Discussion in 'Literature' started by Master_Keralys, Jan 1, 2009.
whoops lol double post
I'll get a picture or something at some point, I guess.
@Gorefiend just made my first mod for R2TW -- could've made it yesterday except I was stupid and edited the wrong thing -- 2 or 4 turns per year, instead of the absurd 1.
Isn't there some age cut off for hipsters? I wear squarish tortoise-shell glasses, but I'm too old to be hip. And much too blind. They're progressives, for crying out loud.
Also, I just found out about this and now feel compelled to attend just to be a geeky fangirl. To take the teenage boy with me, that is the other question...
yeah i'm pretty sure square plastic eyeglasses have not been a specifically hipster thing since like the mid-aughties tbh.
Ooof... that is tempting to drive up to.
Mobile sock of s65horsey
Actually I don't mind that as much (though it makes certain wars and travel times seem insanely long ) but someone needs to do something about skirmisher, I mean the mass stacks of Archers in Shogun 2 could get on your nerve but you could at least counter them simply by having your own Archers, but now everyone and their mother I have to fight has stacks of slingers instead and all I can really do against them is hope to be able to sneak my Cav through the line and ride them down somehow.
Yeah, those style of glasses are hideous... as are the safety goggles style of glasses, the 80s computer nerd style of glasses, and the aviators style (seriously? aviator eyeglasses? people are crazy!).
aviator sunglasses are boss tho
Yeah, I mean, they can work as sunglasses if someone has the face and outfit to match, but for corrective lenses? Never.
Hey, Lisa Loeb made an entire career out of that.
I'm not THAT old
I know, I've seen your FB page.
I just googled her and hers are cute, these were not though.
Lisa Loeb was hipster before hipsters were hipster. That's how hipster she is.
I wear hideous, formless, squared off plastic glasses that look like they came from the dollar store, but not all the time; I can see great at a distance but not a damn thing up close. I'm illiterate without my glasses, and not even functionally so.
I think the age cutoff for hipsters is reached when you're too old to give a **** whether you like the "hip" stuff or not, and therefore too old to give a **** about refusing to be hip just to make a point.
My only problem with the whole "hipster" movement (if it can be truly called a "movement") is that people so often mix up hipsters- which in my book simply means a person who views art or fashion as a status symbol and deliberately looks down on anything popular because they're under the false impression that if something can be understood by the larger public it must therefore be devoid of artistic merit- and people who genuinely love finding new and perhaps obscure bands or whatever else. When it gets to the point where people are willing to label anything they haven't immediately heard of as "hipster" (happens all too often), I really can't help but grind my teeth a bit. In my personal opinion there's absolutely no benefit to shutting yourself out from anything.
The ironic thing is "hipster bands", as I view them, band that are supposedly all about breaking conventions and aiming at "enlightened" audiences, do tend have a ridiculously formulaic sound.
I'm making a mental note to never wear my glasses around y'all. Thankfully I wear contacts the majority of the time.
I wear large goggles when I'm out and about. Not intended for civilized company, but they keep out the sun and sand. They've lasted twelve seasons so far. Better picture here.
No no, Jello hates things he has heard of
Yes. I am wearied by them. But that's different from denying that they have merit. For instance, everyone and their mother wants me to watch Breaking Bad and the Wire -- I fully acknowledge that everything I've heard about them indicates that they're exceptionally good. I just cannot be bothered, and the more I'm told to watch the less I'm inclined to do so.
The thing is, though, art and fashion has have been status symbols for thousands of years, and generally things that appeal to the public aren't intended to have merit.
What you're saying CAN describe hipsters, if my understanding of the term is at all accurate, because they tend to look askance at anything with mass appeal and cultivate a sort of originality for themselves which just so happens to be just like any other hipster ever (hence the stereotype).
But that's not to say that as a general matter, things with mass appeal aren't pretty devoid of substance. It's just that hipsters draw some sort of false dichotomy between quality and popularity.
It's a thin line, I guess, but a noticeable one.
Well, what I see as the inherent hypocrisy of the average hipster- or at least the kind that I know personally and the kind that you see most frequently on the internet- are that they claim to hate all that's popular, yet still tend to gravitate towards what's still popular, if only slightly less so. To give a music example, bands that are most often associated with "hipsters" would be bands like Metric, Vampire Weekend, New Pornographers, Silversun Pickups, Phoenix, Foster the People (ugh) and so on. Popular alternative bands that are only a step or two below the "popular" music they claim to despise. Some of these bands are great, some are recycled and boring (insert obligatory IMO here), but it's not what they sound like that connects them; it's that they're all popular enough to dig up without any kind of effort at all, yet not popular enough to be household names. It's telling that Radiohead of all bands are sometimes seen as the one band hipsters universally worship, despite them being incredibly popular.
I think my personal annoyance with the crowd is simple: it comes down to judging something based on its popularity. That's something I feel has no purpose, and in a way is in direct contrast to the philosophy most hipsters claim to have. In trying so desperately to be unique, by using perceived popularity as a valid criteria for judging something, they're allowing their opinions to be formed by others
While that has been the case for thousands of years, I'd argue that it's actually something that has been changing in the past century as high and low culture become two less distinct entities, and is something that I hope to see change more as time goes on. From pop art to the intermingling of classical music with various other traditionally "low" genres to the broadening of the film industry to the evolution of television . Of course, this does depend greatly on how one defines "mass appeal". Some will tell you that authors like Thomas Pynchon are popular enough to have "mass appeal", but others will say that no book short of Harry Potter has true mass appeal.
I've had more of a problem with the "anti-hipsters" - essentially cultural nihilists who don't like people making them feel bad about mediocrity.