the Hipster and the liberal

[Rusty Shackleford]

since ive been on this site, ive noticed a bit of disliking for liberalism (which to an extent i dont understand why[unless you are for a bit more of the authoritarian left], except for neo-liberalism[cappies]) and also a tendency to dislike hipsters.

im just curious as to why these people are disliked by some members of this palce?

this is obviously directed at some comments made by users, which is why im asking this.

[Bilan]

Hipster pride.
Liberals are twats.

[jake williams]

First, even hipsters hate hipsters.

Second, "liberalism" is a particular intellectual, political, and cultural movement coming out of the European Enlightenment. It incorporates what are regarded as "social" and "economic" streams, but critically, these are not at all interrelated. Many of the "social" policies it advocates are even today progressive; and 300 years ago, even capitalism itself was arguably progressive, even though it was at the same time ugly from the start. But the social policies aren't disconnected from the economic system it advocates, in fact the particular form liberalism advocates to tackle many real social problems, that is, "liberal capitalism", is antithetical to solving most of those problems (sexism, racism, etc.). Some liberals really are just delusional, and honestly think that capitalist society can solve those problems: others are cynical and know what they're advocating won't help, and don't care.

At any rate, mainstream modern Western society is liberal-capitalist. Obama represents the mainstream of modern American capitalism and imperialism. That's the enemy. The fact that the US right wing is worse in most senses is irrelevant: most of the system we're fighting is more liberal. Things like sexism and racism are still fertile ground for struggle, sure, but now we're not fighting standard reactionaries, we're fighting the very liberals who think they're all about progress.

[Rusty Shackleford]

so, would liberalism fall under programs such as affrimative action and equal opportunity employment where the ensure diversity. a sort of self-satisfying or numbing effect making capitalism look less bad through immediate comforts and concessions that dont really solve the issue?

[MarxSchmarx]

so, would liberalism fall under programs such as affrimative action and equal opportunity employment where the ensure diversity. a sort of self-satisfying or numbing effect making capitalism look less bad through immediate comforts and concessions that dont really solve the issue?

Well, both classical liberals (which is what jammoe describes) and "liberals" as the term is used in North America, are derided here. The reason for the former are quite clear, the reason for teh latter are analogous to critiques of contemporary reformist movements.

[Module]

The thing about hipsters is that they do certain things for the image it gives them, rather than because they genuinely value or even understand these things that they do. They may undermine the validity or genuinity of other people who do these things for other, better reasons. That's why 'people' dislike them.
People here dislike 'liberals' because it's a revolutionary leftist website and so the people here disagree with their politics, quite simply!

[9]

I thought the word 'hipster' went out of use in the late-seventies? What, exactly, does it even mean?:confused:

[Bilan]

I thought the word 'hipster' went out of use in the late-seventies? What, exactly, does it even mean?:confused:

http://www.denimblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/girls-denim-jeans-venice-skinny-colors.jpg

[Module]

Skinny jeans have nothing to do with it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hipster_(contemporary_subculture)#1990s_and_2000s (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hipster_%28contemporary_subculture%29#1990s_and_20 00s)

[Bilan]

Please.

There is a type of Jeans (i.e. the ones above) called Hipsters.
See for example (http://www.thisnext.com/tag/hipster-jeans/).

[Jazzratt]

I thought the word 'hipster' went out of use in the late-seventies? What, exactly, does it even mean?:confused:

http://www.leeches.biz/leeches-eczema.jpg

Think of these except attached to popular culture rather than a finger.

[Bilan]

http://www.leeches.biz/leeches-eczema.jpg

Think of these except attached to popular culture rather than a finger.

Win.

[Module]

Please.

There is a type of Jeans (i.e. the ones above) called Hipsters.
See for example (http://www.thisnext.com/tag/hipster-jeans/).
A little loss.

[Rusty Shackleford]

well i guess i understand the points made. nothing realy dramatic had to be said.

the leech picture was a good lol

thanks

[Rusty Shackleford]

well i guess i understand the points made. nothing realy dramatic had to be said.

the leech picture was a good lol

thanks

[9]

Skinny jeans have nothing to do with it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hipster_(contemporary_subculture)#1990s_and_2000s (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hipster_%28contemporary_subculture%29#1990s_and_20 00s)

I see (I think).. basically, people who act a part to be "cool' but are empty shells without any insight or ideology? If so, they're fucking everywhere.

[The Ungovernable Farce]

I thought the word 'hipster' went out of use in the late-seventies? What, exactly, does it even mean?:confused:
http://www.latfh.com/

[Rusty Shackleford]

latfh is funny. if only that mullet website was still up.

i have to admit though... some vintage clothing is actually kick ass looking. so long as it isnt hippy, or disco

[Sarah Palin]

You see, hipsters, in my opinion, don't really contribute anything to society. They will wear Wayfarer sunglasses not because the sun bothers their eyes, but because it will enhance their image, make them look "cooler." To hipsters, everything must revolve around themselves. Really the only thing they care about is their image; clothing, hairstyle, the way they walk, etc...
To sum up everything I've just stated, hipsters are about the things, not the substance. As for liberals though, I don't really know what to write about them. Liberals have a center-left political philosophy, though they probably still condone capitalism, and feel that change will come from democracy, not revolutions or movements. I believe they are so disliked by the Revleft community because we are in favor of revolution.

[jake williams]

Well, both classical liberals (which is what jammoe describes) and "liberals" as the term is used in North America, are derided here. The reason for the former are quite clear, the reason for teh latter are analogous to critiques of contemporary reformist movements.
Obviously they're not quite the same, but they're not totally separate. I think part of the annoying thing about the latter (American 'liberals') is that they often have no idea what the former are. Although the American liberal spectrum often incorporates folks who look a lot like classical liberals, and some of the more educated ones know it.


edit:

As for liberals though, I don't really know what to write about them. Liberals have a center-left political philosophy, though they probably still condone capitalism, and feel that change will come from democracy, not revolutions or movements. I believe they are so disliked by the Revleft community because we are in favor of revolution.
It's worth recognizing that especially in North America a lot of revolutionary leftists come from a reformist tradition - so a lot of the contempt is partly discomfort with one's own past.

[black magick hustla]

i am #1 hipster hater. i call hipster names all the time both in the internet and real life. all of them are a bunch of illterate barbarians, destructiors of culture,. faux rebels, degenerate bastards etc etc etc etc etc

[More Fire for the People]

I dress like a hipster... *runs*

[Black Dagger]

Does this shit even exist in real life? If i never visited this site the concept of a 'hipster' and why i should hate them never would crossed my mind.

[More Fire for the People]

@BD: the american media blames the negative consequences of gentrification on hipsters.

[Black Dagger]

BL.

[Bilan]

You see, hipsters, in my opinion, don't really contribute anything to society. They will wear Wayfarer sunglasses not because the sun bothers their eyes, but because it will enhance their image, make them look "cooler." To hipsters, everything must revolve around themselves. Really the only thing they care about is their image; clothing, hairstyle, the way they walk, etc...

What a fascinating objection to fashion.
Do you wear blue to blend into the sky, or because you like the colour? Plaid because it helps you study, or because you like it?
Punks, Rude Boys, Skinheads, Indie Kids, Hipsters: all these people wear things because they like them, because they like the way they look.
And there's nothing wrong with that.

Your presumption of self-centeredness is just baseless, so we'll leave that.



To sum up everything I've just stated, hipsters are about the things, not the substance.

:lol:

[Niccolò Rossi]

people wear things because they like them, because they like the way they look.

http://6.media.tumblr.com/37jsqloFro7r4cy7fN2mD4lRo1_500.jpg

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Jesus fuck, those outfits are bloody awful.

[More Fire for the People]

The guy in the middle looks dapper.

[Black Dagger]

Yeah i was gonna say, the guy in the middle ain't so bad compared to the others IMO. Like it's a bit...eh, but def 'acceptable' fashion :P

[Invincible Summer]

The middle guy has a pretty sweet pompadour.

[which doctor]

The problem with people's treatments of the hipster phenomena is that they treat them far too seriously. Hipsters (at least the ones I know) don't take themselves very seriously as tall, and neither should anyone else, really. Whenever I'm in Wicker Park (local hipster capital), my friends and I usually make fun of every hipster that walks by, but the reality is that we really don't look that out of place ourselves. I don't think of myself as a hipster or being a part of any larger hipster community, but I've been told I look like one, whatever that means. That being said, I don't dress outlandishly/ridiculously or fit many of the stereotypical representations of hipsters. I don't pretend to speak for hipsters (mostly because I don't even really know what one is myself), but I'll address some people's comments.


I see (I think).. basically, people who act a part to be "cool' but are empty shells without any insight or ideology? If so, they're fucking everywhere.
I think hipsters tend to be more self-aware about what it means to cultivate cool, but to say they really try much harder at it than anyone else is laughable. Everyone's trying to present an image or perform a role and hipsters like to play with such notions of identity. Being a hipster isn't a political or philosophical statement and shouldn't be misconstrued as one. It's more of an aesthetic than anything else.


You see, hipsters, in my opinion, don't really contribute anything to society. They will wear Wayfarer sunglasses not because the sun bothers their eyes, but because it will enhance their image, make them look "cooler." To hipsters, everything must revolve around themselves. Really the only thing they care about is their image; clothing, hairstyle, the way they walk, etc...
To sum up everything I've just stated, hipsters are about the things, not the substance
This is a classic hipster stereotype, one that's both espoused by people who've never really met hipsters and actual hipsters trying to sound ironic. Funny, huh?


@BD: the american media blames the negative consequences of gentrification on hipsters.
Ironically, I've noticed a tendency for hipsters to blame the negative effects of gentrification on other hipsters. Anyways, blaming larger socio-economic forces on a specific group is a fruitless effort.

PS. The bigger the deal you make of hipsters, the more likely you are to be a hipster yourself, case in point: http://www.adbusters.org/magazine/79/hipster.html?page=1

[Skin_HeadBanger]

Liberals are spineless.
Hipsters are fake.

I know a lot of liberal hipsters... ugh:blink:

[Module]

I think hipsters tend to be more self-aware about what it means to cultivate cool, but to say they really try much harder at it than anyone else is laughable. Everyone's trying to present an image or perform a role and hipsters like to play with such notions of identity. Being a hipster isn't a political or philosophical statement and shouldn't be misconstrued as one. It's more of an aesthetic than anything else.
This is a classic hipster stereotype, one that's both espoused by people who've never really met hipsters and actual hipsters trying to sound ironic. Funny, huh?You're giving a little too much credit to them, here... I speak as somebody who does actually know quite a few 'hipsters', some more hipster-y than others.
There are those who experiment with the way they dress in an attempt to find new ways to look good. They can look perfectly outlandish, but I wouldn't consider those people 'hipsters' because that's not what a 'hipster' is. A hipster isn't 'playing with such notions of identity' any more than other more specific scenesters are - which isn't much. 'Hipster'ism has turned into a specific look itself. One kind of identity almost as firm as any kind of identity supposedly based on more than simply looking good. There are specific hipster shoes, jackets, shirts, glasses, hairstyles etc. etc.. and they try and nail every one. Most hipsters 'play with notions of identity' only in that they try to superficially adopt an identity which is based upon playing with notions of identity. The hipster identity is far more 'unauthentic' for most people than simply adopting aesthetic influences from other subcultures. They don't adopt these aesthetic influences to look good, or cool so much as to look like a 'hipster', to look 'different'. They're a new level of pretentious attention whorishness. That's why so many of them look either cliched, or when they don't look cliched they look ridiculous. It's a subculture for the fake-fashion-enthused who, when it comes down to it, don't know how to dress themselves any better than any other carbon copy scene follower. They really are about the 'things', not the substance - something that sets them apart, however, is that they try to present themselves as being 'ironic'. Everybody else knows .. no you ain't. You're totally serious about it.

Edit:
http://6.media.tumblr.com/37jsqloFro7r4cy7fN2mD4lRo1_500.jpg
I actually think that plaid poncho is pretty cool. Pity about the glasses.
Lol at that guys flower brooch.

[Niccolò Rossi]

http://www.adbusters.org/magazine/79/hipster.html?page=1

I actually enjoyed this, despite my usually hating these sort of pieces.

The content actually reminds me of this (http://en.internationalism.org/wr/242_eminem.htm).

I eagerly await the next edition of Revolucion Mundial for Marmot's article 'Hipsterdom: An Expression of Capitalist Decomposition'!

[which doctor]

You're giving a little too much credit to them, here... I speak as somebody who does actually know quite a few 'hipsters', some more hipster-y than others.
That's probably true. I was quite drunk at the time I wrote that so not all of it's meant to be taken completely seriously.

[Pogue]

Firstly I think we need to differentiate between liberals and social democrats. In the USA I think alot of people see them as the same, whereas over here we see a difference. Liberalism is not neccesarily left of centre economically whereas social democracy is - social democrats tend to be liberal on social issues but are a completely different ideology from liberalism, which would tend to be more right wing.

The 'hatred' is quite interesting. I don't hate 'liberals' socially. I think their economics are awful but thats a different issue because its essentially capitalism vs socialism.

The thing with, basically, reformists, as a catch all term, the left of centre, or social democrats, is not what the ideology on its own proposes. The ideas of state intervention in the economy to protect industry and workers, strong trade unions, social freedom, progressive taxation and public spending are not abhorent. Many people saw social democracy as the perfect ideology because it essentially was meant to combine socialism with capitalism thus mitigating the
undesirable' effects of both.

If we lived in worldwide social democracy things wouldn't be half as bad as they are now, and the social democratic vision is for a social democratic world. So the people proposing the arguments are not evil scumbags to be hated.

However, the key thing is that social democracy is impossible - capitalism wont allow for such social progress, and even if acheived to some extent, it can easily be rolled back again, either by electing a new and right wing government or through a violent coup such as what Franco pulled in Spain or Pinochet did in Chile.

Thats on issue - the fact that liberal or social democratic ideas are unsustainable, realistically impossible to implement within capitalism and not far enough (which is another issue we have, quite simply social democracy does not go far enough, it does not challenge the fact that capitalists have no right to their wealth, it does not propose workers control).

The second issue is that regardless of how well meaning or 'radical' liberals and social democrats are in their demands, they never get implemented. The leadership continually sells out and capitulates to capitalism, so even the (in our eyes) modest demands of social democrats are not even met, or are not met properly. This is becaus you simply cannot reform capitalism and social democracy has consistently failed as the leadership becomes less radical and more accomodating to capitalism.

[black magick hustla]

I actually enjoyed this, despite my usually hating these sort of pieces.

The content actually reminds me of this (http://en.internationalism.org/wr/242_eminem.htm).

I eagerly await the next edition of Revolucion Mundial for Marmot's article 'Hipsterdom: An Expression of Capitalist Decomposition'!

man it sounds ridiculous but i do think that is true! i wrote a long livejournal rant about it

[black magick hustla]

marmots livejournal rambling:


Its interesting how the semiological order can recuperate signs that used to be revolutionary in the sense that they were the means to communicate the rage and dreams of generations of youth who carried a new world in their hearts and were willing to tear down this civilization to create a new one. Now I have a bunch of "punk/hipster" friends who see everything with disdain and irony and there is no new world in their hearts - nothing is serious to this new generations of cultural parasites - everything is just some meta-reference and ironic.

Its just so interesting. I remember me and Ryan were trying to engage some of these people and then they roll their eyes as if we were crazy just because we dont think everything is one ironic joke. I find it incredibly crippling that there are some people who find being intense and incendiary about something boring - especially when they are just being cultural parasites of other subcultures who had no shame and no remorse on their tendency to be intense and passionate about their own convictions. Homo sum: humani nil a me alienum puto

Its so interesting because even if some of them pose as revolutionaries. Its all a goddamn act cuz once you engage them in serious discourse they just backpeddle into the most stereotypical, cookie-cutter arguments of the ruling class. For example, a particular friend got into deep shit (who was black) with the law for doing something stupid and I told my white hip friends that I felt sympathy for him. They could not understand this. They said he did something stupid and he deserved it. I told them that non-stupidity or stupidity to me is not a moral category because in this particular instance I dont think my friend did something morally reprehensible. They argued that well there were certain laws and that it was his fault for being dumb that he got into trouble. I told them I dont agree with the laws (who are made by Man) and that the legality to me is an issue insofar it might make my life difficult but its not a moral issue to me. Then they made some reference to a chess game where if you do a stupid move with the queen and move it in a place were it is very self-evident it is going to get killed (thus a very very stupid move) he deserves to get his queen killed. I told them, what if I dont agree with the rules of the game and I am forced to play it. What if I want to burn down the whole goddamn chess board. They just got shocked and stupefied and did not get what is the worldview of a man who wants the whole social order to go down with its laws, manners, states, borders, traditions, wars, language games, etc. It was really ironic because this people like to pose as some sort of nihilists (which is not even good - iam not a nihilist, i am communist, although sometimes nihilism is pre-revolutionary as Nietzche would have said) but their pathetic attempts to look subversive and dismissive are just a cloth over the traditions weighting like nightmare on their brains. They still suck the milk from their moms tit.

[black magick hustla]

in conclusion hipsters should be treated in the same way the jacobins treated their political enemies

[Invincible Summer]

in conclusion hipsters should be treated in the same way the jacobins treated their political enemies

I wish I could give rep...




On a side note: how the hell did "liberal" become equivalent to "communist" in the United States?

[Sarah Palin]

in conclusion hipsters should be treated in the same way the jacobins treated their political enemies

They really should. They are only concerned with the purchasing of things; not contributing to the "marketplace of ideas." But enough of me saying the same thing over and over again.

Here are some hipsters:

http://7.media.tumblr.com/37jsqloFrojakf6lNrzWmgffo1_500.jpg

http://s3.amazonaws.com/data.tumblr.com/37jsqloFrpdoelje9l96zoU3o1_1280.jpg?AWSAccessKeyId =0RYTHV9YYQ4W5Q3HQMG2&Expires=1246655108&Signature=GhPF9Mw0Wc%2F5wEykAcoDoaCsk6I%3D

http://15.media.tumblr.com/37jsqloFrourkr8y3JxJCOq0o1_500.jpg

http://9.media.tumblr.com/37jsqloFrmnd76rkJQnRrnUmo1_r1_500.jpg

It's not that I'm attacking the way they look. I'm attacking their attitude. They contribute nothing to the world. NOTHING. For the most part, hipsters are upper middle class idiots.

More photos of hipsters at http://www.latfh.com/

[GPDP]

On a side note: how the hell did "liberal" become equivalent to "communist" in the United States?

Because it's the fucking belly of the capitalist beast here. Anything remotely to the left of the conservative status quo is demonized as "dem commie leeberal pinkos".

[9]

I guess I still don't totally get the 'hipster' label. I see a lot of people commenting about the "fakeness" of it, which I am taking to mean the popular trend amongst teenagers of dressing outrageously in an attempt to show that they are rebellious outcasts and are "making a statement"... but then when you go to inquire about the statement they are trying to make, you find there is nothing under the costume, so to speak.
Maybe I am interpreting the comments wrong and that is not what is being said at all. But, if it is what's being said, I don't see why 'hipsters' are any different then goths or emos or scenesters or really what appears to be the overwhelming majority of young people (at least in the US), to whom 'rebellion' is just another item for mass consumption.
Forgive me if I am drawing parallels where none exist... I dropped out of the world of pop-culture a couple years ago and I'm completely out of the loop here.

[Rusty Shackleford]

actually, that was why i was a bit confused why merely hipsters were getting so much shit. Emos, Scenesters, Skaters, Punkers, Rockers, Preppy kids, gnagstas, rednecks. the whole lot of High School stereotypes pretty much look ridiculous in some way. and to be non stereotypical can almost be made into a stereotype. (im probably on the border of absurdity here haha)

all these terms are pretty much pejorative. and i remember reading something about the word 'Chav' and how it should not be used because its pejorative because of their class... !? even the word redneck. but then people go on to attack some middleclass kids who are pseudo-revolutionaries. i think, if you could drag them from some of the stupid shit, and give them some proper reading material. they could become something a bit more useful than a toilet-hugger.

i used to go to parties, and after reading all this shit. almost half of it fits those stereotypes. (thankfully none of them dressed as extreme as that, and that i NEVER donned flannel, fake glasses, special haircuts of any of that, and tight pants hurt my nuts so fuck those, and theyre ugly)

i guess, what im getting at, is that they could be potentially turned on to waht is actually meaningful. i was nearly a nihilist(by no means like a hipster, yet i smoke and drink) for a while, then i read a bit of marx. and i found this quote which i think goes well with this "those who haven't found something worth dying for are not fit to live"

as for liberals, i guess you could say that some of them are spineless. i think its also completely hypocritical to be for gun restrictions and be a liberal at the same time... but anyone is potentially useful, and most people have sympathies with the left. but not enough, and possibly warped sympathies even.

[Sarah Palin]

and tight pants hurt my nuts so fuck those, and theyre ugly


And they're bad for your sperm count!

[Bilan]

http://6.media.tumblr.com/37jsqloFro7r4cy7fN2mD4lRo1_500.jpg

The blue glasses, and the hair of the guy on the left I don't like. But the rest I do. :cool:

Also, what does this picture prove anyway?

[Bilan]

They really should. They are only concerned with the purchasing of things; not contributing to the "marketplace of ideas." But enough of me saying the same thing over and over again.

Here are some hipsters:
It's not that I'm attacking the way they look. I'm attacking their attitude. They contribute nothing to the world. NOTHING. For the most part, hipsters are upper middle class idiots.

More photos of hipsters at http://www.latfh.com/

This is possibly one of the stupidest things I've ever read on this site, second only to the entirety of Tupac's posts.
Your criticisms are ridiculous and stupid, like everyone elses.
And they're only that annoying because you actually sound serious, which borders on absurd and hilarious.
I'll be sure to make sure I contribute to the "marketplace of ideas" before I get dressed this morning. :lol:

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Hipsters don't seem fake to me. Just shit.

[Niccolò Rossi]

Also, what does this picture prove anyway?

Please, Bilan, don't belittle my attempt at humour just because you feel cut...

:lol:

[black magick hustla]

I guess I still don't totally get the 'hipster' label. I see a lot of people commenting about the "fakeness" of it, which I am taking to mean the popular trend amongst teenagers of dressing outrageously in an attempt to show that they are rebellious outcasts and are "making a statement"... but then when you go to inquire about the statement they are trying to make, you find there is nothing under the costume, so to speak.
Maybe I am interpreting the comments wrong and that is not what is being said at all. But, if it is what's being said, I don't see why 'hipsters' are any different then goths or emos or scenesters or really what appears to be the overwhelming majority of young people (at least in the US), to whom 'rebellion' is just another item for mass consumption.
Forgive me if I am drawing parallels where none exist... I dropped out of the world of pop-culture a couple years ago and I'm completely out of the loop here.

:shrugs: i think the issue with punks or hardcore kids or whatever shit subculture is that they were more corrosive and passionate. hipsterdom as a tendency between 20 yos just parasites off these type of subcultures and turns them into nothing

[Bilan]

Please, Bilan, don't belittle my attempt at humour just because you feel cut...

:lol:

Next discussion group, you're dead.

[Sarah Palin]

This is possibly one of the stupidest things I've ever read on this site, second only to the entirety of Tupac's posts.
Your criticisms are ridiculous and stupid, like everyone elses.
And they're only that annoying because you actually sound serious, which borders on absurd and hilarious.
I'll be sure to make sure I contribute to the "marketplace of ideas" before I get dressed this morning. :lol:

You have no idea how serious I can get about the banal aspects of life. No idea .

[Bilan]

:shrugs: i think the issue with punks or hardcore kids or whatever shit subculture is that they were more corrosive and passionate. hipsterdom as a tendency between 20 yos just parasites off these type of subcultures and turns them into nothing

Nothing will come of nothing.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Maybe I am interpreting the comments wrong and that is not what is being said at all. But, if it is what's being said, I don't see why 'hipsters' are any different then goths or emos or scenesters or really what appears to be the overwhelming majority of young people (at least in the US), to whom 'rebellion' is just another item for mass consumption.

First I think the hipster apolitical thing has more to do with the general consciousness of society right now than anything inherent in this group. If you talked to a random group of punk rockers in 2006 they would probably be less politically conscious than a random group of punks in 1991 - the difference is not the subculture, the difference is the times. I think this is changing and I saw a lot of hipsters (both gay and straight) at the recent gay rights protests here.

Second, the hipster bad reputation:
The reason I think that so many people (radicals in particular) have a problem with hipsters in the US is their close connection to gentrification. Brooklyn is the birthplace of the modern hipster and also where most of the anti-hipster attitudes also originated from. They have been seen as a lot of trust-funders who buy cheep property, put in art galleries, and hip record shops and vegan cafes and so on which then becomes gentrification and poor people are pushed out by high rents and eventually middle class people and families start moving in for the local "scene" (i.e. it's a white neighborhood now). The families cause Whole Foods to move in and then the hipsters deem the neighborhood to be no longer hip (actually it becomes too expensive for the majority of them) and they move onto another low income neighborhood and the process starts all over.

This is happening in Oakland as well as the Mission District in San Francisco and it causes a lot of hostility which people take out on the hipsters.

Do they deserve it? This, I don't know - it's certaintly annoying to see privilaged trust-funders with no sense of social consiousness opening an art gallery in a poor minority neighborhood and attracting only other rich white people and making no effort to promote local black or latino artists or attract low-income people to their shops. But many hipsters are just like emo or goths and are students and workers that aren't rich but want to be part of a cool "scene".

When it comes down to it, hipster-hating is missing the point and scapegoating a clique or "scene" for larger porblems of inequality and racism and gentrification in our society. However, I have to admit that hipster-hating is fun.:p

[Il Medico]

I wear what I like, listen to the music I like, and associate myself with the things I enjoy. I am a person with individual taste, and so are 'hipsters'. Of what benefit is it to even try to classify people based upon looks or taste, or anything really?(with the exception of their relationship to the ownership of the means of production) This entire thread is silly.