Article: Why do People Hate Hipsters

[LizzieMaine]

I know grown up, adult-acting single people. These are NOT grown up, adult-acting single people. These are people that cannot get their act together.

I think of this as "You're Not The Boss Of Me Syndrome," the idea that all authority is something to be denied and avoided at all times, the way a seven year old pitches a fit and screams "YOU'RE NOT THE BOSS OF ME!" It's a pretended independence, but not *actual* independence.

It's also a denial of reality. There is no one who can truly say that No One Is The Boss Of Them, however much some people might want to claim so. If it's not an actual boss in a job, it's something else that's a boss of them -- peer pressure, addictions, habits, philosophies, whatever.

I think the real mark of adulthood is recognizing that there's always going to be a Boss Of You, somewhere, and in some form, and in coming to terms with that is a sign of actually being grown up.

 

[Baron Kurtz]

well, I'm of the opinion that a healthy dose of "you're not the boss of me" is one of the real plus points of society today.

Sure, I actually have a boss, and the police are actually the boss of me as to what I can and can't do. These things are right, correct, and proper.

But for damn sure they're not the boss of what I wear, what I say (generally), or what I have indelibly stained onto my skin. This is a big shift in the culture in the 20th Century. Gone the doffing of caps and tugging at forelocks to so-called authority. Gone the notion that simply being old gives someone the right to comment on and try to influence how someone else presents themselves to society. When elders show no respect for youth, why should youth respect their elders?

 

[Flat Foot Floey]

It's also a denial of reality. There is no one who can truly say that No One Is The Boss Of Them, however much some people might want to claim so. If it's not an actual boss in a job, it's something else that's a boss of them -- peer pressure, addictions, habits, philosophies, whatever.

I think the real mark of adulthood is recognizing that there's always going to be a Boss Of You, somewhere, and in some form, and in coming to terms with that is a sign of actually being grown up.

Yeah. Give them some Foucault.:eusa_clap

 

[LizzieMaine]

Sure, I actually have a boss, and the police are actually the boss of me as to what I can and can't do. These things are right, correct, and proper.

But for damn sure they're not the boss of what I wear, what I say (generally), or what I have indelibly stained onto my skin.

See, this is stuff I couldn't care less about -- however someone wants to walk the streets is none of my business unless they're on my clock. If they think going around like that expresses their life philosophy, that's their business, not mine. If I don't find them especially appealing to look at, well there are plenty of other things left to look at that I like better. If they dress that way because they like the aesthetic, well, what do they care what I think anyway? And if they dress like that to shock and appall the squares, well, sorry kids, but you could run down the street naked and I wouldn't care. You're the one with the goosebumps, not me.

But where I do start to care is when that "UP YOURS DOOD" attitude gets in the way of my minding *my* own business. When some hipster lout on a bicycle nearly runs over a line of ticket buyers at our box office and throws me the single-digit salute when I remind him that bikes aren't allowed on the sidewalk, or when a bunch of them get drunk and stupid and steal an expensive and difficult-to-replace fixture out of the building during a concert, or when I have to work late cleaning clots of their vomit out of the carpet, or when one of them shoves an obviously fake ID in my face and demands a beer and calls me every kind of obscenity he can think of when I turn him away -- well, that's when I begin to put the pattern together and form a picture of that particular subculture that doesn't exactly fill me with confidence that they're really a swell bunch of bright creative young people at heart.

And I guess I'll throw out one last thought -- if the only way you can think of to Express Your Individuality is by dressing up in your little sister's pants, well, you aren't as individual as you think you are.

 

[John in Covina]

OK, we can disagree without the personal attacks and there will be quite enough of that posted here. In other words, no more contention or it will get deleted. Debate points not people or personalities.

Perhaps you missed this, John?

Also, please tone this down. This comment was way over the top and seemingly oblivious of its own ironies.

I don't want to have to shut this thread down.

 

[Baron Kurtz]

You're absolutely right, Lizzie. Poor behaviour should never be tolerated, from anyone. Not from vintage people, goths, hipsters, whoever. I have seen some horrendous behaviour from people on the vintage scene, and often - almost every time i'm around a large group of vintage people, actually. But that doesn't mean wearing vintage clothes makes you behave horrendously. There are just an awful lot of horrendous people around, whichever "subculture" ((I do hate that word, and idea) they "belong" to.

And this is where the original article, and many of the posts in this thread, got my goat. It seems that for many it's not really about the behaviour. It IS, for many people, about how folks look and choose to present themselves. (I mean, honestly, we've had someone, apparently in no sense ironically, positing that rich people are better than poor people because they wear suits (!).) To present yourself in a certain way somehow fits you into that nice little pigeonhole created by the bad behaviour of someone who kinda looked like you. This, for me, is a bit too much to stomach.

See, this is stuff I couldn't care less about -- however someone wants to walk the streets is none of my business unless they're on my clock. If they think going around like that expresses their life philosophy, that's their business, not mine. If I don't find them especially appealing to look at, well there are plenty of other things left to look at that I like better. If they dress that way because they like the aesthetic, well, what do they care what I think anyway? And if they dress like that to shock and appall the squares, well, sorry kids, but you could run down the street naked and I wouldn't care. You're the one with the goosebumps, not me.

But where I do start to care is when that "UP YOURS DOOD" attitude gets in the way of my minding *my* own business. When some hipster lout on a bicycle nearly runs over a line of ticket buyers at our box office and throws me the single-digit salute when I remind him that bikes aren't allowed on the sidewalk, or when a bunch of them get drunk and stupid and steal an expensive and difficult-to-replace fixture out of the building during a concert, or when I have to work late cleaning clots of their vomit out of the carpet, or when one of them shoves an obviously fake ID in my face and demands a beer and calls me every kind of obscenity he can think of when I turn him away -- well, that's when I begin to put the pattern together and form a picture of that particular subculture that doesn't exactly fill me with confidence that they're really a swell bunch of bright creative young people at heart.

And I guess I'll throw out one last thought -- if the only way you can think of to Express Your Individuality is by dressing up in your little sister's pants, well, you aren't as individual as you think you are.

 

[Son_of_Atropos]

It IS, for many people, about how folks look and choose to present themselves. (I mean, honestly, we've had someone, apparently in no sense ironically, positing that rich people are better than poor people because they wear suits (!).) To present yourself in a certain way somehow fits you into that nice little pigeonhole created by the bad behaviour of someone who kinda looked like you. This, for me, is a bit too much to stomach.

Who argued that and where was it posted?

 

[Chas]

I fail to see the significance of this phenomenon. Rudeness in public behaviour by subcultures is far from new- the Yippies and the Punks were masters of shock and annoy tactics, and I seem to recall that the conservative Londoners of Elizabethan England had some pointed things to say about the behavioiur of the fans of the Globe Theatre. Are today's journalists that ill-informed? Doesn't anybody in journalistic circles read history at all? This is a old phenomenon; young angry people do things that give themselves cause to be embarassed when they think about it in their later years.

On second thought, I think that I might be unfair to the Yippies. They had some pointed things to say that actually made sense at the time, and they were clever at times.

I fail to see why the "hipster" is even worthy of mention.

 

[Baron Kurtz]

I mis/over-interpreted your posts re: relative success in life, price of clothing, and general merits thereof, for which I apologise now that I've gone back and read them through again.

Who argued that and where was it posted?

 

[LizzieMaine]

I fail to see the significance of this phenomenon. Rudeness in public behaviour by subcultures is far from new- the Yippies and the Punks were masters of shock and annoy tactics...

Which brings up something I've never understood. *Why* do such groups believe such tactics are in any way making any kind of a valid point? I remember seeing an article in Time about punks c. 1977 -- I was fourteen at the time -- and they showed a picture of some kid wearing a parachute, with his head thru the spill hole, and he was smeared all over with chunks of raw meat. Now, my impression when I saw that wasn't "Gee, what a provocative point about the inequities and gross commercialism of modern culture." It was "Gee, what an idiot."

The contrast that comes to mind for me are the lunch-counter protesters of the early sixties. They weren't interested in chaotic nihilism -- they were trying to make a specific point, for a specific cause, and they did so with dignity, in a way that any thinking person could understand and appreciate -- they didn't put their feet up on the counter, carve their initials in the stools, flick cigarette butts at the fry cook, or scream obscenities across the sales floor. They simply sat there and made it clear that they weren't leaving until they got service. Dignity, not jackassery, carried the day.

It's a pity modern movements who think they have something meaningful to say have chosen the wrong example to follow.

 

[Pompidou]

I think in some ways, it's easier to carve a niche for yourself in society once you've separated yourself from it. The propensity for teens and twenties to rebel against society is probably just a convenient mechanism for doing so. We operate that way as humans in other ways. For example, kids have to go through a phase of disliking the opposite sex, after years of not really seeing any difference, before they can come back to the fold with romantic interests. Then we tend to rebel against our parents to varying degrees. Rebelling against the status quo is just what we do. I'm not sure it has to make sense. It's probably best if it doesn't. I've always believed the various subcultures should be treated with respect, but I have to wonder how happy they'd be if society embraced them. It's hard to be a rebel when everyone likes you anyway.

 

[Chas]

Which brings up something I've never understood. *Why* do such groups believe such tactics are in any way making any kind of a valid point? I remember seeing an article in Time about punks c. 1977 -- I was fourteen at the time -- and they showed a picture of some kid wearing a parachute, with his head thru the spill hole, and he was smeared all over with chunks of raw meat. Now, my impression when I saw that wasn't "Gee, what a provocative point about the inequities and gross commercialism of modern culture." It was "Gee, what an idiot."

The contrast that comes to mind for me are the lunch-counter protesters of the early sixties. They weren't interested in chaotic nihilism -- they were trying to make a specific point, for a specific cause, and they did so with dignity, in a way that any thinking person could understand and appreciate -- they didn't put their feet up on the counter, carve their initials in the stools, flick cigarette butts at the fry cook, or scream obscenities across the sales floor. They simply sat there and made it clear that they weren't leaving until they got service. Dignity, not jackassery, carried the day.

It's a pity modern movements who think they have something meaningful to say have chosen the wrong example to follow.

All art is meant to invoke an emotional response, and shock is no newcomer to art. Toulouse-Lautrec shocked and upset a few people in his day, too.

There was some great art made in the punk era- and a lot of bad stuff, too- that era certainly had it's variances. There was a major difference in what happened in Europe vs. North America; we were still in a period of relative prosperity. In the UK, you had the Brixton riots, the Thatcher era and it's attendant social upheaval. There was a lot more going on.

The Lunch Counter protests were way different than the current wave of rudeness; it was the civil rights era, and the movement encompassed all age and socioeconomic groups. There was a very real and easily experienced level of injustice that was most common, but not limited to the southern USA.

I don't see a point to the hipster thing. I really don't think that it's my age- I tried to see something in it but all it appears to be is a fraternity of louts.

 

[Son_of_Atropos]

I mis/over-interpreted your posts re: relative success in life, price of clothing, and general merits thereof, for which I apologise now that I've gone back and read them through again.

Apology accepted.

 

[Senator Jack]

I always thought hipsters were those guys who keep quitting a place and keep coming back.

 

[Baron Kurtz]

giggle giggle. sounds about right.

 

[Pompidou]

Up to about a year or two ago, I had no idea hipsters existed, and would've thought you were talking about Beatniks, who, on a side note, are probably my favorite subculture, if their dedication to coffee rivals my own like it seems to whenever they're portrayed in movies.

 

[Chas]

Anybody remember the first couple of seasons of "Happy Days" before it was a retarded 1970's dumass sitcom Henry Winkler vehicle?

Ritchie had a crush on a beatnik chick, writing poetry and trying to find a rhyme for "purpose". He was looking for her, and went into a beatnik coffee house. There was a Beatnik goddess on the stage, and she chants "LITTLE BOY!! YOU WILL FIND! NO! CANDY! HERE!" And the Beatniks crouch over their coffee cups, snapping their fingers and digging her vibe.

Friggin' beautiful.

The other episodes I remember were the one where Ritchie is doing yard work for a divorcee (theme of the episode revolves upon changing sexual mores) and the one on the Adlai Stevenson vs. Eisenhower election. It had a lot of things to say about the emerging political consciousness of the young, and Richie was again in a crush on a fellow campaign worker.

There was an also a charming little episode where Richie dates a girl a full foot taller than himself, and develops feelings for her in spite of it. Wonderful little message about having a good time with a person despite our obsession with physical appearances.

All that good stuff, and then the retardedness begins when they dropped Bill Haley's "Rock around The Clock" in favor of the "Happy Days" theme. After that, pure freakin' dreck.

 

[MisterGrey]

Not to hijack the thread, but, doesn't it seem that nostalgia sitcoms inevitably lose sight of the fact they were built around characters experiencing the effects of an era, and end up as run of the mill sitcoms with period clothing? The same thing happened to That 70s Show around about the fourth season. The shift always seems accompanied by a marked decline in writing and the entire cast becoming interchangeable.

 

[bumphrey hogart]

I've just read this whole thread,it was great,really interesting debating and some great writing,Lizzie,I think journalism lost when you went into theatre.But,and you've got to forgive my ignorance,(I'd never come across the term 'hipster'in this context, before reading this thread),where does the irony come in? I mean I've seen those kids with their jeans around the bottom of their arses,and managed to refrain from kicking them in said arses with great difficulty, (I find the sight of their pants so ridiculous, it's an urge I'm not sure I will be able to manage forever),but I don't understand what's ironic about it. We have groups of them in our local town and they can, like all kids, be obnoxious,but I never got the 'ironically' obnoxious,they're just kids with a really bad sense of style,aren't they?And then, how many generations of kids has that been said about?I know the bright blue 'chaplins' I bought from the great gear market in 1980 were probably not the most stylish acquisition I've ever made.So sorry for coming in so late with what might appear to be an obtuse question,but if anyone can enlighten me I'd appreciate it

 

[JimWagner]

Not to hijack the thread, but, doesn't it seem that nostalgia sitcoms inevitably lose sight of the fact they were built around characters experiencing the effects of an era, and end up as run of the mill sitcoms with period clothing? The same thing happened to That 70s Show around about the fourth season. The shift always seems accompanied by a marked decline in writing and the entire cast becoming interchangeable.

I believe that's called "jumping the shark", named so after the Fonz jumped a shark while water skiing (while still wearing his leather jacket).