Look! He's different! Let's make assumptions about his motivations and get him!
It's also interesting to see how many times Reddit (and other communities) fly into a rage-fest because of lack of context, only to make an about-face when the full picture comes out. It's also interesting how no matter how many times this exact situation happens, there is no stopping the next rage-fest.
Above all other things, internet communities is what makes me cynical about humanity.
Update I could probably justify this comment by making a point other than, "young whipper snappers be cray, yo."
Hipster hate has been around for years. I find that it comes from young, self-conscious people posturing and picking on other people based on the way they look, the music they like, and other trivial things. It's cruel to pick on other people for something so utterly trivial. There's nothing thinly veiled about it, IMO: it's just bullying and it seems to be a phenomenon I strongly attribute to young people.
Maybe that makes me an old, ignorant, ruddy-duddy but I seriously haven't really heard someone over the age of 30 or so make snarky remarks about how so-and-so is such a hipster douchebag. They'd get funny looks and people might think, "What is this, high school!?"
I think someone should make this a youtube video. Old people picking on other old people for liking obscure bands young people have never heard of in forty years. Calling them hipsters (a term that originated in the 50s beat movement, no?).
> "but I seriously haven't really heard someone over the age of 30 or so make snarky remarks about how so-and-so is such a hipster douchebag"
Maybe that's because you surround yourself with people who have similar outlooks? That doesn't mean that all people over 30 are above high school bullshit. And it certainly doesn't mean that all people under 25 are perpetuating high school bullshit. There is really no reason to bring age into this conversation at all. You're just confirming your own bias.
tl;dr condemn the behavior, not the demographic that you feel is representative of the behavior
Except... then I reached my 30s. And realized that I was not, in fact, an exception to that rule. I was perhaps worse, because I was aware of it and somehow thought I was above it.
Now I'm closer to 40 than 35, and haven't seen anything to change my mind. The majority of twenty-something people I encounter in life and online - no matter how intelligent and capable - are still maturing well into their late 20s. Just as I was, even while convinced that I was not.
I'm nicer about it now, though. I realize it's probably physiological.
Quoting at length because it's hard to extract the pith:
In our youthful years we still venerate and despise without the art of NUANCE, which is the best gain of life, and we have rightly to do hard penance for having fallen upon men and things with Yea and Nay.
Everything is so arranged that the worst of all tastes, THE TASTE FOR THE UNCONDITIONAL, is cruelly befooled and abused, until a man learns to introduce a little art into his sentiments, and prefers to try conclusions with the artificial, as do the real artists of life.
The angry and reverent spirit peculiar to youth appears to allow itself no peace, until it has suitably falsified men and things, to be able to vent its passion upon them: youth in itself even, is something falsifying and deceptive. Later on, when the young soul, tortured by continual disillusions, finally turns suspiciously against itself—still ardent and savage even in its suspicion and remorse of conscience: how it upbraids itself, how impatiently it tears itself, how it revenges itself for its long self-blinding, as though it had been a voluntary blindness!
In this transition one punishes oneself by distrust of one's sentiments; one tortures one's enthusiasm with doubt, one feels even the good conscience to be a danger, as if it were the self-concealment and lassitude of a more refined uprightness; and above all, one espouses upon principle the cause AGAINST "youth."—A decade later, and one comprehends that all this was also still—youth!
There have been studies, such as by the National Institutes of Health that show that "the part of the brain that restrains risky behavior, including reckless driving, and thinking skills is not fully developed until the age of 25." Meaning the Frontal Lobe and Prefrontal cortex have not yet matured until 25, that's the area of the brain area responsible for planning, prioritizing and controlling impulses.
There is an amount of truth in this.
He's just yelling at kids to get off his lawn and lacks the self-awareness to pay attention to who's lawn he is standing on while he does it. There aren't any deep truths hidden in his comment.
He is making a baseless judgement about an entire age group because he thinks that age group makes baseless judgments. The lack of self awareness is ludicrous.
But I've also met far more who are arrogant, confused, and wistful.
It's hard not to make broad, generalized statements when making such observations which is why I felt like I should justify it a bit more. I'm not saying there aren't any adults over 30 who don't act like bullies; the game just changes in my experience.
The point is that hipster hate tends to be a symptom of the self-conscious people who lack a solid understanding of their own identity. This can be a problem for people well into their 50's or through out their lifetimes: I don't know. Either way I wasn't implying anything negative about young people. Except that they're all absolutely insane in my opinion. Hate me if you want.
The game doesn't change, it is just played in different arenas, against different 'opponents'.
I don't think it is bad though.
Wow... you actually believe that? You're insane.
Yuppie douchebag on the other hand...
"The reaction, then, had nothing to do with hipsters. It was a hatred of people that need to stand out for standing-out's sake. That realization was at once positive and negative—people didn't hate me because I was a hipster, they hated me because I looked like I was nakedly desperate for attention, and had gone about that attention-grabbing by glomming on to marginalized trends."
I believe that statement would be true even without the "glomming" part. Societies seem to both love and hate attention seekers. We pour accolades on attention-seeking celebrities, but scowl at neighbors who buy flashy cars or ride a Penny-farthing (I had to look that up) seemingly only for the attention.
"The experience of being labeled and then cast aside made me realize that what many people call 'hipsterism' or, what they perceive as a slavish devotion to irony, are often in fact just forms of extreme, radical sincerity."
So in the end, they hate us for our freedom. They criticise you because they are jealous of you, like mom said. I don't understand this lack of self-awareness in a generation and class so obsessed with self-cataloging.
So it's his fault that people were nasty and hated on him? Way to go - blaming the victim much?
To not rant: the fact that someone criticizes you is not a sign of a quality that they hold of being a criticizer, When people criticize you, they are criticizing you, and if you feel that that makes them a criticizer, it's because you define other individuals in terms of yourself.
Instead, pretend that someone is telling you how they see you from their perspective, and decide whether their perception is distorted, or if you just have to eat it and accept it, and reflect.
>So it's his fault that people were nasty and hated on him?
Depends what you mean by fault. If somebody hates fox hunting, and I hunt a fox, is it my fault that people are upset with me? I'm just living my life how I want to live it. What does fault even mean? If you're a shitty singer, singing on the street outside of my apartment, and I stick my head out of the window and yell at you that you suck and should shut up, is it your fault that I told you you suck? What does that mean? Am I a hater?
>blaming the victim much?
The victim of being upset that people on twitter and reddit didn't like him? Cry me a river.
Well that makes no sense whatsoever. If you criticize someone, then in fact you exhibit the trait of criticizing. But you'll notice I didn't use the term "criticizer", so it's a moot point.
> What does fault even mean?
In the context of what I wrote, it was not the author who caused the nastiness. He went to a park with a typewriter. People made horrible comments about him. Many people said they hated him. To say you hate somewhat entails the act of hating, which would make you a hater. Not sure how to spell it out more clearly.
As someone else has already pointed out, your examples aren't relevant to this article. What this guy went through bares no resemblance to fox hunting (?!?!), or annoying others with bad singing.
> The victim of being upset that people on twitter and reddit didn't like him? Cry me a river
You are blaming the victim! Thankfully, there are more people in the world who call people out on blaming the victim than there are who actually blame the victim.
I suppose you think the notion of "cyberbullying" is nonsense, then? And their purported victims should just "man up"?
I don't even know why you brought up fox-hunting and singing. The guy was being hated on for nothing more than his appearance.
Usually that accusation is justified. Even if the complaint itself is reasonable, in most cases, the act of complaining is not. For example, if you see someone who is overweight, the sentence "you are fat" is arguably objectively correct. However, the act of saying that sentence out loud reveals something about the speaker. The weight level of a stranger is not their business. They do not convey any new information. It seems likely that the motivation for making such a statement is some desire to hurt the stranger. Desiring to hurt strangers is a bad thing, and is pretty much the definition of "hater". A "hater" is someone who lets their own personal emotional problems colour their perspective of the world, generally seeing other people in a negative light, and generally thinking it is okay to hurt strangers for no reason. The world is chock full of people like that and if you can't see that, it's probably because your perspective is similarly skewed.
To clear up a few things, context is important. It shouldn't be socially acceptable to publicly throw vitriol at strangers who are deemed attention seekers. (If you don't like attention seekers, don't give them attention. Nothing more is reasonable.) On the other hand, someone singing badly outside your apartment clearly directly affects you. People who campaign against fox hunting are personally invested in the issue. Whether or not it's reasonable for them to get upset about it is a matter of opinion - and is closely related to whether or not their views are deemed reasonable. The anti-fox hunting movement is generally seen as legitimate, even by people who disagree with them. However, not everything that people campaign on is regarded as reasonable, take the Westboro Baptist Church for example.
Being turned into a hipster meme is pretty harsh, whatever you say. Even the hardiest of Internet tough guys break down under torrents of social media abuse. There are countless examples of Reddit mob justice singling people out and breaking them down. It's obviously a deeply unpleasant experience, and unless you've been through it, I don't think you're in a position to make light of it.
Lastly, I just want to say I find it hard to understand why you don't have any concept or understanding of what bullying is. The most likely explanation is that you are prone to negativity and you're being self indulgent about it. So, given your commitment to absorbing other people's perspectives, why don't you take on board mine? I think you're probably an overly negative person. If you see the majority of people around you negatively, then you have unrealistic standards (by definition). Unrealistic standards will make you unhappy, because you will be perpetually disappointed and full of complaints. It's better to care less about the faults of others and enjoy their good points. In fact, if you want to live a happy life, then you need to have tougher standards on yourself than you do on others. That might sound counter intuitive, but it's pretty obvious that most people live pretty unhappy lives. If you want to live a happy life then you need to do better than them - and you can't get upset at their failings, because that'll make you unhappy.
- "I hate people who listen to X music because it gets supported financially, while band that I prefer like Y are barely able to make ends meet"
- "I hate people who are fat because their poor health choices will add stress to the health care system and (in case of most health care systems) increase my health care cost burden"
- "I hate people who use X software tool; if only they used Y, the community would be larger, the amount of quality tools would go up, etc."
- "I hate people who go around begging for money X location. The presence of homeless can destroy property values, and reduce how many people come to visit local businesses, harming the local economy."
- "I hate the guys who only use girls for one night stands. It breaks their hearts and makes them less trusting and less approachable for all the guys who aren't like that."
- "I hate people who vote for political party X. If only they voted for Y, everything would be so much better in my country."
The problem is people don't go to the next step: realizing that their emotion of hate is more harmful then helpful, and seeking out more productive solutions. Hate, at best, can be used to shame people into social compliance, but in our modern world, a person can generally find a subculture where they are accepted and not shamed, which largely mitigates this utility. All that is left is the effect of hate making us less empathetic, less willing to cooperate, more predisposed to make irrational choices, more stressed and so on.
So basically, if you are hating on people, I don't hate you. I just wish you would think really carefully about what the cost and benefits of the act are for yourself and for society, and then practice managing those emotions more wisely in the future. For that reason I offer this text forth.
And they exist for the same reason cable news is in such a state: There just isn't enough 'news' to justify 24x7 coverage, so programming must be invented that is, by definition, not things that would otherwise be considered news. 
 Without stepping into discussion of merit, our culture does ascribe value to people who play sports well, act well, are likable parts of the media, are fashionable/attractive, etc.
 There are cross-overs, sure. Some famous-for-being-famous types cross over into 'actual' celebrity. But that's more an effect of the secondary content operating as a 'farm league' of sorts. They throw a lot of famous-for-being-famous / 'reality-star' stuff against the wall and graduate anything that 'sticks'.
And I personally wonder at what point the 'celebrity media' will start openly paying C and D-listers directly, to generate content.
e.g. pay a couple fashion models to go to the beach and provide photo content. maybe even get some clothing labels on-board to under-write the thing for the sake of having -their- products featured and plugged in the resulting copy.
But I digress.
And I always wonder, wherever I go I see young attractive women everywhere, and I go to a university where Liberal arts is the focus, so where are all the attractive actresses.
But that is (one) definition of hipster.
Casual speculation: Would the situation have been different if the sign advertising the service weren't hidden? I think yes.
Would the situation have been different if he weren't wearing stereotypical "hipster attire", and instead were in say a pinstripe suit? I think yes.
Loose fitting jeans and a polo, however, might do it.
Based on my own anecdotal experience, I think part of the anger comes from a sense of discomfort at the dissonance between how one thinks the attention-seeker is being perceived and how one thinks the attention seeker believes they are being perceived.
In the case of someone using a typewriter, the issue isn't simply that one thinks that person looks foolish, it's the dissonance between knowing they look foolish and imagining that they think they look super cool. Dissonance leads to discomfort, discomfort leads to anger.
With other kinds of attention-seeking public behavior -- street performance, for example -- even if one doesn't enjoy it, there's a much closer match between how the performer believes themselves to be perceived and how they are actually perceived (assuming they are competent).
I harbor no ill-will towards hipsters, self-identified or otherwise. But if I imagine someone using a typewriter in Starbucks, it does make me uncomfortable, and by far the biggest part of that is imaging that person thinking they are really funny or really cool.
NO HIPSTER NO! You may think that bringing an Olivetti typewriter into a coffee shop is twee and wonderfully anachronistic, but you just look silly! Know your place Hipster!
I'm generally, genuinely jealous of people who can go through their lives adhering to their own sense of appropriateness and style.
I wore thick-rim glasses because 1. I didn't/couldn't care about fashion 2. my parents didn't have the money for nicer frames and 3. I actually could not see without glasses. So yeah, when I see thick rim glasses being worn _because_ they "look geeky," or worse, without even any lenses because the person has perfect vision, it annoys me a little bit. Because I got treated like dog shit by the exact same class of person who now dresses in a parody of my life as a frivolous fashion decision.
I can understand your annoyance and you're certainly entitled to it. I suppose the first thing I did when I read your post is ask myself "Well, why do I wear these glasses?" The simple answer is that my girlfriend thought I should get new glasses, so we picked out a bunch from Warby Parker to try on and she liked these the best. But even though she picked them out, I was complicit in the choice; if she had picked out some sort of bizarrely-shaped polka-dotted frame, I'm pretty sure I would've vetoed that. So there was some part of me that said "hey, I kinda like how I look in these."
Now, does this mean I'm appropriating a look that was formerly a magnet for bullies? Maybe. But the key thing to remember when considering the relationship between ridicule and compliments is that both are equally arbitrary. There was no reason for people to mock you or me for our choice of glasses back then, just like there's no intrinsic reason that these same glasses should appear attractive 10 years later. That's just how fashion/culture works.
I think if someone personally harassed someone else for wearing "dorky" glasses, and then later decided to wear that same style of glasses to appear fashionable while continuing to deride people that don't share their taste in clothing, then yeah, that would seem pretty hypocritical.
What suggests to you that these are the same people? Like, if I wore lensless glasses for kicks, would that put me into the "high school bully" class?
You're doing what TFA complains about: making assumptions about people & speaking ill of them because of how they dress. Why make assumptions? Why get mad because some guy wears a V-neck?
It's "cool" to be a nerd now, only in the sense that you can generally like whatever you want and be accepted for it. And I think that's great. Wish it was like that when I was a kid. Hipsters tried to make being a "nerd" "cool" in their usual exclusionary fashion, by ironically appropriating what they thought was ugly and awkward. Unsurprisingly us ugly, awkward folks didn't like that.
EDIT: I have nothing against the guy in the article, to make that clear.
Who the hell knows? Not you. You are just judging them for their style and how well they can pull it off. This tells you nothing of who they actually are.
I'm not sure how old you are & I apologize if this comes off as patronizing, but I promise you'll be happier when you let go of some of this stuff. You're getting pissed off at some guy on a fixie with a "Chthulu is my Homeboy" shirt on because you got bullied in high school for wearing glasses? Two reasons not to do this:
1) It's arbitrary: you don't know if the fixie guy was a bully or bullied as a kid, if it even matters; you're just hating some random person who has nothing to do with your childhood.
2) There is a cost and probably no benefit: being bitter and angry at people is not free of cost- it can make you feel bad, increase your stress, and make other people not want to be around you. What's the cost/benefit ratio on hating PBR drinkers?
Can we stop for a moment to appreciate how amazing this is? As a social development, this is something I could barely even conceptualize when I was in high school at the turn of the millenia.
People with both styles are in many of my social circles, but they still seem relatively distinct to me.
The two objects of interest are not the same, they're not in the same category, but they're both tied by the same kind of enjoyment for retro things.
So it's not really about which shirts are worn by geeks and hipsters at the same time ...
Depending on where you're at culturally, anime could be relatively obscure.
Hipster is a blanket term that really means something along the lines of "they're doing something unique to others in order to stand out and be 'cool.'" A "geek" may wear a Github or a Mario T-shirt because it's "cool" within their circle, but relatively obscure to the general public.
You could dress up like a 1980s goth kid, which is retro and relatively obscure these days, but I don't think many people would consider that hipster. I think anime t-shirts are similar, even where anime is obscure (also, I think outside of college campuses, anime is universally more obscure than many people believe).
You might be surprised. There used to be a Tumblr blog called LookAtThatFuckingHipster, and it was kind of funny the insane range of people that get submitted there. Part of the silliness of hipster-hating is that it would seem we can't even agree what constitutes a hipster! I remember seeing more than a few emos and goths in the bunch.
I don't know anyone who actually dresses for attention. I know plenty of people who dress unusually though, since I'm part of the rock/goth/alternative community in my city. Every one of them dresses according to their sense of aesthetics. They dress in a way that they think looks good.
I get the feeling that a lot of the people complaining about hipsters are like when you get regular people complaining about modern art or jazz music. Ignorant people making assumptions. I'm not saying I understand hipster fashion, but I at least know that I don't understand it. I find it hard to believe that many people dress in a way that they personally think looks bad in order to be fashionable.
This whole anti-hipster sentiment is so bizarre to me. It's all about policing other peoples' fashion/taste/activities without reason. The idea that hipsters are somehow not genuine doesn't make any sense. What is there to be genuine to?
If you use an old film camera because you like the photos it takes and are fascinated by how it operates, more power to you.
If you use an old film camera because you think it looks cool around your neck, more power to you.
If you use an old film camera because you like the fact that you're one of the only people using one, more power to you.
In terms of a stereotypical hipster, it's because it's being smug that you're not following the crowd. But you get there by paying a lot of attention to what the crowd likes, and using that as your primary decision maker. AKA you're following the crowd.
It's okay to like being unique, but find a niche though your own preferences, not though hypocritical reasoning.
But, in practice, the mockery boils down to an exercise in More Authentic Than Thou based on guesses from superficial details. Isn't making judgements about authenticity based on a few superficial details an even more loathsome exercise in hypocrisy?
I do like EvanKelly's point here: "What is there to be genuine to."?
What the heck is someone supposed to wear that is neither an overt exercise in conformity or a contrived exercise in non-conformity? What would in between or opting out of the pretense look like?
In fact, it might look a lot like Mr. Hermelin, whose clothes look functional and cheap, without any visible labels, without any apparent in-factory distressing of the fabric.
Edit: fixed broken english.
I'd call it better than Budweiser, worse than Coors. Certainly better than the other heavyweight in 'cheap booze that young people drink': Natural Light. For some reason drinking natty light is not seen to be as damming an indicator on a persons character though... that is reserved for PBR.
I definitely prefer Sierra Nevada, Stone IPA, and Harpoon to Bud Light 95% of the time, but there are days when it's 115 degrees out and my mind says "I want beer-flavored water."
The worst beer, by far, is heavy beer that tastes like garbage. I can drink Natty Light and be happy; I cannot drink a heavy beer that tastes bad.
The first exists in the US, but the second doesn't really (outside a few circles typically called 'beer snobs' ;).
I've been to Utah and see what kind of nonsense they do with beer.
You want to use a typewriter at the local coffee shop? Rock on.
It is most often upper-middle kids (generally white) adopting and gentrifying sub-cultures and then abandoning them when all of the cool has been drained out. What is left becomes fodder for "ironic" mockery.
That is what the author never thinks of addressing. What he boils down to "they hate me because they think I want attention" isn't because he wants attention, it is because he has taken on the trappings of a group who devour other groups.
Hipsterism is like that, putting on airs without having the substance, and that annoys people.
Above all other things, internet communities is what makes me cynical about humanity.
Pre-internet communities were far from unicorns and rainbows. Conformity was much more strongly required.
Yes, but if someone took an embarrassing photo of you, you could move to another city and be done with it. There's no escape from internet ridicule. I honestly don't know if I'll be able to handle the world of Google Glass & co where no public faux pas will be forgotten - at least the OP was out there in the public by his own choice. :/
Imagine this: Young nerdy guy sees incredibly popular hipster guy in his high school listening to some band, I don't know WAM! or whatever the kids listen to these days. Either way, young nerdy guy LOVES that band, but has only recently started listening to it.
So he decides to strike up a conversation with popular hipster about WAM's newest album. Popular hipster shuts him down simply by saying, "Oh, yeah, that album's okay, if you like mainstream sounds, but I've been listening to them for like 5 years now. You should hear their unreleased Japanese single called 'Kuma o tabetai'." Young nerd now has nothing to talk about, and shambles away.
Not OVERT bullying, but it is absolutely asserting dominance in an aggressive way through exclusion.
Then an image and a lifestyle got attached to it--some mix of the effete New Yorker, the post-punk Seattlite, and the "urban woodsman" Portlander. And now it just refers to those things, and no longer really carries the requirement that the person so-labelled define themselves via contrarianism and contempt.
But language influences thought, people still remember the old meaning, and "slur it forward": seeing people who are hipsters-as-in-culture and assuming they're worthy of the same contempt given to hipsters-as-in-contemptuous-assholes.
And it isn't a term that just completely died out in the 50s and was reborn in the aughts (e.g. in Seinfeld, Kramer gets called a "Hipster Doofus").
Nothing new there. This how pecking orders form in human society; people who are pushed around look for other people to push around, to feel better about themselves.
That bully who stuffed the smaller kids the locker at school? He was probably being bullied at home by bad parents.
Works also with "internet nerds" with a history of being bullied. Give them an ounce of leverage and they will lord it over other people, they just tend to engage in psychological bullying instead of the physical kind.
The internet is like alcohol: it doesn't put ideas into people's heads. It just lowers their inhibitions. If people are being dicks on the internet, it's because they are dicks, and the internet gives them a relatively consequence-free forum for expressing their dickitude.
If we're "cynical about humanity" because of "internet communities," we should be "cynical about humanity" because of humanity, full stop.
I'm going to assume this statement was meant as a rhetorical device, because on its own it's clearly ridiculous. Of course the internet puts ideas into people's heads.
More generally, while I understand the point you're making, I think you're underestimating the influence of a community on the behaviour of its members. I would say that by far the most significant factor causing people to be dicks on the internet are communities that normalise that kind of behaviour. People see others criticising "hipsters" and they are taught that this behaviour is accepted and even encouraged. Many of these people would be offended by the same behaviour in real life, and not even notice the hypocrisy.
I'm sort of joking and sort of very serious.
I think hipsters, with their funny tight pants, single-speed bikes, and amusing attention to facial hair, have had a positive influence on society. The world needs people to be overly fixated on the mundane, or else we get too productive.
I personally am not cool in any way, nor do I aspire to indicate coolness through my physical appearance. I've got a wife, a kid, and a mortgage. I just can't spare the cycles trying to look cool.
But, I'm happy the hipsters are out there.
Plus, some of them serve excellent coffee.
Another common critique I hear is the mindless pursuit of "authenticity", an aping of anything whose style is "old" -- the automatic assumption that old is authentic, and authentic is better. These are, in my mind, two core branches of an otherwise very difficult to define notion.
How would a hipster caricature respond to the kiffeyeh becoming an empty fashion trend?
"I wore it before it was cool"
i.e. I was better/smarter/above simple fashion herding.
So, yeah. I think that's the over-riding common thread linking the various branches and spectra of hipsterdom and the one thing that's almost universally criticized wherever hipsters are being discussed.
Also, being judgemental and having a superiority complex are very different to bullying. Thinking you are better than someone is very different to telling them they are worse than you.
I quit browsing Reddit because of the comment sections.
What makes an internet community any different from any "other" community? They are both human social constructs. The only difference I would argue is that online communities are much more public about their members' views. "Offline" communities can often hide under a veil of an organizational hierarchy of structure (usually in the form of a representative such as "head of").
My theory has been that the downtrodden are pissed because they're on the receiving end, not because it's wrong, evidenced by many examples of them engaging in the same behavior when the opportunity presents itself. Whether it's immigrant minorities or geeks/nerds, the pattern seems to come up time and again.
"We do the things that we perceive as good for reasons we perceive as good. They do the things that we perceive as bad for reasons that we perceive as bad."
And the teasing/bullying of members of other tribes is just a core human behavior to reinforce status within their own tribe. "Look at how well I recognize what's wrong with them! I'm a good one of us!"
Any self-righteous style that tries to come off as cool and aloof that seem ridiculous to others is going to be made fun of. It doesn't matter what it is. Portlandia makes fun of hipsters. Zoolander made fun of high fashion.
Be yourself first and foremost: type on an old typewriter in the park, wear RPGs even though you were never formerly in the military, drink double Doppios from non-chain coffee shops, and break up with a girl because she said PETA stood for People Eating Tasty Animals. But being made fun of comes with that game.
In any case, talk about much ado about absolutely nothing. A bunch of people said silly things, largely under the assumption that it was no consequence (that no one was hurt, etc): In many ways the comments on there are performance art. It is the most astonishingly meaningless thing going, and really the purpose of this entry that we're discussing is the chap talking a moment to extend that fifteen minutes.
People declaring their cynicism about humanity (or trite variations like "faith restored") make me cynical about humanity.
The post to which you're replying didn't even mention Reddit. Reddit is by no means the only place where a nerdy demographic (and I'll define 'nerdy demographic' as 18-25 that skew towards STEM education and exhibit above-average internet usage) tends to engage in destructive behavior, but they're certainly guilty of it.
A bunch of people said silly things, largely under the assumption that it was no consequence (that no one was hurt, etc)
The whole point of the article is the inherent falsity of the assumption that what you do online has diminished/no consequences.
People who are on the Internet tend to forget that literally everybody else is on the Internet too. Being a jackass isn't somehow excusable just because you don't know who you're being a jackass to (in fact, some would argue that it makes it worse.)
Reddit however is not made up of internet nerds. Reddit is made up of average joes who know enough about computers to register at facebook and reddit. The average reddit user is no more advanced than the average 13-year-old nowadays - can browse the internet, turn of a computer and install some games on their smartphone and tablet. They were never made fun of for being internet nerds, because they're not nerds nor geeks. They're just average joes; because as you say, everybody is on the internet nowadays, and those who are the truly advanced users who MAY have been made fun of more because of it generally do not spend their time raging about a hipster. I say may because honestly, geeks are not the object of ridicule as they once were.
Hipsterdom doesn't even exist anymore, VICE/dov charney declared it dead in 2007. This guy brings a typewriter to the park to get attention and it worked.
I doubt that internet usage is any longer a measure of how "nerdy" a person is.
There are teenagers, especially girls, constantly using internet-based services from their cell phones to communicate with other people for most of the time they spend awake [1,2,3]. Would you call them "nerdy"? I doubt.
 Madden, Mary; Lenhart, Amanda; Duggan, Maeve; Cortesi, Sandra; Gasser, Urs. "Teens and Technology 2013," Pew Internet & American Life Project and Harvard's Berkman Society for Internet & Society, March 13, 2013. http://www.pewinternet.org/~/media//Files/Reports/2013/PIP_T...
 Reidulf G. Watten, Jo Kleiven, Knut Inge Fostervold, Halvor Fauskeand Frode Volden. "Gender Profiles of Internet and Mobile Phone Use among Norwegian Adolescents" http://seminar.net/images/stories/vol4-issue3/watten_et_al-g...
It's also interesting to see how many times Reddit (and other communities) fly into a rage-fest because of lack of context,
Didn't this all kick off with a mean-spirited reaction to a photo on Reddit? The ancestor post hardly needs to mention Reddit explicitly...
This. "We didn't know we were hurting anybody" is no excuse for hurting somebody. Man up, accept the blame, apologize, and move on. It's not the end of the world if you hurt somebody's feelings, but you're a piece of shit if you knowingly hurt somebody's feelings, or they make it publicly known, and you DON'T apologize.
For me, having a somehow technical or scientific background means to look at things as they really are instead of believing stereotypes yourself. The internet only makes it easier to voice these oppinions. At the very least it says more about the commenters than anything else by ahowing just how ignorant they are.
But than, maybe that's just human and we are were like that at a certain pint in our lives.
The post I replied to specifically mentioned Reddit. Although that was later edited out, it is hardly necessary given that the entire story is about a post and discussion on Reddit.
Being a jackass isn't somehow excusable just because you don't know who you're being a jackass to
While no one said it was excusable (at best I implied that it was ignorable), at times people want to take ownership of offense and leverage if not exaggerate it to prolong exposure, which is exactly what is happening in this case. Naturally played out, Internet memes have a half life of about a day, after which they would naturally be forgotten.
Secondly, while this seems counter-intuitive, the discussions on Reddit aren't about the subject (in this case guy on typewriter in NY city) -- they're about a contrived representation that is essentially a created fiction (the fiction in this case was "guys who try to be different by bringing a manual typewriter to parks -- hipsters!", which has absolutely nothing to do with "performance artist making a living". The guy being discussed on Reddit is not the actual guy in the picture, and few confuse the two). I called the discussion itself performance art because it really is -- people aren't trying to insult the guy literally, but instead are engaging in the banter of Reddit, which is something that exists unto itself.
There is another post in here by a guy whose wedding picture got appropriated for a meme, and while he took it in stride and seemed good natured about it, and while it sucks when the internet machine appropriates one's stuff, that meme has literally nothing whatsoever to do with him or his wife or anything at all to do with their life. In that case, again, it was simply representative for people to discuss, essentially, marriage. Just as typewriter man is simply a stand in for the purported hipsterism. People needn't over-personalize this stuff.
Appropriation in art is the use of pre-existing objects or images with little or no transformation applied to them. The use of appropriation has played a significant ...
Appropriation art (spoiler alert) is as Hipster as it gets.
"T\ypewriter guy" appears innocent of the Appropriation he Approriating (un-wittingly). Which is something that happens...similar to other sub-cultural trends that get sent into the mainstream. So this is entirely hall-of-mirrors mockery, than anything pernicious...it seems.
Exactly. Encouraging the stereotype that in addition to having deserved bullying in high school for their poor social skills, nerds deserved bullying because they are mean spirited and just waiting till it's their turn to be the bully.
This is very intriguing. Although I have some idea of what you mean, I would love it if you could elaborate on this.
Then they do things like this themselves on a daily basis!
You can't talk about Reddit as a hivemind, because it isn't one person, or even a definite collective of people. The people who take things out of context, and the people who call them out, are different sets of people. If Reddit seems to have multiple personalities, it's because... well, it does.
Reddit can turn into an angry mob in a nanosecond, tear someone's life apart, utterly destroyed, and then a nanosecond later flip around because of the discovery of guilt and empathy, to try and repair what just happened.
It's not any one person, but the collective does have certain predictable patterns of behavior. If you're part of Reddit, you're part of that super-organism, like it or not.
Which is to say, their ability to fly into a collective rage and stampede through the lives of innocent people isn't really unique to them, it's probably just a phenomenon inherent in all large groups of mostly-anonymous humans.
Reddit just gets named and shamed constantly because they are the largest group of mostly-anonymous people on the internet. Had things gone differently it'd very well be Digg in its place.
They're likely anti-government, anti-corporation, ant-advertising, anti-mainstream.
They're likely left of centre politically.
They're not busy - that's why they spend time commenting on Reddit. More likely unemployed / students / etc.
They absolutely love to be outraged by something.
By definition, they are the sort of person who would comment on Reddit, which is a certain personality.
They're by no means a random sample of humanity thank god.
That doesn't mean that "the group of people in your office building" or "the group of people in your neighborhood / town / state / country" or "the group of people that you bowl with" or "the group of people in your extended family" are "hiveminds" though. That is like accusing this piece of granite (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0d/Granite_Y...) of being gray.
In my experience, "hivemind" is just bullshit people talk about when they want a way of saying that they are better than other people, but can't bring themselves to commit such a crime against modesty forthright. You'll notice that it is never "reddit is a hivemind, and oh yeah, I totally agree with it." It is always "reddit is a hivemind, and I disagree with it"
That means people tend to go with the crowd - hivemind.
Or you know, standard social dynamics that have existed since our ancestors first figured out how to vocalize opinions. The very silly label you are giving it serves no purpose other than to vilify it for the sake of making yourself out to be superior.
Lots of people disagree with you, meaning you do not get to enjoy having lots of people agree with you, meaning that clearly they are all a bunch of Borg with no sense of individuality. Give me a break.
Really? Most people? Then why is your comment the most popular comment? (Hint: because the majority of people like to believe themselves superior to the majority of people. 'If everyone is being dumb but me, then that means I am unusually smart!')
Also pretty ugly to watch.
I don't bother commenting on Reddit anymore, and rarely on here. There is absolutely no point.
My wife and I had one of our wedding pictures take the number one spot on /r/all one day -- There was some rather embarrassing text super-imposed on it that said "Oh you think married women still give BJs" (google Condescending Wife to find it).
Despite some of the comments in the thread being pretty mean, my wife and I took it in stride, we're both internet people, we get it; we thought it was pretty funny all things considered --
The awkward part of all of this though, was this picture was EVERYWHERE for about a day. All over Facebook, Tumblr, etc. So countless friends and family inevitably saw it. I got a call from my concerned father, asking me if everything was ok and if I had seen what the internet had been saying about me and my wife. I explained to him that we didn't really mind and we left it there as explaining reddit to him would have been near impossible. But it was just a really surreal experience. We got dozens of texts and emails that day all asking if we had seen the picture.
The best part of the the internet's short term memory is how quickly this image found it's way into obscurity; to be completely forgotten. No ill harm to my wife's nor my reputation.
My mother found out when she went to yahoo.com to log into her email and I was on the front page. My father-in-law was watching the local news and saw me giving an interview. Two years later, I can bring out my driver's license at parties and people remember it. But they don't remember me, just the photo, so no harm done. (And happily, my domain has enough precidence on google to at least appear first for searches of my name).
On the upside, if I ever meet Greg Proops or Ellen DeGeneres in person we'll have something in common to talk about.
The OP grovelled and apologised for posting the photo without her permission, but still, I think that was one of reddits lowest points
Does that seem bizarrely self absorbed to anyone else?
And wait, you're surprised a human, in media, is self absorbed? That seems bizarrely self absorbed.
Don't you think it would be a bit demanding on your part if you wanted your friends to stop hanging out with and being friends with your ex? Maybe you should figure out how to get closure on your relationship and move forward in a healthy manner rather than hoping that the rest of the world will coddle and protect a wound that only you could possibly understand or be responsible for.
This happens in any insular subculture. Do I even need to mention the "geek girl" bullshit?
The problem has quickly become that this revulsion has also played into the jock-centric bullying of anyone who dares to be different--"my football coach won't let me grow my hair long so now let me go punch that faggot with the plastic frames" sort of crap. Any indie community that still exists needs to rid itself of all this baggage for that reason alone.
Whatever utility the word "hipster" had as a pejorative, if any, is gone. Internet killed pop culture and it's dead to stay. The most popular cartoon character now is effing Grumpy Cat. Anyone should consider anyone else using "hipster" as an offhand pejorative to be no greater than a classroom bully, no different than calling someone a dweeb in the 1980s.
The thing is, the 'geek girl' stereotype is something that almost never happens, but as far as I understand it the stereotypical hipster is not uncommon.
It is possible to 'like' something the wrong way: namely where you do not actually like it. Hipster hate isn't about being different, it's about a perception of dishonest attention-seeking.
Isn't this the same justification that's used to shame the "pseudo" geek girls?
As far as I am aware, the discussion of 'fake geek girls' has mostly come from MRA-types that spend most of their time failing to see women as people. So any particular instance of 'fake geek girl' is almost certainly the commenter being an ass and wrong. But, again, as far as I am aware, there are no large groups going around being 'anti-hipster' in situations where it doesn't fit. So instances of being 'anti-hipster' are often accurate.
Also, pop culture is not dead #twerking #beiber #hashtags
(Though I agree people should be more open to people doing fun performance-ish stuff like this, it does not mean a performer is entitled to receive only positive reactions.)
Expecting otherwise seems irrational.
I remember seeing this on reddit and thinking that surely it must be staged satire, poking fun at the types (pun intended) of people one sees around Chelsea. Without the context of it being a piece of (really rather compelling) performance art, the photo looks like a person who is trying very hard to be noticed.
But the reason art is cool is PRECISELY BECAUSE artists have to take risks and stick their necks out and have to be able to take the heat if their art gets a bad reception.
It seems to me OP wanted the cachet of doing art, but doesn't want to accept the risk that is an integral part of being an artist.
In real life, you can see something like that, and then walk around until you see the sign and have better context, and be less dismissive or confused. When all you have is a photo, that's less easy.
Oh I see, you're saying that he was an artist who's art was MISUNDERSTOOD! Well, that changes everything: In other cases, people understand 100% what artists are trying to do. No performance artist in their right mind can be expected to take into account that others might misunderstand his/her performance.
No, they (and apparently you) think that forming harsh judgment about the person based on a few superficial details, without any regard for the attempt at art whatsoever, is somehow okay. That the person is attempting art is just being used as an excuse for indefensible behavior.
Hell, the author would be better treated if he dressed up as a clown and made balloon animals.
yeah, many celebs behave that way. they don't mind seeking irrational popularity that makes them sign multi-million contracts, but get extremely butthurt when popular opinion shifts against their favor when something goes wrong. the same medium and communities that made them famous and rich suddently get called a bunch of abusive haters that need to get exterminated.
What on earth was he doing to get attention?
He was doing a job.
If you are writing stories for people in a park, a typewriter is probably the best way to do it, how else would you?
How was he trying for attention any more than the ice cream van I'm sure was down the road? Since when do people working in public have to be "NEWSFLASH"ed that they are trying to get attention.
Bottom line, using a manual typewriter is a theatrical element and designed to draw attention to him.
As to doing it electronicly, he deals with that issue, a electronic story email would have little value to most people.
My favorite exchange was between “I_thrive_on_apathy” and “dlins”:
i_thrive_on_apathy: What the fuck is he going to do with that typed page? Scan it?
Dlins: you do realize things have value even if they're not digitized, right?
while the typewriter may or may not be a convenient tool for producing hardcopy outside in a park, it's most definitely also for purposes of grabbing people's attention.
and it makes a lot of noise, I'm assuming.
Now I'm surprised I haven't seen it yet.
Dear Internet Fashionistas: You've decided that fedoras and suspenders are the mark of a horrible person. Your opinions have no connection to reality. Over here in the real world, I look good. When I come back to the bar the next day to pick up my credit card, and the bouncer remembers me well enough to compliment my outfit from the previous night, that means I'm doing it right.
Hell, I have worn a suit to a friend's place and gotten hate from it.
I've had several internet fashionistas try to tell me that fedoras (and bow ties, and suspenders, and etc.) are Ruined Forever because a few unpleasant dudes on OK Cupid wear them. I find the notion absurd.
You're reading their casual implication in the wrong direction. What they usually mean is that disgusting, reprehensible goblin implies poor fashion decisions. Thus, by Bayesian inference, poor fashion decisions are evidence which increases the likelihood that you are a disgusting, reprehensible goblin.
And fashion is entirely about Bayesian inference--or "judging a book by its cover," as it is sometimes known. ;)
(I will now pause to enjoy your apoplectic fit. Yes, you. You know who you are.)
By comparison, my last-minute no-budget "Devil out on the town" Halloween costume was a black suit, black shirt, black fedora with the King of Hearts in the band, blood-red tie.
It's just so unfortunate that the internet makes it so hard. You're either loved, hated, or ignored. He, thanks to an unlucky picture angle and loss of context, fell into the 'hated' category by many. I applaud the effort to just do it. It is funny how many view the real world as hard and the internet as an easy escape, yet in his experience, it was just the opposite.
Are you trying to be ironic? Mozart's first work was http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andante_in_C_for_Keyboard_%28Mo..., written when he was 5 years old.
Mozart's the canonical example of somebody who didn't have to practice for years. Obviously he did spend thousands of hours practising as he grew up, but that's a nuanced argument. You'd be much better choosing pretty much anybody else for your example.
I'm assuming the parent was referring to information presented in the book Outliers, which provides a counter-argument to this
I'm curious what you'd suggest as an alternative. To have strong, passionate, but neutral, feelings about people?
I think the point is that the hivemind/bandwagon/mob mentality pushes everything to an extreme, because the people with more neutral opinions aren't very motivated to post them.
I've noticed more and more about this, as I move across the world.
Bullying on the internet is trivial, you arn't trapped, you arn't forced into these situations. You can hide if you want to. You don't have to reveal who you are. You can walk away. You can be anonymous. You should be anonymous anyway.
This article is about someone who suck his neck waaaay out, and got his head bashed in for it. Don't do that.
No. No no no no no no no.
You're saying what happened to him was justified, or that it should be expected. This is wrong. Nobody should have to change their life to avoid being abused. Instead, we as human beings should stop the abuse. Here are some examples of your position put in other situations:
Don't dress like a slut and you won't get raped.
Don't be out and gay and you won't get gay-bashed.
Don't look weird and people won't treat you like shit.
Instead, we as human beings should stop the abuse.
If you pretend like it doesn't exist, you will get burned. If you didn't know and you got burned, then you have my sympathies, but there is nothing that can be done.
1. 'there is nothing that can be done'
There's lots of things that can be done; they're just not things you care about, or things you want to help with. That doesn't mean things can't be done.
We can educate people on why bullies exist, how to identify them, and how to stop them. We can show in the real world the effect of bullying, and the effect of stopping it. They do this now in small programs for some schools, but it needs to be expanded.
We can also lead by example. As adults (well, some of us are adults anyway) we can show bullies and victimizers that what they do is not acceptable, and we can hold them accountable for their words and actions. Not only can we address them specifically, and treat each other with respect, 45 states have laws on cyber bullying. If common human decency doesn't work, we can report them to law enforcement.
2. 'the bottom 0.1% of humanity'
Bullying exists in all walks of life in different ways. And i'm not talking elevating, i'm talking educating, and protecting other people. There is nothing wrong with trying to protect vulnerable people.
Why would you advocate that people should be hurt? Whether they 'pretend it doesnt exist' or not, it's still wrong, and because there's something wrong going on, we need to work to make it right, not just throw up our hands and say "oh well thats what happens when youre a hipster" !!!
How much social education do you think it takes to make socipaths not sociopaths? I am asserting a fact. Most actual bullies are really just mildly, or even completely socipathic. and socipaths can not be cured.
Anti-social factors that manifest as socipaths have an incidence of about 1/100 in any given population. So of the several hundred people you saw on the street today? Maybe 2 of them would have no problem stabbing you in the back for a nickel. The population of my town suggests that approximately 2,300 residents are socipathic. My school likely had ~15 sociopathic kids. I've personally known 2. What kind of education regime did you have in mind?
and about the hipsters: For every innocent caught in the crossfire of ridicule, there's at least a thousand more narcissistic children who were just attention seekers. They posted online about how important they were, and were ridiculed for it. That process was necessary. People need humility. The Subject of this article emulated those children exactly. Whether he deserved it or not, that's what happened.
Yeah, just stop going online, it's so simple! I know almost your entire social life is online, and the identities we create online are increasingly hard-linked to our real life identities, but all you have to do is exclude yourself from everything that you enjoy doing online and you'll be fine!
There's lots to do online that doesn't require a hard link to real life, and everything that does require a hard link should be looked at with the most rigorous of scrutiny and suspicion.
I never had one, I mean I didn't have too many friends and wasn't very popular. I cannot say for sure how cyber-bullying affects people, well because maybe I just missed the era where elementary/highschool kids really engaged on the net.
I think I have spent more time on the Internet that anyone in a square mile, maybe more. But I opened a facebook account and I don't even have a profile picture. I never really found it interesting, because people are super boring.