Hipsterism

[the captain]

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

[the captain]

the notion of religion.  But, that's another topic.  

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

Is this going badly? Compared to some other conversations happening here, 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.

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.

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 I've felt the same, that each post is outdated before I post it due to the ones that have beaten me to it.

[the captain]

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

[SMiLE Brian]

Luther "the captain" for governor of Minnesota!

[the captain]

Luther "the captain" for governor of Minnesota!

Well, Dayton is done after this term...

[Emily]

To guess that you like Iron Maiden would be reasonable. To guess why you like Iron Maiden would not.

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.

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.

[SMiLE Brian]

Get on it captain!

[Emily]

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

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

[KDS]

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

Don't label me and make assumptions!!! 

 

[Emily]

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

[the captain]

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.

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.

[the captain]

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

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

[KDS]

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.  

 

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

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?

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. 

[Emily]

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

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

ha. Actually she did.

[Emily]

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.

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.

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.

[KDS]

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? 

[Emily]

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.

[KDS]

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. 

[Emily]

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.

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.

[Emily]

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 actually totally not against judging.

[KDS]

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. 

[Emily]

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.

[KDS]

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. 

[the captain]

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.

[Emily]

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. 

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.