The Smiley Smile Message Board

Have at it.

(I thought there was a thread but there doesn't seem to be. Probably was a RR thread.)

Sure enough, an RR thread. And much older than I thought, at that. 2010. Time flies when you're an aging hipster.

http://s3.excoboard.com/therecordroom/29212/737296

At the risk of causing historical horrors, I'll post here about hipster culture and my issues with it.

In North Baltimore, in the last five years or so, hipsterism has spread like wildfire.  

Here are some things you'll commonly overhear should you venture to this part of town:

"I don't have a television.  I think I'm a better person for it."  

"I don't listen to <insert band here>.  It's too mainstream."  

Basically, the modern hipster is somebody who will look down on people who like popular things due to their "superior" tastes.  

The ironic thing is, that as hipster culture spreads, they are turning into the very thing they hate - conformists.  

I'll try to be a little more coherent in my first substantive post in this thread than I've been so far on the topic, but as a preview:
 - I don't think it's wrong to discuss "hipsterism" (or any other category) as long as one understands that obviously no complex descriptor (e.g., an overall identity, not a single characteristic) perfectly describes each, or maybe even any, member of any complex descriptor.
 - I don't think hipsters are necessarily consciously lying to others about their tastes.
 - I think the topic might be best thought of as cliques in high school; initial rough categorization might be entirely genuine, but there is a certain amount of conscious or subconscious refinement of identities going on in order to secure position within the group.

Despite your sarcasm, I stand by my statement. You are taking a few quotes and generalizing to a population. You are making inferences from those quotes to imply nasty negative conclusions when the quotes could be interpreted otherwise. To do so is to follow the exact same instinct and way of thinking that causes bigotry. Indeed it is bigotry. It's irrational and it's something that with the thousands of years of thought and history that humans, with our amazing brains, can use to our benefit, should consciously work against. When I find myself thinking that way, which I do sometimes (and I do think it's an instinct) I try to correct myself. It's almost always wrong and it creates a great deal of damage.

Comparing my comments about hipsterism to bigotry is downright laughable. 

This kind of ultra PC attitude is what is slowly killing America.  You can speak out against illegal immigration because "that's racist against Mexicans."  You can't check a Muslim at airport security because "that's racist."  Where does it end?

I'm a red-headed male of Irish, German, and Polish decent.

When South Park did an episode where they said gingers have no souls, did I write an angry letter?  No.

Am I trying to get Lucky the Leprechaun off cereal boxes because it's offensive to my heritage?  No

When The Simpsons make jokes comparing Germans to Nazis, do I boycott the show?  No

When somebody tells a Pollock joke do I tell them they're violating my safe space?  No 

I totally disagree with that point, though I'll grant and have conceded elsewhere that a certain amount of "over-PCness" (because this thread needs a luther-created word) is annoying, unnecessary, and even absurd and counterproductive.

And I humbly--there's a word I don't use much--ask that we all take KDS's overarching point in the context of the thread rather than debate each of his specific examples, which would be better fits in political threads.

The whole "PC" thing is similar. It's a way to generalize and dismiss and mock people with a label, like "hipsterism." I'm concerned that so many people will fight to defend bigotry rather than fight to eradicate it, even within themselves.

In 1988 I don't think the word "hipster" was used, but around that time I tended to wear black (alternatively really bright flowery clashing Betsey Johnson stuff). You might imagine: flowered wide-leg pants with platform shoes and a differently flowered bra for a top; or a black mid-thigh skirt, black mid-calf leggings with doctor marten's and a black gap pocket T. I had a lot of piercings. My hair when longer was usually blue or cherry red or something, when shorter was platinum dreadlocks.

What would you assume my tastes in music and art were and why?

I don't think it's bigotry to try to understand people's patterns of thinking, or drivers of decision-making. There are people--based on my first-hand experience, my actual, direct observation--whose tastes lie almost entirely outside of consensus tastes: music, clothing, literature, movies, whatever. If there is a unifying thread that makes this reasonable, it's not hipsterism as I define it. So (I think it was) Andrew Hickey's point, that someone may well dislike popular music if s/he didn't like the sound of electric guitar, for example, without being a hipster, doesn't apply here.

Rather, this is someone whose tastes seem unified almost only by their outsider status ... and which change correspondingly with what is generally understood to be outsider. Oh, '80s music is fashionable? Time to re-embrace psychedelic rock sounds. Etc.

This isn't meant to say that hipsters are an organized, conscious group of anti-establishment figures we need to corral and exterminate. It's just an interesting phenomenon that deserves some thought, in the same way it is valid to think about what makes people vote a certain way, or more accurately, self-identify with one or another group.

I don't want to turn this thread into a whole PC thread.  There's enough of that already in The Sandbox.  

But, I will say that comparing taking potshots at hipster culture is not even remotely close to bigotry.  

It's like comparing Mike Love's antics to that of a serial killer.  It's just not the same.  

And, Emily, if you think my taking shots at the hipster culture = bigotry, then you and I will not see eye to eye on the subject.  

I wish I had the exact quote.  But I remember hearing once that this whole "we're all the same" "the word's a rainbow" notion that the hippies had in the 60s is BS.  Differences need to be acknowledged.  When differences between groups of people are acknowledged by all to the point where jokes can be made without offending any group, then, and only then, will we be free of hate.  

Bon Jovi? 

To try to understand is different than to take a few superficial characteristics of an individual and make broad assumptions. Or to take the fact that they don't like mainstream things and make assumptions about why. Specific to your example, what drives the choices might be more complex than a simple bouncing to whatever is unfashionable.
Bigotry does not always lead to a desire to corral and exterminate, but it does always lead to misunderstanding, because it contains a refusal to recognize individuals for who they are; an insistence on making assumptions based on superficialities.
You can validly think about what makes someone vote a certain way or dress a certain way, but to say "this person voted for Donald Trump - therefore this person supports (put in any single thing Trump supports)" would be illogical. The same as "this person dresses a certain way, therefore this person thinks this other way" is illogical. It's a stupidity and a kind of stupidity that leads to all kinds of bad, even though I think it's instinctive.

Nice duck. I actually had/have some fondness for the Jon Bon.

Figured I'd throw in a little humor as we obviously have completely different viewpoints........

Except about Bon Jovi.  I like a lot of their pre 2005 material, and even saw them in concert back in 2001.  Great show. 

But on what basis are you assigning people to those groups? What evidence do you have for those assignations? Let's take "pollacks" or however one spells that. You agree, I assume, that there are no characteristics, beyond the general ones that define humanity, that all polish people share? What difference is there between Polish people and German people as a group, other than legal citizenship?

Let's take a different term. Were there hippies, and if so, could one somewhat coherently describe / define them? (I would say there is such a thing, even though there is no single, defined set of characteristics that make someone a hippie. For that matter, ditto for Christian, or any other complex descriptor.) If there is such a thing that we can acknowledge as actually existing, is there something wrong with trying to consider what might lead to individuals being attracted to hippie-ism?

There are groups. The groups comprise individuals with some shared set of characteristics, even though maybe no two individuals within it share every characteristic. That latter fact doesn't make it inappropriate to discuss or try to understand the groups. It's not bigotry to do that. It is bigotry to then assume every individual within the group does indeed share the characteristics, and damn, do they ever suck, and yes, we need to nip this in the bud, blah blah you get the point. But I'm not trying to do that. I'm just saying, I think there absolutely is a thing that we can call hipsterism, and I find it fascinating. No single trait defines it, and not everyone fits the general set of traits perfectly. But that is the same as is the case with every group.

If we can't agree on whether there can be such a group defined communally, then there's no sense in trying to go further into what pushes or pulls people into it.

Among my friends that would be similarly categorized by others based on our outward appearance, we had a big range of musical tastes and approaches to art and political opinions. There were Republicans, Democrats, Anarchists, Libertarians, Apoliticals. There were Bon Jovi fans, metal fans, pop fans, hard core fans, disco fans, "alternative" fans. There were a number of art school students who had big disagreements on theory, etc. I was into literature for the most part and paid not much attention to the studio arts, other than to support my friends. There are many different reasons for choices of dress and society. In this case, I think the reasons were a sense of alienation from the mainstream. But the sense of alienation might be caused by any number of factors and led to an extremely diverse population. A number of the kids I hung out with were on the streets escaping abuse and had no particular art or culture attitudes, they just found people to be with. Some just thought it was cool, some were serious revolutionary types, some just found it a creative microculture, interesting for their artistic thinking.
To make assumptions about what goes on with a person based on something so superficial is really bad, I think.

eta: I said, "In this case, I think the reasons were a sense of alienation from the mainstream" but even that wouldn't be true. I can think of several who just made friends with who they made friends with due to coincidence of geography and timing, and like most people, they adopted the clothing of their peers.

I'm not assigning anybody anything.  What's the difference between Polish and German people?  Polish people are Polish, and German people are German.  

I'm white, so I'm a white person.  

Here's some labels that can be applied to me:

White
Irish
German
Polish
Red Headed
Baltimorean
Marylander
Republican
Husband
Type O Donor
Notary Public
Beach Boys Fan
Right Handed
Baltimore Orioles Fan
Baltimore Ravens Fan

I'm not hiding from any labels.  I would only take offense if you labelled me something I'm not.  

Love You fan.

It is bigotry to assume that any individual, based on one superficial characteristic, has another characteristic. Which is not the same as finding, after study, that some people who share a characteristic share it for common reasons then thinking about what part that reason played in the times and culture.
Those are two different things.
As I stated in my last comment, I don't think you can generalize what leads someone to select a group they affiliate with. Even something like a political party, which has publicly stated agendas, contains people with a vast range of motives for being a member.

I said aside from legal citizenship. The problem is not the label. I don't mind anyone calling a Polish person Polish. I mind them assuming other qualities about a Polish person simply because they are Polish.
Just like assuming a Beach Boys fan is a 60-year-old Goldwater Republican would be wrong. These assumptions are not just hurtful, they are also incorrect as generalities.

You must be a hipster.  

 ;D

I label myself as a

Love You Middle Ground Likes Some of the Songs, but Not the Album as a Whole Fan

It would be a boring life for historians (some might say it already is) if trying to understand the "why" of movements or groups were off limits. To do that, one must generalize what leads someone (or rather, groups of someones) to select a group they affiliate with.

Why did so many people embrace Christianity from the second and third centuries onward? Why did people explicitly or implicitly endorse Nazism? Why did people identify with the Tea Party?

But again, it's just incorrect as a general statement. Why would one choose to persist in making an incorrect generalization? The anti-PC thing strikes me as just as contrary-for-the-sake-of-contrary as liking Love You, though I won't apply that generalization because I can correct myself, being human.

But let's think of it this way: there is certainly a Polish culture. It comprises numerous Polish subcultures. Every Polish individual has unique combinations of characteristics which, even if they identify with various subcultures, they may fit into to varying degrees. But at some level, there is still some over-arching "Polishness" in some sense--the sense of the most common aspects of Polish culture--even if it doesn't perfectly describe anyone. Polish means more than Polish. It also means Polish. Even if nobody is Polish.

It's a problem if one says the Polish have (or should have) fewer rights, should be given less opportunities, can't govern themselves, etc. But acknowledging that there is such a thing beyond citizenship? Should be pretty acceptable.

? I was just teasing KDS because I know he's not a Love You fan. The post you quoted had no generalizations whatsoever, nor mention of PCness, the anti-ness of which I've also already pointed out to be mostly baseless GOP hysteria.

Well, history writing is necessarily reductive but isn't there more of an awareness of that now and a good deal of contemporary academic writing about history attempts to avoid these sorts of generalizations?

One would study and find actual commonalities and be careful about assigning commonalities where they don't lie, if one were a good historian.
I actually wrote my thesis on why a distinct subset of people supported the Nazis. I studied it, after realizing that one could not properly generalize on the matter and found a variety of causes. I'm sure there are a variety of causes that drive people to the Tea Party. A good historian would use that as a premise and look to identify and understand some of the causes.

One would study and find actual commonalities and be careful about assigning commonalities where they don't lie, if one were a good historian.
I actually wrote my thesis on why a distinct subset of people supported the Nazis. I studied it, after realizing that one could not properly generalize on the matter and found a variety of causes. I'm sure there are a variety of causes that drive people to the Tea Party. A good historian would use that as a premise and look to identify

Emily,

I'm sorry, but I still think you're making too much of the label thing.  

It's called prejudging and it's human nature.

Back when I was online dating, if I told somebody that I liked The Beatles or The Moody Blues, the girl on the other end would sometimes make a joke that I was an old man.  Here is my usual reply to that: "LOL."  No harm, no foul.  

If you see me walking down the street, wearing jeans, black sneakers, and an Iron Maiden t-shirt, you'll probably come to the conclusion that I'm either a heavy metal fan or an Iron Maiden fan.  

So what?  

If I saw you walking down the street in the late 80s, wearing all black with doc martins, I'd probably think you're a goth who listens to The Cure.  Or if I saw you in the flower pants and flowered bra for a top, I'd probably think you're more of a pop fan who might've been into Madonna.  

Thinking that, and labeling you that way before knowing you, doesn't in any way mean that I hate you.  And hate is bigotry.  

As for the hipsters, it's not the look that turns me off.  It's when they open their mouths.  

Re the history responses: yes. But I'm not advocating against studying anything. In fact, I'm advocating discussion, and for those so inclined, study. That is literally what I've been talking about. I think there is such a thing as I've talked about in general conversation here. And no, I'm not going to go back to school and do any serious academic work about it. I don't care nearly enough. But I wish someone would. I'd love to read about it.

The thing is, the impression I'm getting from you is, we can't do that because there is no such thing. Case closed. The end.

But there isn't a Polish culture. There really isn't. There are 'subcultures' that have so little in common that they really aren't 'subcultures' of one culture. Poland is really a crossroads in which many very different (and frequently warring) people reside. There are many Polish citizens whose families have been Polish for many generations who won't call themselves 'Polish' because they associate so little with the general idea of what to be 'Polish' means. Because to be Polish is actually just to have a family circumstance that led to that being your citizenship. My grandmother, for instance, was Ukrainian, though Polish.

I was just lecturing on this very topic today. I talked about how it's strange that I'm supposed to see myself as belonging to a Canadian identity when in fact I live much closer to, say, Buffalo New York or Detroit, Michigan than I do to Vancouver, British Columbia. And I've been to both of those places far more than I've ever been to most other Canadian locations. In that sense, for me, the very notion of a Canadian culture is simply a construction. Such a thing does not genuinely exist.

I guess my half-Polish girlfriend and the Polish owner of the Polish arts organization for which she worked after college would argue that there's no Polish culture. I think they'd agree there is no single Polish culture, and instead say that there is a combination of diverse subcultures that add up to something unique.

There is such a thing as bread. Bread comprises flour, salt, fat, water, and yeast. Maybe milk with or instead of water. Maybe some flavorings, like herbs or something. Maybe no fat. But there is bread. Salt doesn't have to be like water or flour for them to compose bread. The bread is a thing that is the unique product of its components. A different bread is a different result of different components. But both breads exist. So do their components.

I wish I could have been there to hear it. I think it's a fascinating topic (as may be obvious by my oral diarrhea. And you're welcome for the visual.).

Damn it. Where were you when I needed slides?

I agree that it's human nature. But we've been blessed with the sort of intelligence that allows us to override our instincts that have negative impact. With the Iron Maiden example, your T-shirt is you making a public statement about your taste. To guess that you like Iron Maiden would be reasonable. To guess why you like Iron Maiden would not.
I was neither particularly into Madonna, though I did find that one of her albums after that time was excellent. Or the Cure, though I do like a couple of their songs. You would be wrong. My clothes did not advertise my musical taste.
Again, why people choose to believe things that they know they have no support for is not comprehensible to me, especially when they know that this instinct has led to lots of bad, not just historically but in small ways every day.
If you've heard a few people saying dumb things, it's not right, morally or logically, to assume that everyone that you affiliate with those people for some superficial reason, shares those dumb thoughts. That's just dumb, too.

Not at all. I don't mind discussion. But if someone makes a blanket statement about the motives of an entire group of people defined by some superficial qualities, I will point out that it's illogical and is the type of grouping that humans do, probably evolutionarily because of the benefits of affiliating with a group and thus having allies and a linked society around you because humans don't do well alone, but is not beneficial in the modern world in any way. Some of our instincts were once useful but are now not and should be overcome with our intellect.

But I think you are thinking there's more commonality among Polish citizens than there is. They do not have as much in common as different breads. The only commonality you will find, other than the general aspects of being human, is that they are Polish citizens (or their recent ancestors were.)

Emily,

You're asking why people believe in things for which they have no support.  I think you perfectly summed up the notion of religion.  But, that's another topic.  

But, I also don't understand how you can be against me putting labels on people and somehow say there's no such thing as Polish culture.  

Because there REALLY isn't such a thing as Polish culture. There really really isn't. In Poland, as in the US, there's a hegemonic group that thinks that their culture is the Polish culture, but there are many Polish people who are not part of that culture at all and are 'racially' rejected by that culture. So to assume that someone being Polish means that they are a member of that culture is just wrong. And sticking with it is choosing to be wrong.

I'm going to try to explain where I'm coming from again. I might fail, and it may well be because I am really just riffing. Also drinking.

You're definitely correct that it would be reasonable to guess that KDS likes Iron Maiden. It would also be unreasonable to guess why he likes Iron Maiden. But if you knew KDS to have previously disliked Iron Maiden during their peak popularity, but begun wearing their shirts and buying their albums during their lowest popularity, mightn't you be interested in that? And further, at the same time, you noticed him saying that while yes, he likes Poison, he actually only likes their later stuff--Ritchie Kotzen or Blues Saraceno eras--not the hits. Oh, and while much is made of Shout at the Devil, it's Saints of Los Angeles that represents the band at their best. You find similar results in other circumstances as you get to know KDS better: his clothes, his food, his books. And in each case, you detect an anti-populist smugness. In fact, he's got a group of friends who all more or less act similarly, though different on certain specifics here and there.

You're telling a friend about this, and he has a friend in that same group: she's the same way, though not so into metal. [I'm cutting it short because I think we get the picture.]

Once there are sufficient observations to make one suspect there are people who seem to be largely contrarian in all their tastes, who look down their nose at all things popular seemingly because they're popular,, mightn't you be interested in wondering what drives that behavior (or state of being, or whatever)? And in naming that behavior? In getting to the bottom of it?

Or would you deny that there is any "there" there? That KDS really, truly means every word he says and his tastes are what they are from the bottom of his heart? That it's a coincidence how they evolve inversely with how pop culture evolves? And that his group of friends have all individually and independently done the same thing?

That's all I'm saying. It's observable, it's suspicious, and it's interesting.

It would be my favorite one. Also I suspect it would go even worse than this one is.

I was just responding but my dog obviously has to pee right now, so I'll be back.

Is this going badly? Compared to some other conversations happening, I feel like I'm sitting at the Algonquin Roundtable here.

Not nastily or anything. Just that if half the participants seem to be refuting the existence (or acceptability of positing the existence) of the subject, it's a short thread.

Captain,

Saints of Los Angeles?  Shout at the Devil?  The only good thing Motley Crue ever did was the lone album with John Corabi.  

As for Iron Maiden, I prefer their earlier punkier leanings with Paul DiAnno.  

Poison.....bunch of posers.  You're right luckily Ritchie Kotzen came in to teach them some real music.  

Plus, Jaws the Revenge is much better than Jaws.  

New Coke was the best soda ever created.  Wish they never brought back Coca Cola Classic

The Simpsons didn't even become funny until Season 21.

The Office was much better after Steve Carell left.

Thank God they made a third Hangover movie.  It really completed the saga in a most satisfying way.  

 ;D

In case the smily don't sell it, all of these points are jokes. 

:-\ sorry I've been brusque. Each time I post, there have been 3 or 4 already posted other comments, so I've been typing to quickly to be considerate. Maybe I need to change my methods.

OK, but here's where I get confused because you seem the points above seem to at least imply those those views are wrong. Am I incorrect in assuming that?

Maybe KDS and I just get each other's sense of humor. Which is surprising, because Republican Irishmen aren't funny.

No apologies necessary. I've felt the same, that each post is outdated before I post it due to the ones that have beaten me to it.

PS I should take more days off for day-drinking.

Luther "the captain" for governor of Minnesota! ;D

Well, Dayton is done after this term...

I was just responding but my dog obviously has to pee right now, so I'll be back. - done

So, I might be interested in why KDS was moving his tastes according to anti-popularity. But I wouldn't, on a sampling of 5 or a dozen or 50 people, extrapolate to a population of, I don't know, how many "hipsters" are there? And what defines a "hipster?" If there were a hard definition of hipster, and there was a poll of those well-defined people that showed, say, 75 to 80 percent rejected all popular music, I would think there's a real phenomenon identified and I would be curious why, but I'd also think there might be multiple complex motives.
I think in this instance, one is taking a very small sample, statistically insignificant, making an assumption about the motives for the statements of that small sample without recognizing that these are humans with complexity and without providing evidence for that being the motive, and applying those statements and those motives to a broad swath of people linked by characteristics that have not been shown to be connected to the statements.
I'm not saying that one can't, with proper evidence, consider why people think and do what they do. I'm saying that people often respond to their instinct to define groups and apply characteristics to that group by doing so without evidence or logic and are often wrong and this action often leads to really bad things.
I think it's perfectly fine to think that some people are just contrary and think it's cool to like what's not popular. And it's fine to think why some people might do that and to inquire into it. But the statement that started this wasn't doing that. It was making a broad statement about a large number of people who are grouped together by some superficial characteristics, based on a very small sample.

Get on it captain!

Most people thought my dad wasn't, though I did.

Don't label me and make assumptions!!! 

 ;D

I've edited the dog pee comment above, if anyone cares.

But I'm not denying that it's unscientific (for the time being). And I'm all for discussing what the definition is (which was kind of one of the points of the thread). And a poll would be one way to learn about them. And I agree there might be, and actually suspect there are, multiple complex motives. I ABSOLUTELY recognize that these are humans with complexity. And I am providing (admittedly minimal) evidence, which is the sole constant seemingly the contrarianism.

The initial statement--Love You?--was just a statement. It wasn't a condemnation or prosecution. It didn't matter. I'm sure KDS would say he was speculating and I know I am (on that particular topic). But it's speculation I feel comfortable with, maybe largely because it just doesn't matter. Obviously I (and presumably he) would be more careful speculating about groups if consequences were higher to our being wrong.

I was hoping you'd edited it to say that your dog had to poop. Oh well.

Chocolate Shake Man,

These are joke points, while they may not be wrong, but they don't reflect my opinion. 

I do know a couple people who prefer the first two DiAnno albums over any Bruce Dickinson Maiden album. 

And I'd read comments on metal forums that say that Corabi Crue album is the only good thing they've ever done. 

ha. Actually she did.

So maybe it has to do with typing communication/miscommunication. I read the initial statement to be very dismissive of the tastes and motives for tastes of a large number of strangers based on some cultural stereotypes. Which always bugs me, even if in the instance it's not hurtful. It's the sort of thinking that is so often hurtful. And, I'm sorry that this feels dismissive, but it's particularly frustrating when members of the hegemonic group deny that it's hurtful.

Emily,

I was dismissing the motives / tastes of a small number of individuals (ie. hipsters) who have, as a group, proven that there tastes seem to be based on the conformity of their culture, as little as they'd like to admit it. 

And by the way, are you saying that there's a hipster culture, but not a Polish one? 

I don't know who you identify as hipsters or what you define as a small number. Perhaps you mean 10 people in your neighborhood, in which case I take back my criticism. You may have enough knowledge to make a statement like that about those 10 people. If you mean the much larger number of people who are called, in the mass media, "hipsters" I don't think your anecdotal evidence of what a few people you've overheard said is sufficient to characterize all those people.
And no, I don't really think there's a hipster culture. I think there's a fashion among some urban people of a certain age-range and that some people apply a lot of assumptions to characterize the people who follow those fashions.

Emily,

I think you're making assumptions about my judging.  So, you're judging my judging.  And I'm judging your judging of my judging. 

The number of hipsters in my part of town is more than ten.  The only good thing I'll see about them is that the spend money, and will hopefully raise the property value on the house I'm trying to sell. 

I'm going to annoyingly go back to this, because I don't think I gave it the response it deserved and maybe I can clarify a bit here. If someone said "hippies liked the Doors because *put whatever here* I'd think it's a stupid statement. If someone made an analysis of the various drivers that caused alienation among the young in the late sixties or discussed why popular taste among the counter-culture in the late sixties was such a shift from earlier popular tastes, without over-simplification, it could be interesting.

I'm actually totally not against judging.

Emily,

I really don't see the problem with making general statements. 

Saying hipsters like craft beer.  or Hippies like Jefferson Airplane.

These are general statements where nobody is hurt, and there's no hate behind the statements. 

Look, obviously I've pissed both you and The Captain off, and I'm sorry for that. It just really bothers me when people assign characteristics to groups of other people based on assumptions. Or when people are grouped together based on one characteristic (like sex) then assumed to share other characteristics (like any number of characteristics people assume others have based on their sex). And it's not often meant to be hurtful. Sometimes it's meant to be kind, the whole "let me take care of that, little lady" thing that I encounter with older Texas men is meant to be nice. But to me it's a bit insulting because it's an implication that, due to my sex, I'm incompetent. It just really personally bugs me. That's all. I'm not trying to stop people from doing it, but when they do, I'll probably keep saying it bugs me.

I think you misunderstand some general labels, too.  A while back, you object to (I think) Carol Kaye being called a b***h as it using that term about her is condemning every woman who ever walked the earth.  In reality, that statement was just condemning Carol Kaye. 

You haven't pissed me off.  But it's just that your argument makes absolutely zero sense to me. 

Emily, you're nowhere near pissing me off. I still think you're reading something into what I'm actually saying or meaning, as your responses to me don't quite feel like actual refutations of what I intend, but I'm well aware that my increasingly drunk ramblings may make less than airtight arguments.

Speaking of drunk, I'm out for a while. To be continued.

It wasn't Carol Kaye (there was a different point that FilledePlage made about a sexist Carol Kaye reference), but yes, that conversation happened. I'm not happy with the vigor of my posts in that (the not Carol Kaye) conversation either, but yes, the intent of the original statement in which the poster called some news personality a bitch was just to insult the individual. But the word bitch implies something negative about all women. I'm not against accurate labels. I'm a US citizen, so to call me "American" would be correct. I'm of Ukrainian (Polish)/Irish extraction so to call me Ukrainian (Polish)/Irish would also be correct. I'm a woman, so to call me a woman would be correct. Labels are not themselves an evil. It's the assumptions of other qualities belonging to people who fall under a label that are bad.

To both, I'm very glad I haven't pissed you off. I love to argue, but I hate to argue, you know?

KDS, you've said you have Irish and German ancestry and you cited some examples in which people have said some jokes about the Irish or Germans and it didn't bug you. But suppose you faced actual discrimination for being Irish or German? Suppose people assumed that since you're Irish, you're likely to have an alcohol problem and thus should routinely have to go get your blood alcohol level checked to keep your drivers' license? In that case, would people joking about Irish drinking bug you a bit? Because the cultural perception that the Irish have alcohol problems would be, in real practical ways, negatively affecting your life?

Emily,

Discrimination is 100% different. 

As for the perception of the Irish drinking.  I take it was good humor.  It doesn't bug me at all. 

No safe space needed for me. 

Yes, but I'm asking if you were discriminated against because it was assumed that you have a drinking problem because of your Irish ancestry, would jokes about the Irish having drinking problems be likely to bother you more than they do?

Yeah, but that would never happen as we of Irish decent have this weird thing called....um....oh that's right, a sense of humor.

That's why you don't see a bunch of Irish people protesting Notre Dame Fighting Irish games. 

What would never happen? The Irish would never be discriminated against? Or they would never protest being discriminated against? Or what?
(and Irish Americans tend to think of Notre Dame as an Irish American institution. Having a team from an Irish American institution called the Fighting Irish is a bit different, politically speaking, than having an Anglo/white American team named after their genocide victims.)

If the Irish were actually discriminated against, you'd probably see some protests. 

But, I'm referring to the use of an Irish stereotype as a sports mascot.  There's also one as a cereal mascot.  How much protest has this generated?  Zero. 

Yeah, but Irish Americans don't face discrimination due to their leprechauny image in the United States. Irish Americans have become part of the hegemony, particularly in East Coast cities. If people were refusing to hire Irish people because they are so leprechauny, Irish people might start having problems with being depicted as leprechauny.

My point is, it's easy for a person who doesn't face serious discrimination to dismiss other people's reactions to discrimination. The Irish have gone to war over being discriminated against and you can bet that when a British-identifying Protestant in Northern Ireland makes stereotyping jokes about Irish Catholics, the Irish-identifying Catholics don't chuckle along.

Emily,

You're saying I'm leprechauny?  I'll have you know that I'm 6'1. 

We're four pages into this thing, and it's obvious that you and I share completely different points of view.  So, at this point, I see no point in furthering our argument. 

Quite frankly, I think it's sad that one should even have to have such a discussion.  As I really think people in the 21st Century are becoming way too sensitive.

You can agree or disagree.  Probably disagree. 

But there's really no point in hashing this out any longer. 

No, I wasn't saying you're leprechauny. I was referring to what I assume was your reference to the lucky charms leprechaun.
I agree it's sad that one should have to have such a discussion, but of course for the opposite reason.
http://www.broadsheet.ie/2015/03/15/every-irish-person-in-britain-knows-the-little-nod-the-little-wink/

Reviving this thread, since some of my friends insist that I'm a hipster.

as I sit here with my loose leaf tea and indie music and eclectically decorated apartment.

Eh, I feel like "hipster" is often just a buzzword used by people to dismiss other people they don't like, understand, or agree with. Usually young, scary people.

Shuddup, ya hipster :p

i see what u did there.

Agree.

My opinion on the hipster thing, sometimes i see people I might identify as hipsters do things that make me roll my eyes... but at the end of the day, I always try to realize that that's their THING, I have my THING and they probably see it as just as strange.  Most people don't do annoying things because they're assholes, most of them do annoying things because they're trying to stumble through life like the rest of us.