General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: 'Wypipo' Explained [View all]BumRushDaShow
(137,091 posts)and that is not what the author is doing.
The descriptions are attempting to establish instances where certain behaviors and practices by certain individuals that are "x", should result in a "y" response to situations that would be analogous or inline with what "x"es normally would do, but don't, and they end up being a contradictory "z" instead, thus highlighting a hypocritical point of view. I.e., they are not "genuine". And in this case, they spend more time advertising how "x" they are ("externally" ) vs just being "x" and moving on.
The examples attempt to literally cut across all political persuasions and even races, and is very much done tongue firmly planted in cheek. And remember, these are sociological "concepts" and different cultures describe/express/label them in different ways.
Edit history
![](du4img/smicon-reply-new.gif)