, I followed a link to the promo video clip she released before the show–the one set to “No Sleep Til Brooklyn” by the Beastie Boys. And non-existent God as my witness, if I were still in the VMA’s target demographic, I would’ve watched that a few dozen times over, because it was sexy without being any more problematic than sex in media generally is in a patriarchal society.
Since we’re being judgemental, what does it say about you if your first response is to write a half-assed blog post in the style of Cracked/Buzzfeed on what was once blog that didn’t just echo the static of the Internet?
Stereogum doesn’t even stoop this low.
That’s easy: it means that you should never attempt to be funny again, since you’re clearly really bad at it, and instead go back to writing carefully-thought-out, methodical, well-cited pieces that no one comments on.
Heina, that’s not true. What I was responding to, and what I think others are being surprised by, is the change in tone without warning. The piece is funny if it is known to be satire (or more appropriately, sarcasm) ahead of time. Since your pieces are usually more scolarly a turn signal might be in order. :)
Maybe less of this?
http://rationalwiki.org/w/images/b/b3/Mallard_Fillmore_parody.jpg
Loved this! Excellent parody of those eye-roll-inducing Buzzfeed articles.
One thing, though: You didn’t cover the case where your reaction is.
Um, asking for a friend.
I saw what you implied about Monster cables! *shakes fist!* OMG THIS SITE WAZ SO GOOD AND NOW ITS ALL CABLEISM! Cancel my subscription if I have one!
But I liked the rest of it.
I am seeing far too many people acknowledging error and then apologizing in this comment thread. THIS IS NOT HOW THE INTERNET IS SUPPOSED TO WORK, PEOPLE!!
Stop confusing me by being mature adults who argue in measured tones instead of rage-filled screaming!
COTW
Do we still do that?
They said we were, and they did for a while, but then they didn’t, and so we stopped. :D
I know who Miley Cyrus is. I’ve seen a lot of episodes of Hannah Montana, cause I’m a simple person who enjoy the simple humour of Disney Channel shows. I didn’t watch the VMA, or the clips, because the VMA has never interested me, and based on the blurbs for this controversy I didn’t think it’d interest me either.
I’m deeply insulted that this in-depth analysis fails to include my view and reasons.
THERE’S NO WAY TO WIN THIS GAME!!11
OK, so this one is me:
What’s a Miley Cyrus?; You like to tell people about your ignorance of pop culture so that they can confirm that you have good taste.
And, actually, I still don’t know, so therefore, I still have good taste.