Mike is a little bit of an aloof "above the fray" type in his mind. He likes to moderate from the sidelines and inject all the "good lines" with his zingers he's been stewing on while others try to have a conversation. When he concedes a point it is with massive caveat and 1000 word essays about how he was actually right though if you really think about it.
He dabbles in self-deprecation and embraces parody from time to time but he likes to convey that as a 'character' instead of as himself. In short, my read on Mike, is that he is very proud of himself and wants to be perceived in the best light he can manage as often as he can.
Contrast this with Rich or even Jay. Jay comes off extremely aloof on the surface and very unwilling to be wrong, but he will still concede a point in almost every conversation. He'll back off of aggressive stances and admit ignorance or hasty judgement with relative freedom and regularity. He doesn't mind being made fun of, and regularly buys into jokes about his height, facial hair, and weird taste in media which he constantly up-front says "this is my thing, don't worry, I don't expect anyone to agree with it." I will also say, this has been an evolution for Jay. At first he was VERY defensive and unable to take a joke directed at him, but he's mellowed significantly and seems to be much more relaxed and fun in the later years.
Rich can't avoid being the butt of every joke. Mainly because he's been friends with Mike the longest and has long ceded the position of the Clown to Mike's Ringmaster. He gets visibly tired of it sometimes and seems legitimately fed up on rare occasions and lashes out in anger, but he always comes back and laughs it off ultimately. The dynamic between Rich and Mike looks from the outside to be tiring and abusive, but they both lean into their roles for the sake of comedy and fun and I don't think they actually are hurting each other. I also don't think Mike could survive for a minute if Rich actually left.
All of this culminates, I feel, in Mike's development into someone who will use these grandiose-sounding political arguments to seem smarter, more detached, and more cultured than he is, because that is the persona he wants to present. He may mean it, or he may merely mean to be the outsider who isn't directly targetable by the angry mob who may dislike his real opinions. Either way, while Jay is the most likely to HOLD feminist opinions, Mike is the most likely to SPEAK them. Jay is far more willing to have a discussion in a hostile environment than Mike who wants to be right and pull out, or be wrong and dominate everyone into stopping the conversation.
I don't dislike Mike, but I think his ego is heavily attached to how he is perceived by others, and he most wants to be seen as positively as he can. That makes him most amenable to adopting the gestalt positions of the culture he markets himself to.
I trust Jay to say what he really thinks, and I trust Rich to be based most of the time. I always expect Mike to have a bad take that sounds good. Unless he's playing a character like Scientist Man or Mr. Plinkett: THEN he's probably got some good, reasonable, based things to say (because his ego isn't in danger if someone disagrees).
I hear you. Growing up I was in many ways an anti-Rich. I would heavily resist any deprecation or insult directed at me in a friendly setting, and would make things awkward for those involved until they picked a new target. I never realized this consciously until I was an adult and had stumbled into a social situation that was very familiar to all others I'd had in my life. There was the ring-leader whom the group centered on, there was the scholar (usually me) who was ready to go with clever sayings, insights, or stories. And then there was the clown: the guy who was at the butt of all of the humor from the ring-leader. Bullying him seemed to be the leader's greatest joy. And it bothered me enough to intervene on his behalf because I was disturbed by it.
But in this latest scenario I noticed something about the dynamic, that made me wonder why I wasn't in one of those roles myself. That is: the clown was very carefree and happy to be made fun of. He walked into situations carelessly and seemed to participate in manufacturing his own embarrassment. And the ring-leader was always the most energetic and most unleashed when that guy was around. He wasn't savage to be mean, he was legitimately delighted and entertained.
I was impressed with the clown's lack of defensiveness. His cavalier resilience appealed to my personal ideal of being stoic and unaffected. But I realized it clashed with my idea of being 'cool' and it was on that basis that I refused to take that role. I consider that a shortcoming of mine. I don't pity a clown, I'm impressed by him and wish I was him. I know it takes guts, and a healthy dose of trust that the people around you won't push you too far.
I can for sure see why you'd avoid it when you enter a new situation filled with strangers. Also, thank you for the kind assessment :)
Mike is a little bit of an aloof "above the fray" type in his mind. He likes to moderate from the sidelines and inject all the "good lines" with his zingers he's been stewing on while others try to have a conversation. When he concedes a point it is with massive caveat and 1000 word essays about how he was actually right though if you really think about it.
He dabbles in self-deprecation and embraces parody from time to time but he likes to convey that as a 'character' instead of as himself. In short, my read on Mike, is that he is very proud of himself and wants to be perceived in the best light he can manage as often as he can.
Contrast this with Rich or even Jay. Jay comes off extremely aloof on the surface and very unwilling to be wrong, but he will still concede a point in almost every conversation. He'll back off of aggressive stances and admit ignorance or hasty judgement with relative freedom and regularity. He doesn't mind being made fun of, and regularly buys into jokes about his height, facial hair, and weird taste in media which he constantly up-front says "this is my thing, don't worry, I don't expect anyone to agree with it." I will also say, this has been an evolution for Jay. At first he was VERY defensive and unable to take a joke directed at him, but he's mellowed significantly and seems to be much more relaxed and fun in the later years.
Rich can't avoid being the butt of every joke. Mainly because he's been friends with Mike the longest and has long ceded the position of the Clown to Mike's Ringmaster. He gets visibly tired of it sometimes and seems legitimately fed up on rare occasions and lashes out in anger, but he always comes back and laughs it off ultimately. The dynamic between Rich and Mike looks from the outside to be tiring and abusive, but they both lean into their roles for the sake of comedy and fun and I don't think they actually are hurting each other. I also don't think Mike could survive for a minute if Rich actually left.
All of this culminates, I feel, in Mike's development into someone who will use these grandiose-sounding political arguments to seem smarter, more detached, and more cultured than he is, because that is the persona he wants to present. He may mean it, or he may merely mean to be the outsider who isn't directly targetable by the angry mob who may dislike his real opinions. Either way, while Jay is the most likely to HOLD feminist opinions, Mike is the most likely to SPEAK them. Jay is far more willing to have a discussion in a hostile environment than Mike who wants to be right and pull out, or be wrong and dominate everyone into stopping the conversation.
I don't dislike Mike, but I think his ego is heavily attached to how he is perceived by others, and he most wants to be seen as positively as he can. That makes him most amenable to adopting the gestalt positions of the culture he markets himself to.
I trust Jay to say what he really thinks, and I trust Rich to be based most of the time. I always expect Mike to have a bad take that sounds good. Unless he's playing a character like Scientist Man or Mr. Plinkett: THEN he's probably got some good, reasonable, based things to say (because his ego isn't in danger if someone disagrees).
I hear you. Growing up I was in many ways an anti-Rich. I would heavily resist any deprecation or insult directed at me in a friendly setting, and would make things awkward for those involved until they picked a new target. I never realized this consciously until I was an adult and had stumbled into a social situation that was very familiar to all others I'd had in my life. There was the ring-leader whom the group centered on, there was the scholar (usually me) who was ready to go with clever sayings, insights, or stories. And then there was the clown: the guy who was at the butt of all of the humor from the ring-leader. Bullying him seemed to be the leader's greatest joy. And it bothered me enough to intervene on his behalf because I was disturbed by it.
But in this latest scenario I noticed something about the dynamic, that made me wonder why I wasn't in one of those roles myself. That is: the clown was very carefree and happy to be made fun of. He walked into situations carelessly and seemed to participate in manufacturing his own embarrassment. And the ring-leader was always the most energetic and most unleashed when that guy was around. He wasn't savage to be mean, he was legitimately delighted and entertained.
I was impressed with the clown's lack of defensiveness. His cavalier resilience appealed to my personal ideal of being stoic and unaffected. But I realized it clashed with my idea of being 'cool' and it was on that basis that I refused to take that role. I consider that a shortcoming of mine. I don't pity a clown, I'm impressed by him and wish I was him. I know it takes guts, and a healthy dose of trust that the people around you won't push you too far.
I can for sure see why you'd avoid it when you enter a new situation filled with strangers. Also, thank you for the kind assessment :)