Thoughts and comments on "Hipster: The Dead End of Western Civilization

http://www.adbusters.org/magazine/79/hipster.html#comment-5671

First and foremost, I'll be the first to admit that the title the article is more than likely very hyperbolic. The author's argument provides us with a very interesting topic worth looking at despite the fact that the article itself lacks any concrete and substantive evidence for his claim. The "countercultural movement" of the hipsters (is it really a movement when there doesn't seem to be any forward progress/motion? Or countercultural for that matter when it shares the same basic principles from that which it tries to distinguish itself from) has had a negative effect on cultural development by recycling the past while at the same time refusing to define its identity, by embracing consumerism, and by co-opting from others while at the same time cheapening its significance and value.

The problem with calling hipsters countercultural is that they don't reject the elements of the status quo but instead they embrace them. The tenets of mainstream culture and society--capitalism, mass consumerism, social climbing, etc.-- are very present within the hipster circle. These, of course operate under different guises. Perhaps the best manner to observe hipsters is by placing them in a sociological context, and I can think of no other person whose work better applies than Thornstein Veblen. In his book, "The Theory of the Leisure Class", Veblen presents the argument that people within a certain social structure try to mirror those higher up in their respective heirarchy in order to obtain more status for themselves. Hipsters still play the proverbial rat race.

"The moment a trend, band, sound, style or feeling gains too much exposure, it
is suddenly looked upon with disdain. Hipsters cannot afford to maintain any
cultural loyalites or affiliations for fear they will lose relevance"

In order to stay at the forefront of cultural relevance within the hipster social structure, they must constantly be on the look out for the next big thing, and like vultures they rush to it and eat it up until there is nothing left to consume. As a result, culture is commodified and is stripped of its value, thus leaving nothing more than cultural nihilism. They are not the creators, they are the users. Culture for them is meant to be used and consumed. It's no surprise that the two biggest time periods that hipsters embrace are the post-WWII and 1980s culture. These, after all, are the periods in which mass consumption was more prominent.

Another thing that should be of great concern is the manner in which other cultures are being appropriated to satisfy this endless hunger. The article mentions that part of the hipster uniform is the keffiyeh, which was "initially sported by Jewish students and Western protesters to express solidarity with Palestinians" but it now has lost its political and symbolic meaning as a result of this co-option. Hipster culture then is not only vapid and superficial, but it has adverse effects on what is indeed culturally relevant.

Hipster culture is definitely hard to define. What is real and what did they take from other people? In a sense, defining what's hipster is similar to the way Clarence Thomas once defined porn, "I'll know it when I see it". I strive not to be an alarmist, but if this (anti-) cultural trend continues, we're in real trouble.

Absurd Link #3

I've been meaning to update this blog with more frequency, but, eh, what can I say, I've been lazy. Anyway, here's another ridiculous link brought to you by PETA.

PETA tells Ben & Jerry's to Use Breast Milk for Ice Cream

It's becoming increasingly harder and harder for me to give PETA the benefit of the doubt. I'm lactose intolerant, so I understand why they would bring up the issue about the unhealthy aspects of milk. Instead of regular milk, I drink soy milk. If PETA really wanted to advocate healthier/better choices for the sake of the protection of animals, wouldn't it be better to go that approach Also, does this mean that PETA cares more about the well-being of animals than the health of human beings? Assuming that this ridiculous plan is put into action, wouldn't the high demand of milk cause companies like Ben and Jerry's to find a consistent milk source? Where would they go to do that? A third world country? Additionally, their argument that you're fucking with nature by drinking something unnatural can work against them. The purpose of breast milk is to feed infants, and applying it to make a product that's consumed by millions would go against its natural intent. Now if you'll excuse me I'm going to eat a big juicy raw burger.

Absurd Link of the Week

9 year old Boy Banned from Little League for Being Too good

from the linked ESPN.com article:

League attorney Peter Noble says the only factor in banning Jericho from the mound is his pitches are just too fast.

"He is a very skilled player, a very hard thrower," Noble said. "There are a lot of beginners. This is not a high-powered league. This is a developmental league whose main purpose is to promote the sport."

Noble acknowledged that Jericho had not beaned any batters in the co-ed league of 8- to 10-year-olds, but say parents expressed safety concerns.

There are two things that are emblematic in describing the idealized vision of the American way of life. Equal opportunity and a strong spirit of competition. While these two don’t exactly characterize and fully describe what being an American is, there is enough of a presence in our society to say that these are somewhat accurate characteristics. These two, I believe, play off of each other and often co-exist peacefully. Once in a while, however, people (dumb fucking people who should be sterilized) are so concerned with keeping things on an even keel that not only does it hinder the notion of competitiveness, but completely squashes it.
I think the right to equal opportunity (for the most part) is what makes this a great country. However, egalitarianism and equality can sometimes be a double-edged sword in which more harm than good is done. Of course, the same can be said about competition being taken to the extreme. I can recall a personal experience in which a kid I played little league with was instructed by the coach—who also happened to be his dad—to purposefully bean the opposing team’s best batter just to give our team an advantage. However, this happens with less frequency and is usually attributed to people being complete assholes. In contrast, this story is symptomatic of a deteriorating culture.
The problem extends beyond the realm of sports and competition. Our society is concerned with equality in other aspects of daily life, such as our education system. A notable example of this is the implementation of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001.Similarly, general distrust for those who are better has become the norm. This can be seen in politics where candidates have much more success if they are better at portraying themselves as regular blue-collar folk. This same mentality is the reason why Obama’s perception of an elitist had a negative effect on his poll numbers.
This kind of behavior not only punishes those who strive to be better but also rewards and promotes mediocrity. It further propagates the argument that we live in a country where entitlement is rampant. Why would anyone try harder to maximize their potential when its as rewarding to strive for mediocrity? As alarmist as this might sound, if this trend continues our future will be that of a dystopia not unlike the world the characters in Kurt Vonnegut’s short story “Harrison Bergeron”. Quite frankly, that’s not a world I want to live in. So yeah, fuck it, let the kid play. Let him pitch his no-hitters.

Admissions, Part 1

1) I like kids,but not all kids. There are always those kids that make you wish their parents had never reproduced. These are the kind of kids where you can tell that they will be assholes growing up. My two little kids are of that kind.
2) I like being home. I don't like long bus rides.
3) My dad and brother are much better dressers than me.
4) Weekends are always too short
5) I need to learn how to reprioritize goals, people, actions.
6) I like making lists.
7) Seven is a great prime number.

Previous piece of writing

The Dark Knight, IMDB, populism, and egalitarianism on the web

I don't think there was any doubt in anyone's mind--at least not in mine-- that 'The Dark Knight' was going to break box office records. How could it not? It had one of the most extensive viral campaigns for any movie. It reached a point where you couldn't turn anywhere without seeing something for this movie. Add to the mix the death of Heath Ledger; there was most definitely going to be a certain aura surrounding the film, which would eventually lead to huge profits for the studio. Even I bought into the hype.I saw the film on Friday night, and it would be a lie to say that I was not caught up in the excitement. I, along with hundreds of people, were in a line that had extended to outside the theater. Needless to say, every seat in the room was filled. I should mention that I liked the movie. I can’t decide whether I loved it or whether I just though it was pretty good, but I know that I liked it enough that I am willing to go see it a second time. The acting was outstanding—particularly Heath Ledger playing a very demented Joker—and the direction was impressive. The writing did everyone a favor by wanting to recreate the dark Batman of the 1980s.With that said, The Dark Knight is NOT the best film ever made, and to say so is both ludicrous and appalling. IMDB users, however, overwhelmingly disagree with me. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0468569/ratingsAs of right now, 69,135 people who voted gave the movie an average of 9.6 out of 10, with 54,224 people giving it a 10. That’s roughly 78.4% of total voters that think that The Dark Knight was flawless (or as close to perfection as you can get), that it far surpasses anything ever made both in storytelling and narrative, technical filmmaking, editing, acting, etc. The people have spoken!Obviously I’m being very tongue in cheek, but I think what’s at hand here is the negative effects of the internet, and its egalitarian nature. Anyone with an internet connection can give their two cents and their opinion, unfortunately, counts just as much as the discriminating expert.A couple of months ago I read a very interesting book titled ‘The Cult of the Amateur: How Today's Internet is Killing Our Culture written by Andrew Keen. In his book, he writes that the internet "worships the creative amateur: the self-taught filmmaker, the dorm-room musician, the unpublished writer. It suggests that everyone — even the most poorly educated and inarticulate amongst us — can and should use digital media to express and realize themselves. Web 2.0 'empowers' our creativity, it 'democratizes' media, it 'levels the playing field' between experts and amateurs. The enemy of Web 2.0 is 'elitist' traditional media." At the risk of coming off as an elitist, I think Mr. Keen touches upon a very interesting point. I don’t agree with him entirely, as I do feel that the internet is a great opportunity for people who actually have something of value to contribute to society .However, I think that as a society we mustn’t water down culture and its production. Culture is essential for a society and a civilization to exist and survive, and thus a certain set of standards must be set in place and maintained. After all, just because I have access to a medical book doesn’t mean that I am qualified to give out any medical advice.