# Hipsters - are they the 2013 version of squat punks?



## Fozzie Bear (Jul 22, 2013)

In the 1980s thousands of young people decended on Hackney and other parts of London from the home counties and beyond with stupid haircuts, cheap drugs and terrible music.

They colonised any available properties and turned them into their own community centres, nightclubs and living spaces.

They were despised by some sections of the existing community.

How is that different from the hipsters we have today?


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Jul 22, 2013)

Well in the 80s they were all political and creative and stuff. And now they're rubbish.

And something about Brooklyn.


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Jul 22, 2013)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> Well in the 80s they were all political and creative and stuff. And now they're rubbish.
> 
> And something about Brooklyn.


 
I think that's partly right  , but surely things were generally more politicised back in the 1980s?

And yes 80s squatters were very creative in quite a subcultural way, but "creatives" is another crap word for hipsters these days.

The anarchopunk fanzine is replaced by a hipster tumblr feed...


----------



## TitanSound (Jul 22, 2013)

Punks listened to decent music.

Hipsters take photos of their chicken avocado salads.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 22, 2013)

hipsters have money


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Jul 22, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> hipsters have money


 
Nobody had money in the 1980s.


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Jul 22, 2013)

TitanSound said:


> Punks listened to decent music.


 
I would take a punt on any random dubstep track being better than the entire output The Exploited and UK Subs.


----------



## TitanSound (Jul 22, 2013)

Fozzie Bear said:


> I would take a punt on any random dubstep track being better than the entire output The Exploited and UK Subs.


 
This is why you are clearly mental. Sticking up for hipsters and now dubstep.

This is a sad day.


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Jul 22, 2013)

TitanSound said:


> This is why you are clearly mental. Sticking up for hipsters and now dubstep.
> 
> This is a sad day.


 
_ _I'm not sure if I am sticking up for hipsters or just trying to put them in the correct political/social context 

But yeah I'll take Hyperdub/DMZ/Benga over Wattie, sure.


----------



## el-ahrairah (Jul 22, 2013)

Fozzie Bear said:


> But yeah I'll take Hyperdub/DMZ/Benga over Wattie, sure.


 
Fair play, but would you take whiteboy brostep over Wattie?


----------



## TitanSound (Jul 22, 2013)

Fozzie Bear said:


> _ _I'm not sure if I am sticking up for hipsters or just trying to put them in the correct political/social context
> 
> But yeah I'll take Hyperdub/DMZ/Benga over Wattie, sure.


 

It's too late now. You're dead to me.


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Jul 22, 2013)

el-ahrairah said:


> Fair play, but would you take whiteboy brostep over Wattie?


 
I see them as being very much the same thing.


----------



## el-ahrairah (Jul 22, 2013)

Fozzie Bear said:


> I see them as being very much the same thing.


 
"there are only two types of music.  Good Music, and Bad Music"


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 22, 2013)

There are black punks. I have never seen a black hipster.


----------



## pissflaps (Jul 22, 2013)

el-ahrairah said:


> "there are only two types of music. Good Music Country, and Bad Music Western"


 

fixed.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 22, 2013)

pissflaps said:


> fixed.


Shurely 'fixated'


----------



## editor (Jul 22, 2013)

Fozzie Bear said:


> Nobody had money in the 1980s.


 
Oh yes they did.


----------



## peterkro (Jul 22, 2013)

It's as well to remember they stole the name as much as anything else from the forties hipsters (originally hepsters) quick c&p from wiki:

Mailer describes hipsters as individuals "with a middle-class background (who) attempt to put down their whiteness and adopt what they believe is the carefree, spontaneous, cool lifestyle of Negro hipsters: their manner of speaking and language, their use of milder narcotics, their appreciation of jazz and the blues, and their supposed concern with the good orgasm."


----------



## TruXta (Jul 22, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> There are black punks. I have never seen a black hipster.


Methinks you haven't looked hard enough. Plenty out there.


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Jul 22, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> There are black punks. I have never seen a black hipster.


 
I've seen marginally more black hipsters than black punks, in London anyway.


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Jul 22, 2013)

editor said:


> Oh yes they did.


 
I would argue that the intervening decades have seen the obscene wealth concentrated in tiny workforce of The City of London (and those it serves) spread out into the middle class population generally, due to the housing bubble.

So perhaps "nobody" is stretching it a bit.


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Jul 22, 2013)

el-ahrairah said:


> "there are only two types of music. Good Music, and Bad Music"


 
Aggy jump up testosterone music - and everything else.


----------



## Kizmet (Jul 22, 2013)

Fozzie Bear said:


> In the 1980s thousands of young people decended on Hackney and other parts of London from the home counties and beyond with stupid haircuts, cheap drugs and terrible music.
> 
> They colonised any available properties and turned them into their own community centres, nightclubs and living spaces.
> 
> ...



Punk was very much about adoption of a sub culture.

Hipsters are about total adoption of the mainstream culture.


----------



## Kizmet (Jul 22, 2013)

Also punk was do it yourself.

Hipsters buy it themselves. Usually online.


----------



## TruXta (Jul 22, 2013)

Kizmet said:


> Also punk was do it yourself.
> 
> Hipsters buy it themselves. Usually online.


Sex Pistols, DIY?


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Jul 22, 2013)

Kizmet said:


> Punk was very much about adoption of a sub culture.
> 
> Hipsters are about total adoption of the mainstream culture.


 
But there isn't really much in the way of subculture in 2013 anyway - certainly not to the extent of how things were in the 80s.

I'd argue that all this hipster rave ghetto-tech stuff and their rather odd clothes an internet memes is all quite subcultural.


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Jul 22, 2013)

Kizmet said:


> Also punk was do it yourself.
> 
> Hipsters buy it themselves. Usually online.


 
Also all this cupcake/moustache/make your own grimestep/blogging thing is still DIY.

There's a resurgence of "craft" type activites in the hipster milieu with yer funny beers / art exhibitions in odd spaces / hand sewn fanzines and stuff too.


----------



## TruXta (Jul 22, 2013)

Fozzie Bear said:


> But there isn't really much in the way of subculture in 2013 anyway - certainly not to the extent of how things were in the 80s.
> 
> I'd argue that all this hipster rave ghetto-tech stuff and their rather odd clothes an internet memes is all quite subcultural.


There are still loads of subcultures. It's just us being old and boring.


----------



## pissflaps (Jul 22, 2013)

> “Hipster” is a term co-opted for use as a meaningless pejorative in order to vaguely call someone else’s authenticity into question and, by extension, claim authenticity for yourself.
> 
> It serves no conversational function and imparts no information, save for indicating the opinions and preferences of the speaker.
> 
> ...


 
^ pretty much this.


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Jul 22, 2013)

TruXta said:


> There are still loads of subcultures. It's just us being old and boring.


 
Well this true also - perhaps the key difference is that there were a handful of very discrete subcultures in the 80s but now there are dozens/hundreds of little micro-scenes?


----------



## TruXta (Jul 22, 2013)

Fozzie Bear said:


> Well this true also - perhaps the key difference is that there were a handful of very discrete subcultures in the 80s but now there are dozens/hundreds of little micro-scenes?


Sounds about right to me. Information travelled a bit slower back in those days.


----------



## Kizmet (Jul 22, 2013)

Fozzie Bear said:


> But there isn't really much in the way of subculture in 2013 anyway - certainly not to the extent of how things were in the 80s.
> 
> I'd argue that all this hipster rave ghetto-tech stuff and their rather odd clothes an internet memes is all quite subcultural.



It is hard to have sub cultures when everything is so open and easy access they get adopted by the mainstream too quickly to gain any real momentum.

This is the hipster way. The instant and short term adoption of fashions. The death of the sub culture.


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Jul 22, 2013)

Kizmet said:


> It is hard to have sub cultures when everything is so open and easy access they get adopted by the mainstream you quickly to gain any real momentum.
> 
> This is the hipster way. The instant and short term adoption of fashions. The death of the sub culture.


 
Yes. So hipsters are a product of the time in which they appear in the same way that punk squatters were in the 80s?


----------



## Crispy (Jul 22, 2013)

In the 1980s the population of london was at its lowest since the 1920s - less than 7 million. The city was slumped. Cheap or free housing was relatively easy to come by.
Today, London is well on its way back to matching its historical peak and blowing past it to 9 million. The city is booming and rents are skyrocketing.

The economic environments are completely different, and so are the social responses.


----------



## Kizmet (Jul 22, 2013)

Fozzie Bear said:


> Well this true also - perhaps the key difference is that there were a handful of very discrete subcultures in the 80s but now there are dozens/hundreds of little micro-scenes?



This is the point... a micro scene is not a scene. its a fad. You need momentum to have a scene.


----------



## Kizmet (Jul 22, 2013)

Fozzie Bear said:


> Yes. So hipsters are a product of the time in which they appear in the same way that punk squatters were in the 80s?



No. Hipsters produce our times. They are the product of the short attention span we were warned about by the punks in the 80's.


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Jul 22, 2013)

Kizmet said:


> No. Hipsters produce our times. They are the product of the short attention span we were warned about by the punks in the 80's.


 
What so they were just beamed down from planet hipster to mess things up? Without being born into any kind of context?


----------



## Crispy (Jul 22, 2013)

Another big clue to the difference between the two phenomena is that Punk is a fiercely defended self-identifier while Hipster is an epithet that nobody would proudly call themselves.


----------



## pissflaps (Jul 22, 2013)

Crispy said:


> Another big clue to the difference between the two phenomena is that Punk is a fiercely defended self-identifier. Hipster is an epithet that nobody would proudly call themselves.


 
...yet. just you wait - most of the people posting on this thread will be calling themselves OG hipsters in a few years time.


----------



## el-ahrairah (Jul 22, 2013)

pissflaps said:


> ...yet. just you wait - most of the people posting on this thread will be calling themselves OG hipsters in a few years time.


 
way ahead of you on that one.  i was an ex-hipster _years_ ago.


----------



## lizzieloo (Jul 22, 2013)

Fozzie Bear said:


> I would take a punt on any random dubstep track being better than the entire output The Exploited and UK Subs.


----------



## Kizmet (Jul 22, 2013)

Fozzie Bear said:


> What so they were just beamed down from planet hipster to mess things up? Without being born into any kind of context?



I don't think you understand me... the hipster was born simultaneously with this context. They have grown up together. The hipsters are the context.

They are the children of the 80' and 90's generation... the eras of excess and commercialism. They are the outcome of the dotcom boom.


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Jul 22, 2013)

Kizmet said:


> I don't think you understand me... the hipster was born simultaneously with this context. They have grown up together. The hipsters are the context.
> 
> They are the children of the 80' and 90's generation... the eras of excess and commercialism. They are the outcome of the dotcom boom.


 
I can see that, if we can agree that the 80s squat punks were the children of the 60s/70s baby boomers / oil crisis / etc?


----------



## Kizmet (Jul 22, 2013)

Fozzie Bear said:


> I can see that, if we can agree that the 80s squat punks were the children of the 60s/70s baby boomers / oil crisis / etc?



We can... but where the punks were rebelling against their parents the hipster still lives with theirs...


----------



## pissflaps (Jul 22, 2013)

Kizmet said:


> We can... but where the punks were rebelling against their parents the hipster still lives with them....


 
if that were true, how do you account for them apparently buying up all the 'affordable' housing in the endz and gentrifying the place?

...unless...


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Jul 22, 2013)

Kizmet said:


> We can... but where the punks were rebelling against their parents the hipster still lives with theirs...


 
I think some do and some don't but this is a matter of economics rather than personal choice...


----------



## killer b (Jul 22, 2013)

you aren't half full of shite kismet.


----------



## Kizmet (Jul 22, 2013)

pissflaps said:


> if that were true, how do you account for them apparently buying up all the 'affordable' housing n the endz and gentrifying the place?
> 
> ...unless...



Daddy/mummy has deep pockets and a desire for property Investment they picked up in the 80's.


----------



## Kizmet (Jul 22, 2013)

killer b said:


> you aren't half full of shite kismet.



And the other half is taking the piss.

Get my name right, by the way. How would you like it if I called you kipper b?


----------



## pissflaps (Jul 22, 2013)

Kizmet said:


> Daddy/mummy has deep pockets and a desire for property Investment they picked up in the 80's.


 
watertight!

/got nuthin.


----------



## Kizmet (Jul 22, 2013)

Fozzie Bear said:


> I think some do and some don't but this is a matter of economics rather than personal choice...



I was speaking metaphorically... also the idea of economics being a demotivating factor in leaving the nest is also a product of the era of excess.


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Jul 22, 2013)

Kizmet said:


> I was speaking metaphorically... also the idea of economics being a demotivating factor in leaving the nest is also a product of the era of excess.


 
I'm not sure I'd characterise it as an "era of excess".


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Jul 22, 2013)

They're certainly mysterious. They're apparently everywhere but as they're descrobed here it sounds like I've never met one. They're like lots of skinny trousered versions of God scootering round all over the shop.


----------



## killer b (Jul 22, 2013)

*semi-portentous words strung together randomly*


----------



## Diamond (Jul 22, 2013)

pissflaps said:


> “Hipster” is a term co-opted for use as a meaningless pejorative in order to vaguely call someone else’s authenticity into question and, by extension, claim authenticity for yourself.
> 
> It serves no conversational function and imparts no information, save for indicating the opinions and preferences of the speaker.
> 
> ...


 
That's a pretty lazy analysis though - not very applied.

Substituting the word "hipster" for "creative" sheds some much needed light on this murky debate.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 22, 2013)

Fozzie Bear said:


> I would take a punt on any random dubstep track being better than the entire output The Exploited and UK Subs.


 
Nothing can surpass the glory that is The Exploited's "Fuck A Mod", sirrah! Nothing!


----------



## pissflaps (Jul 22, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> Nothing can surpass the glory that is The Exploited's "Fuck A Mod", sirrah! Nothing!


 
they didn't even bother to write their own tune for it. awful band.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 22, 2013)

killer b said:


> you aren't half full of shite kismet.


 
ever the optimist i see


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 22, 2013)

pissflaps said:


> they didn't even bother to write their own tune for it. awful band.


 
Why would you write a tune when "jingle bells" serves perfectly well?


----------



## Diamond (Jul 22, 2013)

Diamond said:


> That's a pretty lazy analysis though - not very applied.
> 
> Substituting the word "hipster" for "creative" sheds some much needed light on this murky debate.


 
In fact, I've seen plenty of adverts and even been to a few viewings where "creatives" have made it clear that they are explicitly looking for other "creatives" to live with. I don't think it would have been too outrageous to call these folk hipsters, though no doubt they would have been livid - as one of my ex gf's friends was when I made that mistake with no malicious intent whatsoever.

Having lived amongst them for a while, there tends to be a direct relationship between how seriously a creative takes themselves and how likely they are to get wound up by being called a hipster.

I think it's got something to do with having life, work, fashion, self-perception, display, attitudes, perspectives and the importance of other people's opinions being so thoroughly integrated with very few boundaries in between.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 22, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> Nothing can surpass the glory that is The Exploited's "Fuck A Mod", sirrah! Nothing!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jul 22, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


>




The choice was between The Exploited and UK Subs, not The Exploited or any other punk or new wave band, you arse!


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 22, 2013)

ViolentPanda said:


> The choice was between The Exploited and UK Subs, not The Exploited or any other punk or new wave band, you arse!


 
you said 'nothing can surpass the glory that is the exploited's "fuck a mod"', and it is my contention that the adverts' 'one chord wonders' does surpass that glory.


----------



## pissflaps (Jul 22, 2013)

the point is, the word 'hipster' as an adjective is almost always used as an insult

there's plenty of people who consider themselves 'creative' who don't fit the lazy descriptions proffered in this thread and on this forum, some of whom take themselves very seriously and rightly so, it's what they do for a fucking living - they'd get righteously pissed off too if anyone dismissed their profession by conflating it with a pejorative term used to describe people who you perceive as being little more than some sort of fucking dilletante.


----------



## Diamond (Jul 22, 2013)

But creative doesn't mean very much either.

Not all creatives are hipsters but all hipsters are probably creatives.


----------



## TruXta (Jul 22, 2013)

Diamond said:


> But creative doesn't mean very much either.
> 
> Not all creatives are hipsters but all hipsters are probably creatives.


What?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 22, 2013)

Diamond said:


> But creative doesn't mean very much either.
> 
> Not all creatives are hipsters but all hipsters are probably creatives.


 
if the urge to gentrify is a creative urge...


----------



## TruXta (Jul 22, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> if the urge to gentrify is a creative urge...


Creative destruction innit.


----------



## cesare (Jul 22, 2013)

pissflaps said:


> the point is, the word 'hipster' as an adjective is almost always used as an insult
> 
> there's plenty of people who consider themselves 'creative' who don't fit the lazy descriptions proffered in this thread and on this forum, some of whom take themselves very seriously and rightly so, it's what they do for a fucking living - they'd get righteously pissed off too if anyone dismissed their profession by conflating it with a pejorative term used to describe people who you perceive as being little more than some sort of fucking dilletante.


You're a hipster aren't you?

ADMIT IT


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 22, 2013)

TruXta said:


> Creative destruction innit.


----------



## pissflaps (Jul 22, 2013)

cesare said:


> You're a hipster aren't you?
> 
> ADMIT IT


 
if it makes you feel better to say so.


----------



## cesare (Jul 22, 2013)

pissflaps said:


> if it makes you feel better to say so.


Pics


----------



## pissflaps (Jul 22, 2013)

Diamond said:


> But creative doesn't mean very much either.
> 
> Not all creatives are hipsters but all hipsters are probably creatives.


 
do you see how this sort of language is problematic?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 22, 2013)

pissflaps said:


> if it makes you feel better to say so.


 
you need to admit you have a problem before we can help you


----------



## TruXta (Jul 22, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> .


No.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 22, 2013)

pissflaps said:


> do you see how this sort of language is problematic?


 
because you can't understand it?


----------



## editor (Jul 22, 2013)

cesare said:


> You're a hipster aren't you?
> 
> ADMIT IT


LOL.


----------



## killer b (Jul 22, 2013)

I fucking love hipsters. They look cool, and they irritate absolutely everyone.


----------



## pissflaps (Jul 22, 2013)

then i'll leave you to your petty prejudices.


----------



## Diamond (Jul 22, 2013)

pissflaps said:


> if it makes you feel better to say so.


 
I'd say you were more of a creative.


----------



## pissflaps (Jul 22, 2013)

Diamond said:


> I'd say you were more of a creative.


 
ha!


----------



## pissflaps (Jul 22, 2013)

editor said:


> LOL.


 
oh look. it's the bully in chief.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 22, 2013)

pissflaps said:


> oh look. it's the bully in chief.


 
this will end well.


----------



## editor (Jul 22, 2013)

pissflaps said:


> oh look. it's the bully in chief.


Bullied by a LOL and a smiley. You poor, poor thing.


(((pissflaps))))


----------



## pissflaps (Jul 22, 2013)

i was referring specifically to your rather unprofessional habit of posting up photo's you've taken of people in the market who you perceive as 'hipsters' so that others can pop along and join in the fun.

you'll probably deny it. hey ho.


----------



## editor (Jul 22, 2013)

pissflaps said:


> i was referring specifically to your rather unprofessional habit of posting up photo's you've taken of people in the market who you perceive as 'hipsters' so that others can pop along and join in the fun.


There was nothing unprofessional about the way I posted that picture. 
You should have seen the stylish way I hit 'post reply.'  It was really professional.


----------



## pissflaps (Jul 22, 2013)

yah ha.


----------



## killer b (Jul 22, 2013)

anyway, who was pissflaps? 'bully in chief' rings a bell, but i can't put my finger on it...


----------



## rutabowa (Jul 22, 2013)

killer b said:


> I fucking love hipsters. They look cool, and they irritate absolutely everyone.


Let this be the last words on the subject.


----------



## Kizmet (Jul 22, 2013)

Fozzie Bear said:


> I'm not sure I'd characterise it as an "era of excess".



I would. From the early eighties through to the late noughties. Rampant consumerism, globalism and speculative property investment.


----------



## pissflaps (Jul 22, 2013)

killer b said:


> anyway, who was pissflaps? 'bully in chief' rings a bell, but i can't put my finger on it...


 
que es tu punto, gringo?


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 22, 2013)

isn't 'creatives' a term advertising workers call themselves so that they can lie to themselves about the fact that they have prostituted artistic skill to mammon?


----------



## TruXta (Jul 22, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> isn't 'creatives' a term advertising workers call themselves so that they can lie to themselves about the fact that they have prostituted artistic skill to mammon?


Yes.


----------



## Favelado (Jul 23, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> There are black punks. I have never seen a black hipster.


 
There are far more black hipsters than there ever were black punks.


----------



## Diamond (Jul 23, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> isn't 'creatives' a term advertising workers call themselves so that they can lie to themselves about the fact that they have prostituted artistic skill to mammon?


 
As opposed to what? Pursuing some pure artistic excellence?

There's an oddly protestant ethic of authenticity, determination and virtue at play in this whole discussion...


----------



## Diamond (Jul 23, 2013)

I see the whole thing more as a self-perception point.

The key point being is that if you take yourself exceptionally seriously as either (i) a non-hipster creative who gets riled by the temerity of those who might approach the term as a possible label or (ii) as an individual that can divine the true essence of hipsterdom and apply it accordingly in a pejorative manner then you're probably a bit of a dick; no further analysis required.


----------



## TruXta (Jul 23, 2013)

what a load of waffle.


----------



## Diamond (Jul 23, 2013)

Or maybe the overriding point is that if you take yourself very seriously and others don't there's probably room for reflection...


----------



## TruXta (Jul 23, 2013)

Diamond said:


> Or maybe the overriding point is that if you take yourself very seriously and others don't there's probably room for reflection...


Being stuck up your own arse and being a hipster might coincide but they're not the same thing, that much is obvious.


----------



## Diamond (Jul 23, 2013)

TruXta said:


> Being stuck up your own arse and being a hipster might coincide but they're not the same thing, that much is obvious.


 
How about taking offence at being called a hipster?


----------



## TruXta (Jul 23, 2013)

Diamond said:


> How about taking offence at being called a hipster?


If it's a sign of being one? Nah, not really.


----------



## Diamond (Jul 23, 2013)

TruXta said:


> If it's a sign of being one? Nah, not really.


 
I was thinking more of taking one's designed self image exceptionally seriously, hipster or any other epithet.


----------



## TruXta (Jul 23, 2013)

Diamond said:


> I was thinking more of taking one's designed self image exceptionally seriously, hipster or any other epithet.


What about it?


----------



## discokermit (Jul 23, 2013)

people who moan about how hipsters dress should post photo's of their own clothes. i bet it's a mountain of millets.


----------



## Diamond (Jul 23, 2013)

TruXta said:


> What about it?


 
It's faintly ludicrous and does not attract sympathy.


----------



## oryx (Jul 23, 2013)

discokermit said:


> people who moan about how hipsters dress should post photo's of their own clothes. i bet it's a mountain of millets.


 
For a split second I read that as 'a mountain of mullets' and thought no, you're picking on the wrong set of people here......


----------



## Diamond (Jul 23, 2013)

oryx said:


> For a split second I read that as 'a mountain of mullets' and thought no, you're picking on the wrong set of people here......


 
Little known fact - Pat Sharp takes himself very seriously indeed; unclear as to whether he is a creative or a hipster or some kind of hybrid though...


----------



## killer b (Jul 23, 2013)

Diamond said:


> Little known fact - Pat Sharpe takes himself very seriously indeed; unclear as to whether he is a creative or a hipster or some kind of hybrid though...


We know: he treated an ex urban poster very poorly indeed.


----------



## editor (Jul 23, 2013)




----------



## editor (Jul 23, 2013)

Favelado said:


> There are far more black hipsters than there ever were black punks.


Really? And you'll be basing this claim on what, exactly?


----------



## magneze (Jul 23, 2013)

Diamond said:


> Little known fact - Pat Sharp takes himself very seriously indeed; unclear as to whether he is a creative or a hipster or some kind of hybrid though...


 
Any mention of Pat Sharp (Woo Woo), must be accompanied by a (Woo Woo) in a landmark legal ruling from 1989.


----------



## ffsear (Jul 23, 2013)

Fozzie Bear said:


> _ _I'm not sure if I am sticking up for hipsters or just trying to put them in the correct political/social context
> 
> But yeah I'll take Hyperdub/DMZ/Benga over Wattie, sure.


 

DMZ / Benga etc are a bunch of Croydon boys and could not be further removed from Hipsters


----------



## xenon (Jul 23, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> isn't 'creatives' a term advertising workers call themselves so that they can lie to themselves about the fact that they have prostituted artistic skill to mammon?



Yeah. Otherwise why not just say, you're a graphic designer, art director, sign writer... Whatever. Something normal people might say that actually conveys an inkling of what you do.

This hipster bashing stuff is a bit teadious now though TBF. I don't think i'ts an interchangeable term for Yuppy either, as some have seem to have conflated the 2.


----------



## pissflaps (Jul 23, 2013)




----------



## Fozzie Bear (Jul 23, 2013)

ffsear said:


> DMZ / Benga etc are a bunch of Croydon boys and could not be further removed from Hipsters


 
No shit.


----------



## killer b (Jul 23, 2013)

xenon said:


> Yeah. Otherwise why not just say, you're a graphic designer, art director, sign writer... Whatever. Something normal people might say that actually conveys an inkling of what you do.


 
tbf, i've never heard a 'creative' refer to themselves as that - they always say they're graphic designers or whatever. 'creatives' is essentially a marketing term that people who want to sell shit to that market segment use.


----------



## pissflaps (Jul 23, 2013)

bitch, do you even grafic design?


----------



## Diamond (Jul 23, 2013)

killer b said:


> tbf, i've never heard a 'creative' refer to themselves as that - they always say they're graphic designers or whatever. 'creatives' is essentially a marketing term that people who want to sell shit to that market segment use.


 
I've heard a very large number of people refer to themselves as creatives - it's a word that seems to have gained currency really quite recently (last 2-3 years) and, if one is being kind, it's probably related to the fact that a lot of these people don't work in commonly understood areas (such as graphic design) and instead work in exceptionally niche disciplines.

Or else they're not really doing anything more "creative" than anyone else and use the term as a sort of self-puffery tactic.


----------



## rutabowa (Jul 23, 2013)

I have never heard anyone call themselves a creative.


----------



## discokermit (Jul 23, 2013)

i was chatting to a woman in a bar in london, she asked me my job, i said welder, she says "oh! i thought you were a creative?".
what the fuck? i says "i am. i create staircases and balustrades.".

cheek. anyway, i'm a secret sculptor, so fuck her.


----------



## xenon (Jul 23, 2013)

killer b said:


> tbf, i've never heard a 'creative' refer to themselves as that - they always say they're graphic designers or whatever. 'creatives' is essentially a marketing term that people who want to sell shit to that market segment use.




I don't think I've heard anyone say it out loud either TBH, including people at art college. Seems more a descriptor in property ads. So yeah, just marketing toss.


----------



## pissflaps (Jul 23, 2013)

anyone that uses an adjective as a noun wants punching in the cock, regardless of what they wear.


----------



## killer b (Jul 23, 2013)

Diamond said:


> I've heard a very large number of people refer to themselves as creatives - it's a word that seems to have gained currency really quite recently (last 2-3 years) and, if one is being kind, it's probably related to the fact that a lot of these people don't work in commonly understood areas (such as graphic design) and instead work in exceptionally niche disciplines.
> 
> Or else they're not really doing anything more "creative" than anyone else and use the term as a sort of self-puffery tactic.


you must know a lot of bullshitters then. Do you live in dalston?


----------



## Diamond (Jul 23, 2013)

Did for about a year not too long ago...


----------



## killer b (Jul 23, 2013)

Figures.


----------



## rutabowa (Jul 23, 2013)

killer b said:


> you must know a lot of bullshitters then. Do you live in dalston?


 
i have done for ages until very recently and i still never heard anyone refer to themselves as a creative, even overheard anyone.


----------



## ska invita (Jul 23, 2013)

pissflaps said:


>


ooh, have they made a computer game out of Don Quixote?


----------



## discokermit (Jul 23, 2013)

xenon said:


> Seems more a descriptor in property ads. So yeah, just marketing toss.


that figures, i think the woman who said it to me was an estate agent.


----------



## hipipol (Jul 26, 2013)

then


Now


Nuff said eh?


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Jul 26, 2013)

Whatever 'hipsters' might be, grime isn't it.


----------



## YouSir (Jul 26, 2013)

I've heard people call themselves Creatives, just seems to be a synonym for 'Wanker' as far as I can tell. People who want the apparent social cache of being an actual artist but don't do anything to merit it, like creating something good. Also people on advertising who can fuck off whatever they call themselves.

As to Hipsters, conversations I usually have use it as short hand for someone who's bought a lifestyle rather than creating one. Like the ones who open up art spaces with (presumably) their parents money so they can ponce around relatively poor areas playing at Bohemian slumming it. A difference highlighted when you meet people who're really trying to do something good but lack the resources and options. 

Alternatively I was talking to a young guy he other day whose judgement was that anyone in skinny jeans was gay.


----------



## pissflaps (Jul 26, 2013)

tl;dr - people who don't conform to my narrow, subjective opinion about what has value are worthy of scorn.


----------



## YouSir (Jul 26, 2013)

pissflaps said:


> tl;dr - people who don't conform to my narrow, subjective opinion about what has value are worthy of scorn.



That in reference to my post?


----------



## pissflaps (Jul 26, 2013)

ayup.


----------



## YouSir (Jul 26, 2013)

pissflaps said:


> ayup.



Ok, let me re-phrase for you. People who use their wealth to parachute into poorer areas for their own cultural vanity, helping to raise rents, claim much needed accomodation and take over business spaces which may otherwise have provided jobs and genuine social use deserve scorn. They're a blight on London in fact.


----------



## pissflaps (Jul 26, 2013)

you're right, that's quite a rephrase.

so that's a 'hipster' is it?


----------



## YouSir (Jul 26, 2013)

pissflaps said:


> you're right, that's quite a rephrase.
> 
> so that's a 'hipster' is it?



Did you read my first post? It said more or less the same. I also pointed out that it was the definition of the word commonly accepted by me and people I know.


----------



## pissflaps (Jul 26, 2013)

where exactly do you draw the line when it comes to who qualifies as one of these loathsome gentrifiers? anyone that moved into the area a day after you did, perhaps?


----------



## YouSir (Jul 26, 2013)

pissflaps said:


> where exactly do you draw the line when it comes to who qualifies as one of these loathsome gentrifiers? anyone that moved into the area a day after you did, perhaps?



Someone who moves into an area and uses their financial advantage to make the area what they want it to be, rather than what the community as a whole needs it to be. Gentrification is a well established and studied process, if you want to know more try Google rather than trying to start a personal argument with me.


----------



## pissflaps (Jul 26, 2013)

are people who are new to the area not considered part of the community? who decides? you?


----------



## YouSir (Jul 26, 2013)

pissflaps said:


> are people who are new to the area not considered part of the community? who decides? you?



Yes. I am sole arbiter. Whenever you hear someone decrying gentrification it's because I told them to. You got me.


----------



## pissflaps (Jul 26, 2013)

YouSir said:


> Yes. I am sole arbiter. Whenever you hear someone decrying gentrification it's because I told them to. You got me.


 
in your circle, i don't you think just that for a moment.


----------



## YouSir (Jul 26, 2013)

pissflaps said:


> in your circle, i don't you think just that for a moment.



?


----------



## pissflaps (Jul 26, 2013)

yeah that sentance is all over the place - sorry.

'in your circle of mates, i suspect you may well think that you are indeed arbiters for whos' presence is and isn't acceptable'


----------



## YouSir (Jul 26, 2013)

pissflaps said:


> yeah that sentance is all over the place - sorry.
> 
> 'in your circle of mates, i suspect you may well think that you are indeed arbiters for whos' presence is and isn't acceptable'



Yay for you then. Still not going to argue with you despite your blatant desire for a little bickering.


----------



## pissflaps (Jul 26, 2013)

Fair enough, i don't agree with you but happy to drop it - can i at least refer you to an earlier post?

have a good day.


----------



## ska invita (Jul 26, 2013)

YouSir said:


> Ok, let me re-phrase for you. People who use their wealth to parachute into poorer areas for their own cultural vanity, helping to raise rents, claim much needed accomodation and take over business spaces which may otherwise have provided jobs and genuine social use deserve scorn. They're a blight on London in fact.


i dont think its vanity, i think its because london rent costs a fortune, and even "poor" parts of town are the only places that are anywhere close to affordable. I think the culture/hipster aspect of all this is overplayed and way secondary to the bigger economic picture, which includes factors such as those sitting on huge amounts of capital investing in property in London, the (successful) attempt by this government to inflate another property bubble, and the like. Housing and gentrification are huge problems, but blaming it on hipsters is misguided i think.


----------



## editor (Jul 26, 2013)

pissflaps said:


> in your circle, i don't you think just that for a moment.


 
This message brought to you via Stanley Unwin.


----------



## pissflaps (Jul 26, 2013)

editor there... predictably looking for affirmation by chiming in with some second hand, ad hominem laden irrelevance he hopes will appeal to the peanut gallery...

/cricket commentary


----------



## editor (Jul 26, 2013)

pissflaps said:


> editor there... predictably looking for affirmation by chiming in with some second hand, ad hominem laden irrelevance he hopes will appeal to the peanut gallery...
> 
> /cricket commentary


It. Was. A. Joke.


Being this uptight can't be good for your karma, maaan.


----------



## pissflaps (Jul 26, 2013)

i know. just not a very good one.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Jul 26, 2013)

ska invita said:


> i dont think its vanity, i think its because london rent costs a fortune, and even "poor" parts of town are the only places that are anywhere close to affordable. I think the culture/hipster aspect of all this is overplayed and way secondary to the bigger economic picture, which includes factors such as those sitting on huge amounts of capital investing in property in London, the (successful) attempt by this government to inflate another property bubble, and the like. Housing and gentrification are huge problems, but blaming it on hipsters is misguided i think.


 
Agreed. The idea that 'hipster' is directly equivalent to 'gentrifier' is one I've only ever heard on here, and only quite recently. Hipsters are an archetype really but if I think of them I think more art school posers than anything else. That might be gentrifying to a point but not as much as a load of lawyers, accountants, IT professionals etc moving in to an area, none of whom you'd think of as hipsters.


----------



## rutabowa (Jul 26, 2013)

ska invita said:


> i dont think its vanity, i think its because london rent costs a fortune, and even "poor" parts of town are the only places that are anywhere close to affordable. I think the culture/hipster aspect of all this is overplayed and way secondary to the bigger economic picture, which includes factors such as those sitting on huge amounts of capital investing in property in London, the (successful) attempt by this government to inflate another property bubble, and the like. Housing and gentrification are huge problems, but blaming it on hipsters is misguided i think.


 
Yes quite. they are entirely separate things as far as i can see. the only thing they have in common is that they both involve people living in a certain economic system. going on about hipsters is a distraction from the real enemy, you are letting the real enemy get away with it! of course there is some overlap.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Jul 26, 2013)

The Hipsters and the Chavs should have a big fight down in Brighton.


----------



## editor (Jul 26, 2013)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> Agreed. The idea that 'hipster' is directly equivalent to 'gentrifier' is one I've only ever heard on here, and only quite recently.


I'm not sure who's actually asserting that, but it's certainly not unique to here. e.g.
NEWSFLASH: HIPSTER GENTRIFIERS AREN'T TERRORISING ASIAN WOMEN IN HACKNEY


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jul 26, 2013)

Hipster and gentrifier are definitely not equivalent terms - I don't know if anyone here is saying that, but if they are they're wrong.

From the threads here, hipster mostly seems to mean young person with funny clothes and probably living off their parents listening to that weird music it's just a noise isn't it.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Jul 26, 2013)

TitanSound said:


> Punks listened to decent music.
> 
> Hipsters take photos of their chicken avocado salads.


 

Nailed. End of thread.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Jul 26, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> There are black punks. I have never seen a black hipster.


 

You need to get out more, I've seen Hipsters from every community...


----------



## Kizmet (Jul 26, 2013)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Hipster and gentrifier are definitely not equivalent terms - I don't know if anyone here is saying that, but if they are they're wrong.
> 
> From the threads here, hipster mostly seems to mean young person with funny clothes and probably living off their parents listening to that weird music it's just a noise isn't it.



That's not how I see it. Young people wearing funny clothes is totally normal. Young people living off their parents is totally normal.

It when older people start wearing what they think young people are wearing and still depend on their folks for most things that's when they deserve the title of hipster.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jul 26, 2013)

Fozzie Bear said:


> In the 1980s thousands of young people decended on Hackney and other parts of London from the home counties and beyond with stupid haircuts, cheap drugs and terrible music.
> 
> They colonised any available properties and turned them into their own community centres, nightclubs and living spaces.
> 
> ...


 
It must be different. We never really had much in the way of squat punks, but we have busloads of hipsters.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jul 26, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> There are black punks. I have never seen a black hipster.


 
Bipster.

There are black hipsters here. Also, chinese hipsters. A lot of them. South asian hipsters too.

It seems to have less to do with skin color, and more to do with social attitudes.


----------



## PrincessIcepick (Jul 26, 2013)

i find the question in the title un-dialectical (if i can say that lol). anyway this says it better than me:



> I know that everyone’s favourite punchbags are hipsters and gentrification, but let’s not forget that capital’s power to displace us from the communities where we grow up into units of transient labour is something most of us are utterly powerless against. Government ministers can grandstand, telling the poor and the marginalised to get on a bus/get on your bike to find work, making commutes enforceable by sanction but in reality most of us are already subject to this tyranny of uncertainty. As such many of us find ourselves in London and its environs, far away from where we born out of necessity more than choice. We are as much part of this process as middle class poverty tourists, students and petit bourgeois colonisers.
> Landlords being a particularly parasitic class of bastards, are as responsible as the state for displacing working class people, entirely altering the make-up of our communities and as such our everyday lives. With their collective power to determine rents and influence land values, they essentially are able to collude with local councils and the government to socially (and ethnically) cleanse entire swathes of the city.


http://libcom.org/blog/you’ve-had-your-anti-hipster-fun-now-get-organised-26062013


----------



## Reno (Jul 27, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> hipsters have money


Many don't.


----------



## Reno (Jul 27, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> There are black punks. I have never seen a black hipster.


 
The more I read these hipster threads the more I realise that most of the people voicing off about them have barely seen and never met one. There are lots of black and Asian hipsters in hipstercentric East London. I currently work with two black and a Pakistani hipster. Skinny jeans, beards, nerd specs, the lot. There is at least one Sikh hipster who is a regular at Shoreditch hipster hang out The George and Dragon.

Many hipsters do not have much money, many of them work in in the arts, fashion and in creative jobs which pay shit, most I know live in flat shares. Moaning about current yoof culture/fashion while being clueless about it and going on about how much better it all was in the good old days is a sure sign of being past it.


----------



## hipipol (Jul 27, 2013)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> Whatever 'hipsters' might be, grime isn't it.


Aw, yer probably right
I was simply seeking polar opposites from the given times

The Crass were a "special" interest back in the day too


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 27, 2013)

Reno said:


> The more I read these hipster threads the more I realise that most of the people voicing off about them have barely seen and never met one. There are lots of black and Asian hipsters in hipstercentric East London. I currently work with two black and a Pakistani hipster. Skinny jeans, beards, nerd specs, the lot. There is at least one Sikh hipster who is a regular at Shoreditch hipster hang out The George and Dragon.
> 
> Many hipsters do not have much money, many of them work in in the arts, fashion and in creative jobs which pay shit, most I know live in flat shares. Moaning about current yoof culture/fashion while being clueless about it and going on about how much better it all was in the good old days is a sure sign of being past it.


Grand. You demonstrate by anecdote the existence of 2 black hipsters. But a) I didn't say it was so much better in the old days: b) I didn't say there are no black asian or indeed aborigine hipsters; c) I regularly pass by the arcola hipster central place and other places in hackney which attract them: I have never seen a black hipster - but perhaps that's the difference between shoreditch and hackney. It's disappointing you decided to reply to things I didn't say rather more than things I did. Oh - and before you whine that i've never met a hipster, I regularly meet hipsters in the course of my work.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 27, 2013)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Bipster.
> 
> There are black hipsters here. Also, chinese hipsters. A lot of them. South asian hipsters too.
> 
> It seems to have less to do with skin color, and more to do with social attitudes.


Pls point me to where I said 'there are no black hipsters'.


----------



## Reno (Jul 27, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> Grand. You demonstrate by anecdote the existence of 2 black hipsters. But a) I didn't say it was so much better in the old days: b) I didn't say there are no black asian or indeed aborigine hipsters; c) I regularly pass by the arcola hipster central place and other places in hackney which attract them: I have never seen a black hipster - but perhaps that's the difference between shoreditch and hackney. It's disappointing you decided to reply to things I didn't say rather more than things I did. Oh - and before you whine that i've never met a hipster, I regularly meet hipsters in the course of my work.


The second paragraph was in response the the thread in general. 

Hang around Brick Lane, Shoreditch or London Fields and you should see hipsters of all races there. No need to rely on my anecdotal evidence, go where hipsters congregate and just open your eyes.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 27, 2013)

it's strange that london fields is famous for its gentrifed character, brick lane is being gentrified and shoreditch isn't exactly a stranger to gentrification while dalston, another hipster haunt, is also undergoing gentrification. Perhaps a pattern emerges.





Reno said:


> The second paragraph was in response the the thread in general.
> 
> Hang around Brick Lane, Shoreditch or London Fields and you should see hipsters of all races there. No need to rely on my anecdotal evidence, go where hipsters congregate and just open your eyes.


----------



## Reno (Jul 27, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> it's strange that london fields is famous for its gentrifed character, brick lane is being gentrified and shoreditch isn't exactly a stranger to gentrification while dalston, another hipster haunt, is also undergoing gentrification. Perhaps a pattern emerges.


Congratulations, you are on the way to figuring out how gentrification works:

Young arty/alternative crowd moves to a neglected part of town because its affordable. Hip independent shops/bars/clubs spring up. Area becomes fashionable. The nightlife draws people from all over London. Yuppies move in. House prices and rents rocket, independent shops, bars and surviving old businesses get priced out. Condo buildings pop up. The yummy mummy set complain about the noise from late night venues. Councils crack down on the nightlife. Starbucks, Urban Outfitters, Pizza Express take over. The arty/alternative crowd has long moved on to the next postcode where it starts all over.

It's not something that was started by hipsters. In that part of London it started in Islington in the 60s. Then it spread to Stoke Newington, Hoxton, Shoredich, Dalston, Canonbury and beyond, all of which are in different phases of gentrification. The same happens in other parts of London and in every prosperous city on the planet.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 27, 2013)

Reno said:


> Congratulations, you are on the way to figuring out how gentrification works:
> 
> Young arty/alternative crowd moves to a neglected part of town because its affordable. Hip independent shops/bars/clubs spring up. Area becomes fashionable. The nightlife draws people from all over London. Yuppies move in. House prices and rents rocket, independent shops, bars and surviving old businesses get priced out. Condo buildings pop up. The yummy mummy set complain about the noise from late night venues. Councils crack down on the nightlife. Starbucks, Urban Outfitters, Pizza Express take over. The arty/alternative crowd has long moved on to the next postcode where it starts all over.
> 
> It's not something that was started by hipsters. In that part of London it started in Islington in the 60s. Then it spread to Stoke Newington, Hoxton, Shoredich, Dalston, Canonbury and beyond, all of which are in different phases of gentrification. The same happens in other parts of London and in every prosperous city on the planet.


Perhaps in a few years time you will have caught up to where I was in 2007 when I wrote an article on the subject for the second issue of london class war's 'touch of class' magazine.


----------



## Reno (Jul 27, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> Perhaps in a few years time you will have caught up to where I was in 2007 when I wrote an article on the subject for the second issue of london class war's 'touch of class' magazine.


 

Oh you wacky revolutionaries !


----------



## PrincessIcepick (Jul 27, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> Perhaps in a few years time you will have caught up to where I was in 2007 when I wrote an article on the subject for the second issue of london class war's 'touch of class' magazine.


 

Sir Pickman's model, OBE.


----------



## twentythreedom (Jul 27, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> Perhaps in a few years time you will have caught up to where I was in 2007



^^hipster


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jul 27, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> Pls point me to where I said 'there are no black hipsters'.


 


> Pickman's model said: ↑
> There are black punks. I have never seen a black hipster.​


----------



## stuff_it (Jul 27, 2013)

Fozzie Bear said:


> In the 1980s thousands of young people decended on Hackney and other parts of London from the home counties and beyond with stupid haircuts, cheap drugs and terrible music.
> 
> They colonised any available properties and turned them into their own community centres, nightclubs and living spaces.
> 
> ...


 
Are you in London? I have at least a car load of 80s squat punks here that want to give you a kicking for that.


----------



## Crispy (Jul 27, 2013)

@JC: You'll need to do better than that to pass through pickmans pedanticism filter!


----------



## TruXta (Jul 27, 2013)

stuff_it said:


> Are you in London? I have at least a car load of 80s squat punks here that want to give you a kicking for that.


The haircuts were fucking awful it had to be said.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jul 27, 2013)

Reno said:


> Congratulations, you are on the way to figuring out how gentrification works:
> 
> Young arty/alternative crowd moves to a neglected part of town because its affordable. Hip independent shops/bars/clubs spring up. Area becomes fashionable. The nightlife draws people from all over London. Yuppies move in. House prices and rents rocket, independent shops, bars and surviving old businesses get priced out. Condo buildings pop up. The yummy mummy set complain about the noise from late night venues. Councils crack down on the nightlife. Starbucks, Urban Outfitters, Pizza Express take over. The arty/alternative crowd has long moved on to the next postcode where it starts all over.
> 
> It's not something that was started by hipsters. In that part of London it started in Islington in the 60s. Then it spread to Stoke Newington, Hoxton, Shoredich, Dalston, Canonbury and beyond, all of which are in different phases of gentrification. The same happens in other parts of London and in every prosperous city on the planet.


 
The other part of the equation here would be the anti gentrification protests.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/story/2013/06/04/bc-pidgin-second-arrest.html

http://scoutmagazine.ca/tag/pidgin-protest/


----------



## Belushi (Jul 27, 2013)

The music was dreadful as well.


----------



## TruXta (Jul 27, 2013)

Belushi said:


> The music was dreadful as well.


Nah, I love some of that 80s hardcore.


----------



## Reno (Jul 27, 2013)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> The other part of the equation here would be the anti gentrification protests.
> 
> http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/story/2013/06/04/bc-pidgin-second-arrest.html
> 
> http://scoutmagazine.ca/tag/pidgin-protest/


 
Not sure why its the other part of the equation, it's all part of the process. Where the whole thing ends up is generally shit.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jul 27, 2013)

Reno said:


> Moaning about current yoof culture/fashion while being clueless about it and going on about how much better it all was in the good old days is a sure sign of being past it.


 
^ This, we're not supposed to like hipsters, that's the point.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jul 27, 2013)

I just meant it's another part of the process.


----------



## TruXta (Jul 27, 2013)

They're not all "yoof" tho, that's where it all goes wrong. When you see some bloke in his mid 40s rocking the current hipster look I just wanna smack them.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jul 27, 2013)

sleaterkinney said:


> ^ This, we're not supposed to like hipsters, that's the point.


 
Are hipsters 'yoof culture' though? Hipsters are more a transition between 'yoof', and what what would have been described as yuppies.

They're today's young urban professional - just not in the traditional professions as much.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jul 27, 2013)

> going on about how much better it all was in the good old days is a sure sign of being past it.


 
It's something I've noticed about getting older. One has to actively work at not letting oneself become inflexible, unable to accept new things.  With too many old people it seems it's 'everything old is good, everything new is bad'


----------



## Belushi (Jul 27, 2013)

I agree with johnny   I've never though of hipsters as primarily a youth subculture.


----------



## sleaterkinney (Jul 27, 2013)

Johnny Canuck3 said:


> Are hipsters 'yoof culture' though? Hipsters are more a transition between 'yoof', and what what would have been described as yuppies.
> 
> They're today's young urban professional - just not in the traditional professions as much.


 
People are yuppifing later these days though, with the cost of settling down and all that.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jul 27, 2013)

sleaterkinney said:


> People are yuppifing later these days though, with the cost of settling down and all that.


 
They also move out of the house much later, too.


----------



## Belushi (Jul 27, 2013)

We have the whole 'Bank of Mum and Dad' thing here Johnny, is that also an issue in Canada? Parents dipping in to their savings to get their kids on the property ladder or just to support them?


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jul 27, 2013)

One of the key aspects of gentrifiers is that they don't think they're gentrifiers and hate other gentrifiers.

Have you moved into Hackney/Hoxton/wherever in the last few years? You are them.


----------



## TruXta (Jul 27, 2013)

FridgeMagnet said:


> One of the key aspects of gentrifiers is that they don't think they're gentrifiers and hate other gentrifiers.
> 
> Have you moved into Hackney/Hoxton/wherever in the last few years? You are them.


Guilty of gentrifying Penge here.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jul 27, 2013)

TruXta said:


> Guilty of gentrifying Penge here.


Fair play though.


----------



## TruXta (Jul 27, 2013)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Fair play though.


Figured we'd get in before the proper hipsters/gentrifiers/cock-knuckles show up.


----------



## Belushi (Jul 27, 2013)

I'm doing my best to gentrify Tottenham but it's an uphill struggle


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jul 27, 2013)

Belushi said:


> We have the whole 'Bank of Mum and Dad' thing here Johnny, is that also an issue in Canada? Parents dipping in to their savings to get their kids on the property ladder or just to support them?


Yes. But if my kids expect a downpayment from Mom and Dad to buy a house here, where the average price is now over $1 million, they'll have to get adopted by some other family.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 27, 2013)

Reno said:


> Congratulations, you are on the way to figuring out how gentrification works:
> 
> Young arty/alternative crowd moves to a neglected part of town because its affordable. Hip independent shops/bars/clubs spring up. Area becomes fashionable. The nightlife draws people from all over London. Yuppies move in. House prices and rents rocket, independent shops, bars and surviving old businesses get priced out. Condo buildings pop up. The yummy mummy set complain about the noise from late night venues. Councils crack down on the nightlife. Starbucks, Urban Outfitters, Pizza Express take over. The arty/alternative crowd has long moved on to the next postcode where it starts all over.
> 
> It's not something that was started by hipsters. In that part of London it started in Islington in the 60s. Then it spread to Stoke Newington, Hoxton, Shoredich, Dalston, Canonbury and beyond, all of which are in different phases of gentrification. The same happens in other parts of London and in every prosperous city on the planet.


The thing is, you haven't understood it at all: or at best you've taken the gentrifiers' side. 'neglected areas'? Delete neglected and replace with 'working class'. Ruth glass's description of the process of gentrification shows it's not as anemick a series of events as you make out. It is the invasion of a working class area by people out to evict the current population and replace it by the middle class. Glass was concerned that revanchist gentrification could see the working class decanted from central london and the whole left for the middle class: something you seem to welcome if not to wholly buy into.


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Jul 27, 2013)

stuff_it said:


> Are you in London? I have at least a car load of 80s squat punks here that want to give you a kicking for that.



I'm in Spain right now, but I live in Stamford Hill. 

I'm genuinely interested in the similarities and differences 

I think one difference would be that 80s squatters were very attached to a squatter/anarcho identity whereas nobody will admit to being a hipster.


----------



## twentythreedom (Jul 27, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> The thing is, you haven't understood it at all



^^hipster


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Jul 27, 2013)

TruXta said:


> Guilty of gentrifying Penge here.


 

I thought we were gentrifying Sydenham but then we got a copy of the previous owner's The Horsey (or something along those lines) through the post so now I'm not so sure.


----------



## Reno (Jul 27, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> The thing is, you haven't understood it at all: or at best you've taken the gentrifiers' side. 'neglected areas'? Delete neglected and replace with 'working class'. Ruth glass's description of the process of gentrification shows it's not as anemick a series of events as you make out. It is the invasion of a working class area by people out to evict the current population and replace it by the middle class. Glass was concerned that revanchist gentrification could see the working class decanted from central london and the whole left for the middle class: something you seem to welcome if not to wholly buy into.


 
Even in Islington, which has been gentrified into the ground and is boring as fuck, there are still hundreds of council estates full of tens of thousands of council tenants and the same goes for the other areas I mentioned. So most working class people in these areas have not been driven out. The way this government has been fucking around with council tenancies is a new thing, but then that's Tories for you. And the lack of new social housing is shit too but that affects the whole of London and isn't directly connected with gentrification. It is now government policy to get poor people out of London. That's not gentrification, that's social cleansing.

A mix of people from different classes living along each other in cities is healthy and that's how it should work. I've lived in shitty parts of London whose squalor and lack of resources don't benefit anybody, least of all working class people and to deny that there aren't places which are neglected is just harebrained. I also believe that there are parts of London that benefit from gentrification to a certain degree, but unfortunately it always goes the whole hog. And I did acknowledge that gentrification inevitably always ends up somewhere undesirable so get off that high horse of yours. That would would be the phase I mentioned where the rich yuppies move in and that's where it all goes wrong. It means that neither the poor who lived there before and who rent privately, nor many of the kids who make a part of London a more desirable place to live, can afford it anymore.


----------



## rich! (Jul 28, 2013)

Belushi said:


> I'm doing my best to gentrify Tottenham but it's an uphill struggle



Pah, anyone who wasn't here for the Millennium is a johnny-come-lately in my book...


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 28, 2013)

Reno said:


> Even in Islington, which has been gentrified into the ground and is boring as fuck, there are still hundreds of council estates full of thousands of council tenants and the same goes for the other areas I mentioned. So most working class people in these areas have not been driven out.The way this government has been fucking around with council tenancies is a new thing, but then that's Tories for you. And the lack of new social housing is shit too but that affects the whole of London and isn't directly connected with gentrification. It is now government policy to get poor people out of London. That's not gentrification, that's social cleansing.


the presence of working class people in an area is not the same thing as that area being a working class area. there is a council estate in hampstead, near the wells tavern: but i wouldn't take that to mean hampstead is a working class area. there are no shops catering to the working class in hampstead. and the presence of the working class in shoreditch doesn't mean shoreditch is any longer a working class area, taking shoreditch to be that part of the former metropolitan borough not haggerston or hoxton. it is not just the pattern of property tenure or social class which produces a working class area, it is also the businesses in that area - the brick lane market or broadway market would be examples of formerly working class markets which now mostly cater for middle class visitors. it's not just pubs, although it's frequently the case that working class pubs closed for transformation into flats or are turned into yuppie hellholes. for example, downham road had, in 1997, five pubs on it: all of which are now closed and flats bar the former 'duke of york' which is a foul yuppie pub. turning from drinking to more basic things, the gentrification of an area means the development of shops which cater specifically for incomers. this is done to the detriment of local working class people who lose valued shops which supplied their needs. and of course none of this occurs without a range of facilitators, spanning a spectrum from estate agents who act as landlords' agents to journalists who promote 'up and coming areas' and make the entire exercise sound more like some colonial exploit to be praised and not some sordid land-grab. yes, matters have changed and the entire process of gentrification has been greatly accelerated under the current administration, but this had been going on for fifty or more years and gentrification IS social cleansing.




> A mix of people from different classes living along each other is healthy and that's how it should work. I've lived in shitty parts of London whose squalor and lack of resources don't benefit anybody, least of all working class people and to deny that there aren't places which are neglected is just harebrained. I also believe that there are parts of London that benefit from gentrification to a certain degree, but unfortunately it always goes the whole hog. And I did acknowledge that gentrification inevitably always ends up somewhere undesirable so get off that high horse of yours. That would would be the phase I mentioned where the rich yuppies move in and that's where it all goes wrong. It means that neither the poor who lived there before and who rent privately, nor many of the kids who make a part of London a more desirable place to live, can afford it anymore.


there is a difference you don't acknowledge between regeneration and gentrification. gentrification's not always the only game in town. in the past there have been waves of slum clearance, between the wars and again in the fifties and sixties. regeneration does not need to end in gentrification. that it so frequently does is largely because gentrification is for people with money, and to make the gentrifying facilitators money. the developers, the landlords, the estate agents and their propagandist friends in journalism spot an area, promote the area as some edgy new land which - to believe their hype - doesn't have any current inhabitants, and guide that area through the various stages of the process, some of which you have alluded to. yes, it inevitably leads somewhere you don't want to go: but no, there are not parts of london or any other city which benefit in any meaningful way from gentrification. councils, though, are not neutral actors in this - an examination of hackney's record in this respect since the late 1990s, and especially recently with the destruction of the colville estate and the building of "city mills" up the way from haggerston station on the site of a former lcc estate, shows this. i wouldn't go so far as to say that councils deliberately neglect some areas, to allow them to run down: but i wouldn't be surprised if they did. where i used to live, we were promised improvements to the estate under the decent homes initiative, many of which hadn't arrived in many years and show no signs of so doing. but areas which you feel were neglected (and i'm assuming you mean 'by the council' though you don't specify) won't be improved by having the original population shunted about or to have their population density increased. i think it was brendan behan who said 'i have never seen a situation so dismal that a policeman couldn't make it worse'. i'd say i have never seen a situation so dismal gentrification couldn't make it worse. it makes it worse by reducing further the power the community resident have over their area, over their lives, and over life choices they may previously have taken for granted. it splits up families. it closes down schools - for example, the former primary school by the angel on liverpool road, closed for flats. it closes small businesses catering for the local working class. it removes community amenities and replaces them with stores selling shallow tat at inflated prices. it disrupts a community's feeling of connection with place. is there something positive about gentrification? i wish you'd point out one factor where it improves the lives of the incumbent population.


----------



## Hollis (Jul 28, 2013)

Belushi said:


> I'm doing my best to gentrify Tottenham but it's an uphill struggle


 
I've been leading the way in Wood Green for 15 years.  No bloody luck.  Not even a sniff of a 'hipster' type.. 

I want me property price to go up to.


----------



## Reno (Jul 28, 2013)

As always on urban I find this talk about "the working class" and "the middle class" reductive, like there is pearly king cockneys vs sneering yuppies. Many people fall in between. There are young working class people who may actually enjoy the scene that springs up around them and then there are many middle class people who are skint. And one reason why gentrification happens is because young middle class people with little money can only afford to live in poorer parts of town. Then these 'parasites' dare to introduce a greater variety of shops, clubs, music venues, artists spaces, creating spaces that attracts a creative community. They are contributing to what makes a city like London a vibrant and diverse cultural place which draws people from all over the world. So there is your upside to gentrification.

Traditional pubs are closing everywhere, gentrification or not, in part of expensive alcohol due to high taxing. Many working class people have stopped going to pubs a long time ago. Even in areas that haven't been gentrified, you will find a lot of dead boozers. So either have them die or have new people come in and turn them around. The again, I think again you are exaggerating to make your point which sees the situation only in black and white. Near council estates you will, always still find a traditional pub and a Londis and there is a high street nearby anywhere in East London where there is an Iceland, if you think that's a suitable shop catering to low incomes. There are also still plenty of street markets around.

Considering gentrification has been an inevitable part of every major city in the world from at least the beginning of the 20th century onwards and comes both with up and downsides, what would your solution be ? Are you proposing a rigid social segregation by postcode which keeps everybody in their place ? That hasn't done us much good either from what I've noticed. Cities like London are fluid places where everything is on the change all the time and that's what keeps them exciting, even that also leads to many problems. I think the situation is more complicated than dogma from the class war text book.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 28, 2013)

Reno said:


> A
> Traditional pubs are closing everywhere, gentrification or not, in part of expensive alcohol due to high taxing. Many working class people have stopped going to pubs a long time ago..


 
cos of the smoking ban and the introduction of Stella Cidre served in a fucking _chalice_


----------



## Reno (Jul 28, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> cos of the smoking ban and the introduction of Stella Cidre served in a fucking _chalice_


 
I'm with you on the chalice but sorry, as a non-smoker I like the smoking ban. However, let's not got there again...


----------



## editor (Jul 28, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> cos of the smoking ban and the introduction of Stella Cidre served in a fucking _chalice_


Pubs were already closing long before the smoking ban and as someone who regularly works in a bar/club environment, I'm fucking delighted that I don't have to risk my health every night and come home stinking like an ash tray. If you want to see what killed pubs, there's a lot of other more compelling reasons than smoking.

But fuck chalices, yes.


----------



## DotCommunist (Jul 28, 2013)

Reno said:


> I'm with you on the chalice but sorry, as a non-smoker I like the smoking ban. However, let's not got there again...


 
well trodden ground is well trodden eh...


----------



## pissflaps (Jul 28, 2013)

Reno said:


> As always on urban...(blah blah)... dogma from the class war text book.


 
/subscribes to das newsletter.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 28, 2013)

Reno said:


> As always on urban I find this talk about "the working class" and "the middle class" reductive, like there is pearly king cockneys vs sneering yuppies. Many people fall in between. There are young working class people who may actually enjoy the scene that springs up around them and then there are many middle class people who are skint. And one reason why gentrification happens is because young middle class people with little money can only afford to live in poorer parts of town. Then these 'parasites' dare to introduce a greater variety of shops, clubs, music venues, artists spaces, creating spaces that attracts a creative community. They are contributing to what makes a city like London a vibrant and diverse cultural place which draws people from all over the world. So there is your upside to gentrification.


what's reductive is your identification of 'council tenants' with 'the working class' (post 202). there are indeed young working class people. but you don't adduce any evidence that they _do_ enjoy the scene that springs up around them from hipsters - perhaps you could provide some proof of this claim. there are indeed middle class people who are skint. but they aren't going to be the ones opening up the shops, clubs, music venues etc which you claim they are. london may yet be diverse and vibrant: but gentrification does not encourage cultural communities but rather destroys them. 



> Traditional pubs are closing everywhere, gentrification or not, in part of expensive alcohol due to high taxing. Many working class people have stopped going to pubs a long time ago. Even in areas that haven't been gentrified, you will find a lot of dead boozers. So either have them die or have new people come in and turn them around. The again, I think again you are exaggerating to make your point which sees the situation only in black and white. Near council estates you will, always still find a traditional pub and a Londis and there is a high street nearby anywhere in East London where there is an Iceland, if you think that's a suitable shop catering to low incomes. There are also still plenty of street markets around.


i have lived on a number of council estates but there has never been a londis nearby. there is no londis near the kingsmead estate: in fact many council estates in hackney have no nearby londis, as a search of the londis site shows. you say that 'many working class people ... stopped going to pubs a long time ago'. and there's lots of estates - for example the kingsmead - with no nearby pub. as for street markets i told you about broadway market (see also 'hackney history' 16 for an article on the gentrification of broadway market) and brick lane market both being gentrified. 



> Considering gentrification has been an inevitable part of every major city in the world from at least the beginning of the 20th century onwards and comes both with up and downsides, what would your solution be ? Are you proposing a rigid social segregation by postcode which keeps everybody in their place ? That hasn't done us much good either from what I've noticed. Cities like London are fluid places where everything is on the change all the time and that's what keeps them exciting, even that also leads to many problems. I think the situation is more complicated than dogma from the class war text book.


you say gentrification comes with an up-side. i asked you to provide one. i have yet to see you offer such a thing. gentrification is, as i thought i had demonstrated, not a simple random process but a directed and deliberate assault on a working class area by rich people for their own benefit. it was in barnsbury in the 1950s (it began before the '60s) and it is in places like whitechapel, dalston and clapton now. it's not like a few artists move in somewhere and as sure as night follows day a vibrant and diverse scene follows them. it's not me who sees things in simplistick terms, it's you.


----------



## discokermit (Jul 28, 2013)

i wish someone would gentrify bilston. it's fucking shit. shops boarded up or just pound shops or greggs. twice i've seen rats, in the middle of the day, walking round like they don't give a fuck.

gentrification for all, i say.


----------



## Reno (Jul 28, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> what's reductive is your identification of 'council tenants' with 'the working class' (post 202). there are indeed young working class people. but you don't adduce any evidence that they _do_ enjoy the scene that springs up around them from hipsters - perhaps you could provide some proof of this claim. there are indeed middle class people who are skint. but they aren't going to be the ones opening up the shops, clubs, music venues etc which you claim they are. london may yet be diverse and vibrant: but gentrification does not encourage cultural communities but rather destroys them.
> 
> i have lived on a number of council estates but there has never been a londis nearby. there is no londis near the kingsmead estate: in fact many council estates in hackney have no nearby londis, as a search of the londis site shows. you say that 'many working class people ... stopped going to pubs a long time ago'. and there's lots of estates - for example the kingsmead - with no nearby pub. as for street markets i told you about broadway market (see also 'hackney history' 16 for an article on the gentrification of broadway market) and brick lane market both being gentrified.
> 
> you say gentrification comes with an up-side. i asked you to provide one. i have yet to see you offer such a thing. gentrification is, as i thought i had demonstrated, not a simple random process but a directed and deliberate assault on a working class area by rich people for their own benefit. it was in barnsbury in the 1950s (it began before the '60s) and it is in places like whitechapel, dalston and clapton now. it's not like a few artists move in somewhere and as sure as night follows day a vibrant and diverse scene follows them. it's not me who sees things in simplistick terms, it's you.


 


You have demonstrated nothing that convinces me. Just as you accuse me of doing, you are simply making a lot of statements for which I don't see much proof. To prove my side, I would have to take you out on a night in Shoreditch, introduce you to some friends. People you don't seem to believe exist, the broke middle class (and sometimes working class). However you don't sound like you're much fun, so I'll pass. I can live with you not believing me. I don't believe that cities are a constant, deliberate class war. I think cities are a little more complicated than that and change occurs due to a multitude of factors.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 28, 2013)

Reno said:


> You have demonstrated nothing that convinces me. Just as you accuse me of doing, you are simply making a lot of statements for which I don't see much proof. Much of what you say I simply don't agree wit. To prove my side, I would have to take you out on a night in Shoreditch, introduce you to some friends. People you don't seem to believe exist, the broke middle class (and sometimes working class) fairies of early gentrification. However you don't sound like you're much fun, so I'll pass. I can live with you not believing me. I don't believe that cities are a constant, deliberate class war. I think cities are a little more complicated than that and change occurs due to a multitude of factors.


 
if you look back at my post 212 you may notice i say 





> there are indeed middle class people who are skint.


 yet you have the gall to say that i don't believe the broke middle class exist. and i didn't say that cities are a constant, deliberate class war.  you lying little shit.


----------



## Reno (Jul 28, 2013)

I see you are swearing at me now. At the end of your rope ?

You lost all credibility for me when you said, as someone who lives in London, that you have never seen a black hipster. So it doesn't strike me that you have much contact with the type of people I am talking about.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 28, 2013)

Reno said:


> I see you are swearing at me now. At the end of your rope ?
> 
> You lost all credibility for me when you said, as someone who lives in London, that you have never seen a black hipster. So it doesn't strike me that you have much contact with the type of people I am talking about.


 
i'm by no means at the end of my rope, i am simply describing you as i see you - you claim i have said something i in fact haven't, while you say i don't believe something i in fact do. it's clear from your posts that there aren't all that many black hipsters in comparison to the number of white ones: certainly the number of black hipsters i've seen recently is but a small proportion of the number of white ones.


----------



## Reno (Jul 28, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> i'm by no means at the end of my rope, i am simply describing you as i see you


 
Thanks, the feeling is mutual



Pickman's model said:


> - you claim i have said something i in fact haven't, while you say i don't believe something i in fact do.


However you separated that from the context I made that statement, so your agreement is worthless in regard to the discussion.



Pickman's model said:


> it's clear from your posts that there aren't all that many black hipsters in comparison to the number of white ones: certainly the number of black hipsters i've seen recently is but a small proportion of the number of white ones.


 
It's really not that complicated, is it:


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 28, 2013)

Reno said:


> Thanks, the feeling is mutual
> 
> 
> However you separated that from the context I made that statement, so your agreement is worthless in regard to the discussion.
> ...


yet you say that i lost all credibility with you when i reported not having seen some people who - by your own admission here - are rare.


----------



## Reno (Jul 28, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> yet you say that i lost all credibility with you when i reported not having seen some people who - by your own admission here - are rare.


 
Only as rare as black people are when compared to white people. They are not that rare where hipsters hang out. As you were contributing to a hipster thread, I thought you would have seen a few in their natural habitat.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 28, 2013)

Reno said:


> Only as rare as black people are when compared to white people. They are not that rare where hipsters hang out. As you were contributing to a hipster thread, I thought you would have seen a few in their natural habitat.


dalston has a fair proportion of black people within it. it's not like somewhere in the back of beyond in which the appearance of black people is a noteworthy event. yet black hipsters here are rare. why is that?


----------



## Reno (Jul 28, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> dalston has a fair proportion of black people within it. it's not like somewhere in the back of beyond in which the appearance of black people is a noteworthy event. yet black hipsters here are rare. why is that?


 
I was in Brick Lane yesterday. Plenty of hipsters of all races there. Dalston is where hipsters move when they can't afford Shoreditch and there are a few bars here and there, but you generally don't see hipsters en masse along the Kingsland Rd. like you do in Brick Lane.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 28, 2013)

Reno said:


> I was in Brick Lane yesterday. Plenty of hipsters of all races there. Dalston is where hipsters move when they can't afford Shoreditch and there are a few bars here and there, but you generally don't see hipsters en masse along the Kingsland Rd. like you do in Brick Lane.


 
it's bad enough seeing them move in many small groups along not only kingsland road but kingsland high street too.


----------



## Reno (Jul 28, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> it's bad enough seeing them move in many small groups along not only kingsland road but kingsland high street too.


 
Then you should maybe get your eyes checked.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 28, 2013)

Reno said:


> Then you should maybe get your eyes checked.


 
if that would make them disappear then i would


----------



## Reno (Jul 28, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> if that would make them disappear then i would


 
More proof that you don't engage with the people I was talking about. Here is a couple of hipsters I know, neither of them white:

_Photo of non-caucasion hipsters, now replaced with generic kitten pic for privacy reasons. Pickman has now laid eyes on his first black hipster. It was a grand occasion. _


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 28, 2013)

Reno said:


> More proof that you don't engage with the people I was talking about. Here is a couple of hipsters I know, neither of them white:


it's another strawman: i have nowhere said i do engage with hipsters, although i regularly encounter them through my work. i have not the slightest desire to go out down shoreditch which the council has - to its shame - allowed to ascend into a vile mess.


----------



## Reno (Jul 28, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> it's another strawman: i have nowhere said i do engage with hipsters, although i regularly encounter them through my work. i have not the slightest desire to go out down shoreditch which the council has - to its shame - allowed to ascend into a vile mess.


 
I know, people like the ones I posted a pic of are a vile menace. You just stay home with your cup of tea.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 28, 2013)

Reno said:


> I know, people like the ones I posted a pic of are a vile menace. You just stay home with your cup of tea.


given i don't drink i don't suppose i'd much enjoy an evening out with them, watching them get smashed. people who drink are boring if you're sober. but they don't look like vile menaces to me. if they do to you should be you stopping in with some cocoa.


----------



## pissflaps (Jul 28, 2013)

i do hope you asked those chaps if you could stick their pic up and they were ok with it.


----------



## Reno (Jul 28, 2013)

pissflaps said:


> i do hope you asked those chaps if you could stick their pic up and they were ok with it.


 
I wasn't planning to leave it up for long. It's a pic that got published in a free magazine, so it's already in the public domain. I'll take it down soon though.


----------



## pissflaps (Jul 28, 2013)

ah ok. fair do's then.

and fuck off PM - i have you on ignore but that doesn't mean i have to like you liking my posts.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 28, 2013)

pissflaps said:


> ah ok. fair do's then.
> 
> and fuck off PM - i have you on ignore but that doesn't mean i have to like you liking my posts.


 
some sort of strange psych trick to get more likes, i suppose


----------



## George & Bill (Jul 28, 2013)

pissflaps said:


> ^ pretty much this.


 
Except that it's very clear what the central hipster trait is, and what people dislike about it: it's the corralling of all of what used to be symbols of cultural or economic marginality - punk, geek, hippy, trucker, biker, skater, soldier, any number of 'ethnic' identities, tramp, junkie &c&c&c, into the cultural and economic mainstream - the appropriation of subcultural markers by people who in fact aim, and are able, to exist within the mainstream of the culture. People object to this on a number of grounds. First, it's the attempt to have cake and eat it: why should you be able to enjoy the cool of subcultural identity without experiencing the cultural and or economic marginalisaiton that goes along with it? Then there's the loss of cultural information that's suffered during the above process. Then there's the doubtful taste of the culturally and economically secure ironically aping identities that often emerged in response to quite painful and difficult circumstances. Perhaps most profoundly, the problem lies in the fact that the superficial aesthetic diversification of mainstream culture undermines the ability of marginalised groups to construct meaningful visual identities.


----------



## pissflaps (Jul 28, 2013)

some good points - however you are begging the question. It isn't clear what the central hipster trait is - i think this thread goes some way to making that patently obvious.

/or indeed if 'hipsters' even exist.


----------



## tangerinedream (Jul 28, 2013)

Are them kids you see about who dress like they are in an Enid Blighton novel hipsters or are they just very middle class?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 28, 2013)

tangerinedream said:


> Are them kids you see about who dress like they are in an Enid Blighton novel hipsters or are they just very middle class?


Yes


----------



## Stigmata (Jul 28, 2013)

tangerinedream said:


> Are them kids you see about who dress like they are in an Enid Blighton novel hipsters or are they just very middle class?


 
They're just well dressed


----------



## tangerinedream (Jul 28, 2013)

Stigmata said:


> They're just well dressed


 

Well dressed for the 1950s. With quirky glasses.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Jul 28, 2013)

slowjoe said:


> *Perhaps most profoundly, the problem lies in the fact that the superficial aesthetic diversification of mainstream culture undermines the ability of marginalised groups to construct meaningful visual identities.*


 

Can you explain this a bit more?


----------



## George & Bill (Jul 29, 2013)

pissflaps said:


> some good points - however you are begging the question. It isn't clear what the central hipster trait is - i think this thread goes some way to making that patently obvious.
> 
> /or indeed if 'hipsters' even exist.


 
Begging the question how, please? By 'trait', are you hoping to find some physical attribute that a hipster must posses, like a waxed mustache? For me, a trait can be the stripping of visual language of its cultural meaning, which is what hipsters do. The trait is a later incarnation of the process undergone when 19th Century collectors scoured the world for exotic objects with which to fill their homes and fascinate their friends; those objects lost most of their meaning when they were removed from the contexts in which the languages they spoke, and the ability to interpret them, had emerged. The new owners of the symbols may be uninterested in their meaning or they may be very interested, but either way they are detached from the process by which that meaning came about.


----------



## George & Bill (Jul 29, 2013)

goldenecitrone said:


> Can you explain this a bit more?


 
So, visual language - dress, principally - has always been used by marginal and subcultural groups to communicate (is it is by all groups), as an indication of solidarity, to record and recall histories, etc etc. As with any language, most people using it don't know much or any of the etymology, how the symbolism they deploy came to have its meaning, but they know instinctively how to use it. Traditionally, the dominant elements within any culture have been hostile to competing or alternative systems of meaning (whether visual culture, actual languages, whatever) and tried to suppress or further marginalise them, but this is very difficult to achieve because meaning and visual communication are so subtle, and only the most extreme authoritarians have found the political will to bring to bear quite the force necessary to obliterate them. A better strategy, it has increasingly turned out, has been to take the apparatus - the visual signifiers - by which these acts of subcultural communication are enacted, and duplicate them a thousand fold minus the sequence and grammer needed to render them intelligible, thereby creating what is effectively a deafening wall of cultural white noise.


----------



## editor (Jul 29, 2013)

Like when they stick a hardcore dubstep soundtrack to an advert for a shiny new expensive car.


----------



## ska invita (Jul 29, 2013)

slowjoe said:


> Except that it's very clear what the central hipster trait is, and what people dislike about it: it's the corralling of all of what used to be symbols of cultural or economic marginality - punk, geek, hippy, trucker, biker, skater, soldier, any number of 'ethnic' identities, tramp, junkie &c&c&c, into the cultural and economic mainstream - the appropriation of subcultural markers by people who in fact aim, and are able, to exist within the mainstream of the culture. People object to this on a number of grounds. First, it's the attempt to have cake and eat it: why should you be able to enjoy the cool of subcultural identity without experiencing the cultural and or economic marginalisaiton that goes along with it?


Thats a great definition, the best ive read,and while it does apply to a small group of people i think the reality for lots of others is that they may have the clothes and the smart phone but they dont have the finance, and are in fact still in "economic marginality" <in fact dressing up and acting in a manner which i relate to yuppiedom (pissing around on mobile phones a lot ) is a way of imagining away the precarious economic position they are really in. Agree with Reno on this aspect, they may act as if they are about to make it big in some creative activity or other, but in fact for many, if not a majority, what is around the corner is economic gloom.

In another thread Fozzie Bear made a comparison between Squat Punks and Hipsters - Id be interested to see a comparison of New Romantics and Hipsters - which while i know little about New Romantics, aren't they both just a form of escapism through fashion?


----------



## xenon (Jul 29, 2013)

^ It's this thread. 

Maybe I'm missing what a hipster is. Thought broadly, a knowing arch cultural magpie of sorts. You dig hepcats? Perhaps predominantly middle class, these don't necessarily seem to be the peple at the heart of driving up property prices, not more so than say professional, incomers. A demograph a large number of urbanites would fit.


----------



## ska invita (Jul 29, 2013)

xenon said:


> ^ It's this thread.


 so many hipster/housing threads its hard to keep up


----------



## editor (Jul 29, 2013)

xenon said:


> Maybe I'm missing what a hipster is. Thought broadly, a knowing arch cultural magpie of sorts. You dig hepcats? Perhaps predominantly middle class, these don't necessarily seem to be the peple at the heart of driving up property prices, not more so than say professional, incomers.


Like cupcakes, hipsters doing hipstery things _could_ be seen as the footsoldiers of an impending wave of gentrification in a way that, say, a nest of goths scurrying into an area are unlikely to.


----------



## editor (Jul 29, 2013)

For some reason I just misread this thread as "Hipsters - are they the 2013 version of crack squirrels?"


----------



## TruXta (Jul 29, 2013)

editor said:


> For some reason I just misread this thread as "Hipsters - are they the 2013 version of crack squirrels?"


Slightly mythical, unfairly maligned? Why yes, there's something to that.


----------



## ska invita (Jul 29, 2013)

editor said:


> Like cupcakes, hipsters doing hipstery things _could_ be seen as the footsoldiers of an impending wave of gentrification in a way that, say, a nest of goths scurrying into an area are unlikely to.


could be, but theres gentrification happening all over London with no visible hipsters in sight - areas like Catford and Harlesdon are seeing prices going up a lot, with people who wouldnt normally have bought in those areas buying. Hipsters will go where theres a buzz - it'll be a long time if ever before Catford and Harlesdon have anything to attract them - yet gentrification in those areas will continue unabated. 

Incidentally Camden is one of the most 'desirable' places to live in london - i blame the Goths


----------



## editor (Jul 29, 2013)

TruXta said:


> Slightly mythical, unfairly maligned? Why yes, there's something to that.


You're drawing_ actual, real, serious_ comparisons between fantasy crack squirrels and the claimed 'unfair maligning' of hipsters?

Please say you haven't got a straight face here.

PS Sorry to break the news to you, but crack squirrels aren't "slightly mythical" (whatever that means). They don't exist!


----------



## TruXta (Jul 29, 2013)

editor said:


> You're drawing_ actual, real, serious_ comparisons between fantasy crack squirrels and the claimed 'unfair maligning' of hipsters?
> 
> Please say you haven't got a straight face here.


What do you think?


----------



## editor (Jul 29, 2013)

TruXta said:


> What do you think?


 
Given your track record in this thread, I'm a bit stumped to be honest.


----------



## TruXta (Jul 29, 2013)

editor said:


> Given your track record in this thread, I'm a bit stumped to be honest.


I'll just leave it at that then


----------



## editor (Jul 29, 2013)

slowjoe is the person making the most sense in this rather bizarre thread.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 29, 2013)

Reno said:


> More proof that you don't engage with the people I was talking about. Here is a couple of hipsters I know, neither of them white:
> 
> _Photo of non-caucasion hipsters, now replaced with generic kitten pic for privacy reasons. Pickman has now laid eyes on his first black hipster. It was a grand occasion. _


 
with your edit you continue your unenviable record of utterly ignoring what i've said on this thread: see, for example, my post 217.


----------



## oryx (Jul 29, 2013)

ska invita said:


> could be, but theres gentrification happening all over London with no visible hipsters in sight - areas like Catford and Harlesdon are seeing prices going up a lot, with people who wouldnt normally have bought in those areas buying. Hipsters will go where theres a buzz - it'll be a long time if ever before Catford and Harlesdon have anything to attract them - yet gentrification in those areas will continue unabated.


 
I think you're spot-on there. I once reads somewhere that Victorian terraces + good transport links = potential for gentrification.

Where I live (the Honor Oak Park/Crofton Park area) and where I used to live (Battersea) have never been hipster central but have really gentrified/started to gentrify.


----------



## ska invita (Jul 29, 2013)

oryx said:


> I think you're spot-on there. I once reads somewhere that Victorian terraces + good transport links = potential for gentrification.
> 
> Where I live (the Honor Oak Park/Crofton Park area) and where I used to live (Battersea) have never been hipster central but have really gentrified/started to gentrify.


thats my patch too oryx and agree - east london line has changed everything around this neck of the woods - even places like Shadwell and Wapping are now getting towards posh! But victorian terraces arent essential: basically anywhere in zone 2 on a tube map is going to get a serious dose of gentrification if it hasnt already, and most of zone 3 too.


----------



## George & Bill (Jul 29, 2013)

To expand on what I said before, I think it's important to point out that there's never been a clear dividing line between the culturally and economically marginal 'cultural producers' and what we're calling hipsters - those who appropriate subcultural language for use by those in a position of cultural and economic dominance - in fact, I think the two groups bleed together. Which is not to say that some people don't clearly fall on one side or the other. But there is a wide margin of ambiguity, and a certain measure of mobility from one side of that margin to the other.


----------



## DJWrongspeed (Jul 30, 2013)

As an aside some of the issues are touched upon in this little video about Horkheimer

With regard to the original question the main facet is immigration by young to Hackney. Yes there are certainly parallels with an influx of a certain type changing an area.


----------



## Cowley (Jul 31, 2013)

ska invita said:


> could be, but theres gentrification happening all over London with no visible hipsters in sight - areas like Catford and Harlesdon are seeing prices going up a lot, with people who wouldnt normally have bought in those areas buying. Hipsters will go where theres a buzz - it'll be a long time if ever before Catford and Harlesdon have anything to attract them - yet gentrification in those areas will continue unabated.
> 
> Incidentally Camden is one of the most 'desirable' places to live in london - i blame the Goths


 
I would say in the main, people are only buying in areas like that and other zone 2/3 border areas because Inner City London is now so expensive. Sure, areas like Honor Oak Park will appeal to Families, but I don't think they will ever attract a "Hipster" type crowd for a number of reasons, one being that the "Hipster" type crowds tend to settle around central/inner city london, zone 1/2 areas.

Everybody thinks their areas are improving because House prices continue to rise and a Coffee shop or two springs up, but how many areas are really gentrifying in the true sense of the word or at least gentrifying in the same way certain areas in Boroughs such as Hackney, Islington & Lambeth did in the 80's where a lot of long standing residents were literally dispossessed of their homes.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 31, 2013)

Cowley said:


> how many areas are really gentrifying in the true sense of the word or at least gentrifying in the same way certain areas in Boroughs such as Hackney, Islington & Lambeth did in the 80's where a lot of long standing residents were literally dispossessed of their homes.


things don't happen the same way twice


----------



## Remus Harbank (Jul 31, 2013)

If everyone is a hipster is a hipster still a hipster?

That said here's an interesting article on hipsters


----------



## Cowley (Jul 31, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> things don't happen the same way twice


 
Yes they do, it's not like certain parts of Islington & Hackney or wherever suddenly became desirable places to live in the 80's, things move in cycles, city/urban living goes in and out of trend so to speak.

The Economy dictates gentrification or at least gentrification in it's purest form.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 31, 2013)

Cowley said:


> Yes they do, it's not like certain parts of Islington & Hackney or wherever suddenly became desirable places to live in the 80's, things move in cycles, city/urban living goes in and out of trend so to speak.
> 
> The Economy dictates gentrification or at least gentrification in it's purest form.


let me give you an analogy. there was a war in 1914. there was a war in 1939. both wars were wars: but they were fought differently. so, there was gentrification in the 1960s. there was gentrification in  the 1980s. the 1960s gentrification and the 1980s gentrification were both episodes of gentrification: but they proceeded differently.


----------



## isvicthere? (Jul 31, 2013)

Diamond said:


> But creative doesn't mean very much either.
> 
> Not all creatives are hipsters but all hipsters are probably creatives.



But not all "creatives" are creative.


----------



## isvicthere? (Jul 31, 2013)

killer b said:


> I fucking love hipsters. They look cool, and they irritate absolutely everyone.


----------



## isvicthere? (Jul 31, 2013)

editor said:


> Like when they stick a hardcore dubstep soundtrack to an advert for a shiny new expensive car.



Or use "Spiral scratch" to advertise Sainsbury's.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 31, 2013)

isvicthere? said:


> Or use "Spiral scratch" to advertise Sainsbury's.


----------



## editor (Jul 31, 2013)

Remus Harbank said:


> If everyone is a hipster is a hipster still a hipster?
> 
> That said here's an interesting article on hipsters


Interesting indeed: 


> “Hipsters manage to attract a loathing unique in its intensity. Critics have described the loosely defined group as smug, full of contradictions and, ultimately, the dead end of Western civilization.” Dan Fletcher, Time Magazine
> 
> “Instead of “doing art” the cool kids are “doing products”.


----------



## ska invita (Jul 31, 2013)

Cowley said:


> Everybody thinks their areas are improving because House prices continue to rise and a Coffee shop or two springs up, but how many areas are really gentrifying in the true sense of the word or at least gentrifying in the same way certain areas in Boroughs such as Hackney, Islington & Lambeth did in the 80's where a lot of long standing residents were literally dispossessed of their homes.


i take your point, but id say all of them, as rents will climb and climb and people who cant afford the hikes move, and people who owned property in the area for year sell up to cash in - inevitably the make up the people changes. SOmeone else said it on maybe this thread or another one, but we're moving to a situation like Paris - rich in the middle, the rest pushed to the suburbs.

It will take time though, and youer right, a couple of coffee shops does not full on gentrification make. My fear is I see no end to the rise of housing costs, ans the causes of those rises show no sign of ending.


----------



## Remus Harbank (Jul 31, 2013)

ska invita said:


> i take your point, but id say all of them, as rents will climb and climb and people who cant afford the hikes move, and people who owned property in the area for year sell up to cash in - inevitably the make up the people changes. SOmeone else said it on maybe this thread or another one, but we're moving to a situation like Paris - rich in the middle, the rest pushed to the suburbs.It will take time though, and your right, a couple of coffee shops does not full on gentrification make. My fear is I see no end to the rise of housing costs, ans the causes of those rises show no sign of ending.


i wouldn't worry too much about gentrification – the way things are going economically all that inherited baby boomer money will dry up eventually. housing costs will come down, but unfortunately in tandem with rapidly deteriorating living standards for everyone bar the top 0.1%. (The bottom 99.9% include ‘hipsters’ – expect lots of faded tattooery and sellotaped black rims, torn skinny jeans, and beards that look less waxed/groomed and more wild.)

In general hipsters are the same phenomenon as 1980s yuppies, only without the hedgefund gilded future.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 31, 2013)

Remus Harbank said:


> i wouldn't worry too much about gentrification – the way things are going economically all that inherited baby boomer money will dry up eventually. housing costs will come down, but unfortunately in tandem with rapidly deteriorating living standards for everyone bar the top 0.1%. (The bottom 99.9% include ‘hipsters’ – expect lots of faded tattooery and sellotaped black rims, torn skinny jeans, and beards that look less waxed/groomed and more wild.)
> 
> In general hipsters are the same phenomenon as 1980s yuppies, only without the hedgefund gilded future.


it is difficult to see how housing costs will come down when a) people who've bought to let still need to pay their mortgage and b) so much of london is owned by absentee landlords. incidentally, yuppies in the 1980s were firmly part of the 99.9%, but not everyone in the 99.9% is a decent human being.


----------



## Cowley (Jul 31, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> let me give you an analogy. there was a war in 1914. there was a war in 1939. both wars were wars: but they were fought differently. so, there was gentrification in the 1960s. there was gentrification in the 1980s. the 1960s gentrification and the 1980s gentrification were both episodes of gentrification: but they proceeded differently.


 
Yeah point taken, the cause and effect.


----------



## discokermit (Jul 31, 2013)

Remus Harbank said:


> In general hipsters are the same phenomenon as 1980s yuppies, only without the hedgefund gilded future.


nah. nowhere near.

if anything, it looks more like very early mod.
it's hard to look at some of the pictures without thinking about the narrator in 'absolute beginners' talking about his flourescent pink socks.


----------



## editor (Jul 31, 2013)

discokermit said:


> if anything, it looks more like very early mod.
> it's hard to look at some of the pictures without thinking about the narrator in 'absolute beginners' talking about his flourescent pink socks.


The hipster scene has very few parallels with mod culture. Apart from maybe the socks (if the hipster is not mankling).


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 31, 2013)

discokermit said:


> nah. nowhere near.
> 
> if anything, it looks more like very early mod.
> it's hard to look at some of the pictures without thinking about the narrator in 'absolute beginners' talking about his flourescent pink socks.


and thinking of the young patsy kensit and the dire turns her later career took


----------



## discokermit (Jul 31, 2013)

editor said:


> The hipster scene has very few parallels with mod culture. Apart from maybe the socks (if the hipster is not mankling).


not mod culture as it developed in the mid sixties, more the sort of proto mod scene of the late fifties/very early sixties. middle class, clothes obsessed, art school, into obscure music and posing, aspirational, fairly apolitical (at least consciously), cultural magpies.


----------



## discokermit (Jul 31, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> and thinking of the young patsy kensit and the dire turns her later career took


ugh. the film was an abomination. i was referring to the book.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 31, 2013)

discokermit said:


> ugh. the film was an abomination. i was referring to the book.


i know. but the book brings to mind the film and the film brings to mind the young patsy kensit.


----------



## discokermit (Jul 31, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> i know. but the book brings to mind the film and the film brings to mind the young patsy kensit.


you need to break those links. the book should never bring to mind the film. only a huge pile of steaming excrement should ever bring to mind the film.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 31, 2013)

discokermit said:


> you need to break those links. the book should never bring to mind the film. only a huge pile of steaming excrement should ever bring to mind the film.


i didn't realise you had such strong feelings on the subject


----------



## discokermit (Jul 31, 2013)

Pickman's model said:


> i didn't realise you had such strong feelings on the subject


very strong.


----------



## magneze (Aug 1, 2013)

Q: Why did the hipster burn himself on his pizza?
A: He ate it before it was cool.

http://lookatmyfuckingredtrousers.blogspot.co.uk/2012/11/hipsters-on-beach.html


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Aug 1, 2013)

discokermit said:


> clothes obsessed, art school, into obscure music and posing, aspirational, fairly apolitical (at least consciously), cultural magpies.


Well that's not very unique is it? I don't know at what period in history there hasn't been a scene like that. Certainly not while I've been alive.


----------



## George & Bill (Aug 2, 2013)

editor said:


> Like when they stick a hardcore dubstep soundtrack to an advert for a shiny new expensive car.


 
Except that something like dubstep had started its journey from subcultural language to mainstream commodity long before it was used to sell Fiat Puntos or whatever - you could probably argue that it was a process of cultural expropriation from the very outset, in as much as it drew on cultural language ultimately emerging from very poor communities in the Caribbean, up through initially somewhat poor but increasingly affluent layers of the London party/club scene, all the while en route to the car advert and beyond - with the extent of economic pay-off being in direct proportion to how far along that process one manages to stay involved (which broadly also mean, how rich you were already to start off with). The fact that you listened to dubstep in south London in 2002 doesn't make you (I mean one, nothing personal) some sort of perfectly authentic cultural originator, any more than listening to it in east London in 2011, or on aforsaid car advert in 2013, makes you an irredeemable cultural parasite; in this way, the gentrification of culture works in the same insidious fashion as the gentrification of space, co-opting successive swathes of the population with the promise of handing up to them what it has robbed from the cultural-economic layer directly below, only, inevitably, to snatch it back when comes time to continue the process.


----------



## George & Bill (Aug 2, 2013)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Well that's not very unique is it? I don't know at what period in history there hasn't been a scene like that. Certainly not while I've been alive.


 
This is a correct observation - although to point out that ostensibly 'contemporary' cultural phenomena are in fact substantially the same as others that have long existed is, arguably, not an original observation. But one worth renewing.


----------



## Hollis (Aug 2, 2013)

A mate of mine has written a dissertation on 'Hipster culture and masculine identity'.  I told him he was a wanker merely for writing such a thing.. anyway.. might try to give it a read if he'll let me.


----------



## oryx (Aug 2, 2013)

Hollis said:


> A mate of mine has written a dissertation on 'Hipster culture and masculine identity'. I told him he was a wanker merely for writing such a thing.. anyway.. might try to give it a read if he'll let me.


 
  should get hissen down t'pit or summat <Yorkshire speak>


----------



## George & Bill (Aug 3, 2013)

oryx said:


> should get hissen down t'pit or summat <Yorkshire speak>


 
'Sen' would be East Midlands, no?


----------



## oryx (Aug 3, 2013)

slowjoe said:


> 'Sen' would be East Midlands, no?


 
'sen' = self - certainly a Yorks expression but may also be East Mids.


----------



## isvicthere? (Aug 3, 2013)

oryx said:


> should get hissen down t'pit or summat <Yorkshire speak>


 
Aye, tha's reet.


----------



## isvicthere? (Aug 3, 2013)

oryx said:


> 'sen' = self - certainly a Yorks expression but may also be East Mids.


 
If tha ever does owt fer anyone, mek sure tha does it fer thi'sen.


----------



## RoyReed (Aug 3, 2013)

Hipster Hitler


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 3, 2013)

RoyReed said:


> Hipster Hitler


 

do I really want to know what the Broseph Stalin comics are about


----------



## RoyReed (Aug 3, 2013)




----------



## RoyReed (Aug 3, 2013)

DotCommunist said:


> do I really want to know what the Broseph Stalin comics are about


I have no idea. Is your question real or ironic?


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 3, 2013)

socratic irony


----------



## isvicthere? (Aug 5, 2013)

It's as if the Guardian had been prompted by urban:-

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/aug/02/london-inequality-house-prices


----------



## editor (Aug 7, 2013)

They're killing the razor blade industry!

Massive drop in razor sales attributed to hairy hipsters, increased stubble in the workplace


----------



## Remus Harbank (Aug 8, 2013)

editor said:


> They're killing the razor blade industry!
> Massive drop in razor sales attributed to hairy hipsters, increased stubble in the workplace


 
so am i, have done for donkeys years. £15 for four quintuple aloe vera strip fusion battery powered blades that go blunt after a couple of uses? All that wasted time in the bathroom? Nah. A shave a week does not make you reek. It's also better for your skin.

Incidentally, many 'hipsters' still shave (they look like they've got a full beard but they do shave below the chin – what's that all about)


----------



## ska invita (Aug 8, 2013)

yeah electric shavers and beard timmers have gotten a lot better these days


----------



## editor (Aug 8, 2013)

Electric shavers suck donkey dick.


----------



## ska invita (Aug 8, 2013)

i used to think that, but new ones really are a lot better


----------



## King Biscuit Time (Aug 8, 2013)

magneze said:


> Q: Why did the hipster burn himself on his pizza?
> A: He ate it before it was cool.
> 
> http://lookatmyfuckingredtrousers.blogspot.co.uk/2012/11/hipsters-on-beach.html


 

One of those hipsters used to post here. I'm saying no more.


----------



## magneze (Aug 9, 2013)

King Biscuit Time said:


> One of those hipsters used to post here. I'm saying no more.


Red trousers?


----------



## Crispy (Aug 9, 2013)

The most over-dressed, moustachioed, big glasses, skinny jeans hipsterist hipster I've ever seen used to be a regular poster on these boards, but I will not shame him.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Aug 9, 2013)

Crispy said:


> The most over-dressed, moustachioed, big glasses, skinny jeans hipsterist hipster I've ever seen used to be a regular poster on these boards, but I will not shame him.


 

Tobyjug?


----------



## King Biscuit Time (Aug 9, 2013)

magneze said:


> Red trousers?


 

I'm saying nowt.


----------



## Hollis (Aug 20, 2013)

Of course from a psycho-analytic perspective.. the whole 'hipster' phenomena is a classic case of cultural 'splitting', ditto 'gentrifiction'. These are all convenient fictions created as a form of defence from the hideousness of our own existences, homes, and in some cases clothes. Oh yes. Ohhh yes..


----------



## ska invita (May 22, 2014)

*BUMP
*
Bumping this as i think its the most recent thread about hipsters

damnNAFTA spotted this interesting short essay http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/14/books/review/Greif-t.html?pagewanted=all which talks about hipsters through the lense of Bourdieau:


> Taste is not stable and peaceful, but a means of strategy and competition. Those superior in wealth use it to pretend they are superior in spirit. Groups closer in social class who yet draw their status from different sources use taste and its attainments to disdain one another and get a leg up. These conflicts for social dominance through culture are exactly what drive the dynamics within communities whose members are regarded as hipsters.


 
and outlines different social classes of hipster, and how they compete with each other:

"Once you take the Bourdieuian view, you can see how hipster neighborhoods are crossroads where young people from different origins, all crammed together, jockey for social gain. One hipster subgroup’s strategy is to disparage others as “liberal arts college grads with too much time on their hands”; the attack is leveled at the children of the upper middle class who move to cities after college with hopes of working in the “creative professions.” These hipsters are instantly declassed, reservoired in abject internships and ignored in the urban hierarchy — but able to use college-taught skills of classification, collection and appreciation to generate a superior body of cultural “cool.”

They, in turn, may malign the “trust fund hipsters.” This challenges the philistine wealthy who, possessed of money but not the nose for culture, convert real capital into “cultural capital” (Bourdieu’s most famous coinage), acquiring subculture as if it were ready-to-wear. (Think of Paris Hilton in her trucker hat.)

Both groups, meanwhile, look down on the couch-surfing, old-clothes-wearing hipsters who seem most authentic but are also often the most socially precarious — the lower-middle-class young, moving up through style, but with no backstop of parental culture or family capital. They are the bartenders and boutique clerks who wait on their well-to-do peers and wealthy tourists. Only on the basis of their cool clothes can they be “superior”: hipster knowledge compensates for economic immobility.

All hipsters play at being the inventors or first adopters of novelties: pride comes from knowing, and deciding, what’s cool in advance of the rest of the world. Yet the habits of hatred and accusation are endemic to hipsters because they feel the weakness of everyone’s position — including their own. Proving that someone is trying desperately to boost himself instantly undoes him as an opponent. He’s a fake, while you are a natural aristocrat of taste. That’s why “He’s not for real, he’s just a hipster” is a potent insult among all the people identifiable as hipsters themselves."

--Im amazed at this competition between different levels of hipsters - is that really true? (edit: not that amazed by class competition obv)

... also got to thinking, in a de-industrialised, knowledge economy, flaunting cultural knowledge to get status becomes much more prevalent than it would've been in the past


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (May 22, 2014)

Since this thread was posted I've been classified as a hipster.

For going to watch Dulwich Hamlet, wearing glasses and standing next to beardy types like Scutta.

The 'wearing glasses' part was my favourite. Check me out with my super-fashionable ability to see.


----------



## Scutta (May 22, 2014)

Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> Since this thread was posted I've been classified as a hipster.
> 
> For going to watch Dulwich Hamlet, wearing glasses and standing next to beardy types like Scutta.
> 
> The 'wearing glasses' part was my favourite. Check me out with my super-fashionable ability to see.



Yeh…. It seems everyone is a hipster these days… if you have a particular passionate interest in something then people will call you a hipster for it or a lot of the time just if someones younger than you….. if you have a beard you’re even more fucked…….. it just seems like a bit of a catchall …… I had to make a decision as I put on quite a bit of weight do I want my beard and  risked being called a hipster or  do I want to look a cross between Earthworm Jim and Uncle Buck.  


But really I just liked Metal since I was a kid and still do now, so as I am old enough and can the beard was a natural choice cos a beard to me was heavy metal…..(plus my earthworm jim turkey neck syndrome needed to be covered up) .. not for much else…. I used to moan about hipsters but now apparently I am one, might as well embrace being called it rather than pissed off as Im still just going to carry on as if im 14 though and listen to Slayer and drink buckfast…


----------



## FridgeMagnet (May 22, 2014)

Having an iPhone is enough to make you a "hipster" on Urban. Or just being under 35, or having hair.


----------



## Fozzie Bear (May 22, 2014)

ska invita said:


> ... also got to thinking, in a de-industrialised, knowledge economy, flaunting cultural knowledge to get status becomes much more prevalent than it would've been in the past


 
I think that's exactly right. You certainly saw a lot of bloggers jostling for position to find the next big thing in dance music in the noughties (or to reappraise something from the past). This, from people who desperately wanted to be seen a "with it", i.e. cool, i.e. worth employing as a journalist or similar.


----------



## ska invita (May 22, 2014)

in fact thinking about it a bit more, in a knowledge economy, knowledge is highly valued which maybe is the reason we see people wearing glasses who dont need them (as glasses are traditionally a signifier of bookishness), and even Nerd and Geek tshirts at Primark









so yeah, sorry MO, those glasses are a dead giveaway!


----------



## Winot (Jun 23, 2014)

"I hope hipsters aren't dead, because I just signed a year lease on my flat."


----------



## Crispy (Jun 24, 2014)

ska invita said:


> Bourdieuian


Vowelmageddon!


----------



## RoyReed (Jun 25, 2014)

> "Normcore moves away from a coolness that relies on difference to a post-authenticity that opts into sameness."


FFS


----------



## flypanam (Jun 25, 2014)

Don't mind them myself but when phrases like "It just feels so real" as in the Guardian piece are used I start to wonder/worry about the person using it. In their mind is London just some sort of cultural playground, where nothing really matters or being poor is just a post university play? There really is a disconnection there.


----------



## Winot (Aug 25, 2014)

The ideal city includes "entire neighbourhoods designed around hipster economics". Interesting article by Paul Mason (not all about hipsters). 

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/aug/25/10-things-a-perfect-city-needs


----------



## Belushi (Aug 25, 2014)

> In the ideal form, these areas are home both to hipsters and ethnically diverse poor communities, who refrain from fighting each other.



Hmmm


----------



## editor (Aug 25, 2014)

Meanwhile, in the real world, staff of some bars and clubs are forced to endlessly shift from squat to squat as they struggle to stay in the city.


----------



## ska invita (Aug 25, 2014)

Worth remembering hipsters arent to blame for a rise in the cost of housing - all of London and all the home counties have seen a huge increase, hipsters or no hipsters.


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Aug 25, 2014)

Elsewhere on that there Internet, there has been talk of the whole Brunch Rock thing, and how Brunchers have effectively replaced hipsters in e.g. NYC - the wave of Brunchers inhabiting gentrified districts keys in with the hyper-gentrification of New York, and certainly on the revanchist tip, you can see a lot of parallels with London, I reckon.   This article, written by a native NYC-er, is informative (albeit depressing) reading: http://vanishingnewyork.blogspot.co.uk/2014/03/on-spike-lee-hyper-gentrification.html

As for the London Brunch scene, the hipster hotspots of Hoxton, Shoreditch et al haven't quite yet experienced the first wave of Brunch, but certainly Soho is Brunching pretty hard right now - in fact, Phonica Records on Poland Street is pretty much the Brunch hub du jour.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Aug 25, 2014)

The thing is that it takes five seconds for anything to be appropriated nowadays, with battalions of media scouts scouring the net for anything that looks remotely unusual, so that it can be exploited. If you have a creative idea nowadays and you're not already rich you're probably better off keeping it off the internet, because next thing you know your project will have a brief spurt of support and then some cunt will buy where you live and sell it off for flats at three grand a month.


----------



## Pickman's model (Aug 25, 2014)

ska invita said:


> Worth remembering hipsters arent to blame for a rise in the cost of housing - all of London and all the home counties have seen a huge increase, hipsters or no hipsters.


perhaps not entirely to blame for housing price rises.


----------



## ska invita (Aug 25, 2014)

Pickman's model said:


> perhaps not entirely to blame for housing price rises.


in another global economic time and place you could still have hipsters and their businesses and hang outs  *and* falling house prices... maybe


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Aug 25, 2014)

The conflation of "wealthy middle class people who like to appear trendy" and "hipsters" is not useful here. Though arguably "hipsters" doesn't really mean anything any more - I hereby refuse to use the term any more. Except when I forget and am lazy.


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Aug 25, 2014)

FridgeMagnet said:


> The thing is that it takes five seconds for anything to be appropriated nowadays, with battalions of media scouts scouring the net for anything that looks remotely unusual, so that it can be exploited. If you have a creative idea nowadays and you're not already rich you're probably better off keeping it off the internet, because next thing you know your project will have a brief spurt of support and then some cunt will buy where you live and sell it off for flats at three grand a month.



I know that you're not specifically referring to what came to mind for me when reading your comment, but certainly the The Grosvenor in Stockwell was a great all-over community and creative place, and look what's happened to that


----------



## Dan U (Aug 25, 2014)

So people are going to Phonica Records to buy brunch, not music?


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Aug 25, 2014)

Dan U said:


> So people are going to Phonica Records to buy brunch, not music?



Not brunch the food (though Brunchers obviously partake of that), but Brunch the "music-as-lifestyle" thing (i.e. buying music to deliberately define oneself as, in this case, Brunch).


----------



## Geri (Aug 25, 2014)

I don't get it.


----------



## Dan U (Aug 25, 2014)

Me neither Geri. Brunch is a slightly late breakfast. 

/old


----------



## Blagsta (Aug 25, 2014)

Is this the generation gap everyone used to talk about?  Young people are confusing.


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Aug 25, 2014)

Geri / Dan U - yeah, sorry, I think I should have been much clearer on my first post here, so I'll try to clarify as best as I can:  The whole Brunch Rock thing started off as a discussion on bands that Brunchers (as opposed to hipsters) enjoyed listening to, especially at the brunching hours - the sort of thing that would normally last about 10 minutes maximum.  The discussion then moved to the whole thing of certain people making a lifestyle out of going to brunch (hence the Brunchers term) and their associated general lifestyle trends (as observed in NYC and London, for example), the socio-economic standing of Brunchers, and in turn their effective contribution/role etc in the gentrification/hyper-gentrification of places such as NYC.  The whole thing of "doing Brunch" is not about actually having brunch per se, but the adoption of a particular lifestyle (kinda like the oft-told story in times past of someone attempting to be the ultimate hipster).  As FridgeMagnet accurately pointed out, there is a clear distinction between hipsters and Brunchers (not least for socio-economic reasons).

I hope, at least, I have made things at least a little bit clearer (though I suspect I may well not have done!)


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Aug 25, 2014)

Blagsta said:


> Is this the generation gap everyone used to talk about?  Young people are confusing.



Given my age, general bewilderment etc, I'm one of the last people to know what young people are doing w/regards to lifestyle etc these days!


----------



## goldenecitrone (Aug 25, 2014)

MellySingsDoom said:


> The whole thing of "doing Brunch" is not about actually having brunch per se, but the adoption of a particular lifestyle







MellySingsDoom said:


> (kinda like the oft-told story in times past of someone attempting to be the ultimate hipster).



Oh, that old chestnut.  You're just making this up now, aren't you?


----------



## goldenecitrone (Aug 25, 2014)

I see Suppertons are moving into Hoxton.


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Aug 25, 2014)

goldenecitrone said:


> Oh, that old chestnut.  You're just making this up now, aren't you?



1. As I said, the Brunch lifestyle (as also w/the hipster lifestyle) has certain codes of conduct etc, hence "doing Brunch" (where Brunch is the lifestyle)

2.  Making it up? I wish!  But more seriously, on the whole discussion on Brunch etc, there is definitely (and not dissimilar to hipster-dom) a way of being to the Bruncher.


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Aug 25, 2014)

goldenecitrone said:


> I see Suppertons are moving into Hoxton.



Just looked up Suppertons - and all I can find is Suppertons Farm!  Do I need to look elsewhere?


----------



## goldenecitrone (Aug 25, 2014)

MellySingsDoom said:


> Just looked up Suppertons - and all I can find is Suppertons Farm!  Do I need to look elsewhere?



The fish bars of Hoxton town. Although, a lot of it's gone underground these days. Especially around Billingsgate.


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Aug 25, 2014)

goldenecitrone said:


> The fish bars of Hoxton town.



Ah, thanks for that.  I went to the Red Gallery recently, but didn't spot that, as it goes.  Will keep an eye out for that next time I'm in that part of the world.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Aug 30, 2014)

In Walthamstow we've got the 'teasers' people who do afternoon tea together, mostly middle class women on maternity leave but increasingly men and women who work from home meet for afternoon tea between 3.30 and 5.30 in local trendy cafés


----------

