Rebellion or something.

[Doktor Howl]

But check it-- for social change, hipsters adopting the protest means that the issue is NORMALISED. The idea of a hipster adopting gay rights prior to 1969 is hard to imagine. When hipsters adopt a protest, that protest has become SAFE. And when it is SAFE and NORMAL, it's only a small step towards acceptance.

So hipster adaptation of protest is a bellwether of change in the larger society.

An excellent point.  Hipsters are the polar opposite of punk...They won't touch ANYTHING that isn't safe.

[Q. G. Pennyworth]

To speak to the Scientology thing briefly:

More than 1,500 ex-scientologists have chosen to speak out about the shit that went down while they were in the church as a direct result of the protests outside the Orgs. We have no idea how many people left because of them, but I've made good friends with several people who would have stayed in a bad situation without the protesters. The media is now able to print negative stories about Scientology without fear of insane lawsuits as a direct result of the protests. The Freewinds had insanely dangerous blue asbestos professionally removed only in 2008 after being shamed by, again, protesters. Due to the nature of asbestos, we will not know how many lives were put in danger over the decades they knowingly operated a ship with the most deadly form of asbestos all over the fuck place, or how many lives were saved by finally taking it out.

I know most people aren't aware of all that shit, and that's okay because they don't need to. Scientology was a dumbfuck problem that needed dumbfuck action to deal with it, and everyone else should really worry about other shit. Just don't go telling me protests aren't effective because you haven't taken the time to educate yourself.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

But check it-- for social change, hipsters adopting the protest means that the issue is NORMALISED. The idea of a hipster adopting gay rights prior to 1969 is hard to imagine. When hipsters adopt a protest, that protest has become SAFE. And when it is SAFE and NORMAL, it's only a small step towards acceptance.

So hipster adaptation of protest is a bellwether of change in the larger society.

I would really like people to start thinking a little more critically about the word "hipster" and the people it's used to describe.

In general, I consider it a lazy pejorative. It's a mindless categorization that doesn't mean a fucking thing. To look at you, you're a hipster, LMNO. So am I.

[tyrannosaurus vex]

But check it-- for social change, hipsters adopting the protest means that the issue is NORMALISED. The idea of a hipster adopting gay rights prior to 1969 is hard to imagine. When hipsters adopt a protest, that protest has become SAFE. And when it is SAFE and NORMAL, it's only a small step towards acceptance.

So hipster adaptation of protest is a bellwether of change in the larger society.

I would really like people to start thinking a little more critically about the word "hipster" and the people it's used to describe.

In general, I consider it a lazy pejorative. It's a mindless categorization that doesn't mean a fucking thing. To look at you, you're a hipster, LMNO. So am I.

I think the general-consensus PD-based definition of "hipster" is a known quantity, and language that might be too vague to use somewhere else is sort of taken in stride here. I'd never call anyone a "damn dirty hipster" outside of this forum and my workplace, but only because everyone sort of has a culture-based idea of what the word means in context.

You're right about pinning down definitions with critical thought, though. When I say "hipster" here it means a different thing than when I say it at work. Both are pejorative though, and both of them often include those hats that aren't really fedoras but people call them fedoras anyway.

[Doktor Howl]

But check it-- for social change, hipsters adopting the protest means that the issue is NORMALISED. The idea of a hipster adopting gay rights prior to 1969 is hard to imagine. When hipsters adopt a protest, that protest has become SAFE. And when it is SAFE and NORMAL, it's only a small step towards acceptance.

So hipster adaptation of protest is a bellwether of change in the larger society.

I would really like people to start thinking a little more critically about the word "hipster" and the people it's used to describe.

In general, I consider it a lazy pejorative. It's a mindless categorization that doesn't mean a fucking thing. To look at you, you're a hipster, LMNO. So am I.

I have something specific in mind when I think of that word.  And neither one of you qualify.

You both have very strong beliefs.  Neither one of you is looking to be some fucking guru over the next big thing, at the expense of that next big thing.

Shitty Italian shoes and Brad Pitt hats don't make the hipster.

[Anna Mae Bollocks]

But check it-- for social change, hipsters adopting the protest means that the issue is NORMALISED. The idea of a hipster adopting gay rights prior to 1969 is hard to imagine. When hipsters adopt a protest, that protest has become SAFE. And when it is SAFE and NORMAL, it's only a small step towards acceptance.

So hipster adaptation of protest is a bellwether of change in the larger society.

I would really like people to start thinking a little more critically about the word "hipster" and the people it's used to describe.

In general, I consider it a lazy pejorative. It's a mindless categorization that doesn't mean a fucking thing. To look at you, you're a hipster, LMNO. So am I.

I have something specific in mind when I think of that word.  And neither one of you qualify.

You both have very strong beliefs.  Neither one of you is looking to be some fucking guru over the next big thing, at the expense of that next big thing.

Shitty Italian shoes and Brad Pitt hats don't make the hipster.

Yeah.

They don't fit the "I don't care what ANYBODY thinks and to PROVE it I'll wear ugly-ass grandpa shoes and listen to what Pitchfork says I'm supposed to like" thing.

[Chelagoras The Boulder]

This discussion got off the track of my original statement, which was that the Protest Culture™ is largely ineffective in the West. I was not talking about actual protests/riots that have overtaken a number of countries around the planet and resulted in at least some kind of deviation from the established norms in those countries. I was talking specifically about what it means to protest in the West, specifically in America.

And what I was saying was that here, where things are relatively comfortable for most people, protests are pretty harmless to the status quo. Occupy has done absolutely nothing to threaten Big Money, or really even to spread meaningful awareness of the problems caused and exacerbated by the financial industry. Throngs of people in Wisconsin didn't stop Governor Brown from sticking it to unions. In Texas massive protests failed to garner the support of anyone who wasn't already on the protesters' side, or impede the advancement of the draconian laws on their agenda. Anonymous has been known to take a web page offline for a day or two, and seriously annoy a handful Scientologists, but beyond that I'm not sure exactly what it is they're accomplishing.

It isn't that protests are inherently powerless, it's that they are now a known entity and as such the status quo can stay out of their reach. A protest is just a lot of people stinking up a park for a while, as far as anyone in power is concerned. Protests can't last forever, and even if they could, who cares? A permanent street fair isn't going to hurt anything. To be successful, a mass protest must be a display of popular force, not popular sentiment. That doesn't mean rioting or property damage is necessary, but you've got to do more than just show up with a picket sign and chant slogans. Organized civil disobedience is a form of protest that goes a long way toward making a difference, for example.

I'm just saying that as long as there are so many people more interested in identifying themselves as subversive than in actually subverting anything, their squawking is mostly harmless. And any movement that gives people a venue to vent their frustration will be allowed, and even encouraged, so long as that movement remains ineffective at really upsetting the social order. Anonymous manufacturing their most recognizable symbol in a sweatshop isn't the problem, but it's symbolic of a situation where identifying yourself as an agent of change is culturally equivalent to actually being an agent of change.

So you're moving your goalposts again, this time to declare that protesting in the West, specifically, has no effect.

And you're choosing to ignore the many, many examples I posted of cultural and political change that were brought on through protest and activism why, exactly?

Not moving goalposts. You're the one who decided I was talking about protests worldwide when from the beginning that was not the case. I was specifically talking about protesters in the West being more concerned with joining a subculture than actually protesting anything.

This discussion got off the track of my original statement, which was that the Protest Culture™ is largely ineffective in the West. I was not talking about actual protests/riots that have overtaken a number of countries around the planet and resulted in at least some kind of deviation from the established norms in those countries. I was talking specifically about what it means to protest in the West, specifically in America.

Again, do you think the right for Gays to marry just happened?  Or the right for them to not have the shit kicked out of them with a wink and a nod from the legal system just appeared?

That's one example.  I can name a lot of others.

No, but I'm not convinced it was protests that got that done. Protests were part of it, maybe, but I think most of the progress in that area specifically came from a cultural shift at the lowest levels. The LGBTQ community was portrayed positively in media on a large scale; gays began to tell their stories and share their experiences and come out of the closet in larger numbers; almost everyone in the country can say they have a gay friend, relative, or coworker. It wasn't Gay Pride parades or picket signs that changed America's mind, it was forcing people to account for the way they personally treated others that caused a huge shift in popular sentiment.

You seem to be wilfully overlooking the fact that the cultural shift happened in the first place because of queers refusing to stay hidden, ie. protesting. Are you familiar with the Stonewall Riots?

I am incredulous that you don't think protests, Pride parades, etc. were influential in shifting general public attitudes to gays towards acceptance. Absolutely just WTF.

I think you are digging in your heels, and the thing is, not only are you wrong, you are documentably, demonstrably wrong.

The Stonewall Riots and pride parades weren't and aren't inconsequential, they're just not the most important or most influential source of the changing popular perception of gays. Those attitudes didn't even start changing until 20 years after the Stonewall Riots, and while they have changed as a result of LGBTQ people protesting, it was protest in the truest sense of the word: refusing to be the subject of abuse and mistreatment by the system; acts of civil disobedience and firmly claiming and defending one's dignity. This is not the sense of protesting I'm talking about and I think I've repeated that quite a few times. I'm not talking about civil disobedience, I'm talking about showing up at a rally to wave a flag or chant something instead of actually doing anything, and the tendency to accept that kind of frivolous "protest" as all that really needs to happen to instigate change.

Why is wanting to belong to a subculture so bad? And hasn't that always been the case in every movement? Some Punks were in it to piss off their parents, some hippies were in it for the drugs and the sex, and some beatniks just looked REALLY good in berets. It's not that having these sorts of individuals is a new thing, its that the news media focuses on them as a more convenient  and entertaining narrative to help spin protests into something that can be either laughed at or ignored.

as for what really needs to be done, I think one thing that needs to be addressed is expectations. Rebels get all excited to riot in the streets and then get disappointed when all their catharsis results in them having nothing but a bunch of broken windows and a police record. Sometimes, effective movements have to be prepared to do boring things like coalition building and legislative lobbying in order to win small reasonable victories over a long period of time.

also this:http://www.cracked.com/video_18560_why-its-time-to-stop-calling-everything-hipster.html

[Left]

I think the LGBTIQQ rights battle may actually be won in my lifetime...though Transsexual/Transgender people still either get the back of the bus or chucked under it...and if you ever want to be properly outraged about what happens to intersex babies, please read "As Nature made him,"  by John Colapinto.

I came out in '92...we've come a long way.

[LMNO]

Nigel, you're right-- I was using a lazy pejorative as shorthand in order to make my point. The person I was talking about was the kind of person who uses protest as a fashion accessory. I should not have used the word "hipster".

[Salty]

So, the feeling I get is that this is less about the usefulness of protests, and more about how people choose to accessories their rebellion against a perceived status quo.

Or the perceived meaning behind the manner in which people dress in regard to protesting the status quo.

Basically, the point I'm getting is: our pitiful sense of rebellion should be more authentically accessorIzod. To fit the stankard of a proper rebellion. Or something.

What I do know is that LMNO and Nigel are indeed total fucking hipsters.

Not this kid though, nope, nuh uh.

Anyway,  the next time I see someone on a GF mask instead of gap clothes and a glassy eyed, slack jaw that speaks of many hours of watching TV, I will be sure to let that ffucking Hipster piece of shit know his efforts are worthless.

[Salty]

I mean, check my ass if I have misunderstood something, but "HEY quit making discontent fashionable, I'm trying to do nothing over here and you look silly." is just about the lamest battle cry ever.

ETA: SOMETHING SOMETHING REALLY REAL FOR REAL REBELS AGAINST TYRANNY ROOL, GUY FAWKES MASKS DROOL.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

But check it-- for social change, hipsters adopting the protest means that the issue is NORMALISED. The idea of a hipster adopting gay rights prior to 1969 is hard to imagine. When hipsters adopt a protest, that protest has become SAFE. And when it is SAFE and NORMAL, it's only a small step towards acceptance.

So hipster adaptation of protest is a bellwether of change in the larger society.

I would really like people to start thinking a little more critically about the word "hipster" and the people it's used to describe.

In general, I consider it a lazy pejorative. It's a mindless categorization that doesn't mean a fucking thing. To look at you, you're a hipster, LMNO. So am I.

I have something specific in mind when I think of that word.  And neither one of you qualify.

You both have very strong beliefs.  Neither one of you is looking to be some fucking guru over the next big thing, at the expense of that next big thing.

Shitty Italian shoes and Brad Pitt hats don't make the hipster.

So... how can you tell by looking at someone that they're a hipster, or not a hipster? Because I don't mean to be a dick (I just can't help it) but the language of "I don't mean you, I mean other people, you're one of the good ones" makes me pretty uncomfortable, in general.

I mean, as far as I can tell the only thing that really distinguishes a "hipster" from anyone else is that they aren't rednecks or backwards-mesh-cap-wearing Abercrombie & Fitch drones. And you can't tell a person's ideology by looking.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Why is wanting to belong to a subculture so bad? And hasn't that always been the case in every movement? Some Punks were in it to piss off their parents, some hippies were in it for the drugs and the sex, and some beatniks just looked REALLY good in berets. It's not that having these sorts of individuals is a new thing, its that the news media focuses on them as a more convenient  and entertaining narrative to help spin protests into something that can be either laughed at or ignored.

as for what really needs to be done, I think one thing that needs to be addressed is expectations. Rebels get all excited to riot in the streets and then get disappointed when all their catharsis results in them having nothing but a bunch of broken windows and a police record. Sometimes, effective movements have to be prepared to do boring things like coalition building and legislative lobbying in order to win small reasonable victories over a long period of time.

also this:http://www.cracked.com/video_18560_why-its-time-to-stop-calling-everything-hipster.html

Bingo. This this this.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

But check it-- for social change, hipsters adopting the protest means that the issue is NORMALISED. The idea of a hipster adopting gay rights prior to 1969 is hard to imagine. When hipsters adopt a protest, that protest has become SAFE. And when it is SAFE and NORMAL, it's only a small step towards acceptance.

So hipster adaptation of protest is a bellwether of change in the larger society.

I would really like people to start thinking a little more critically about the word "hipster" and the people it's used to describe.

In general, I consider it a lazy pejorative. It's a mindless categorization that doesn't mean a fucking thing. To look at you, you're a hipster, LMNO. So am I.

I think the general-consensus PD-based definition of "hipster" is a known quantity, and language that might be too vague to use somewhere else is sort of taken in stride here. I'd never call anyone a "damn dirty hipster" outside of this forum and my workplace, but only because everyone sort of has a culture-based idea of what the word means in context.

You're right about pinning down definitions with critical thought, though. When I say "hipster" here it means a different thing than when I say it at work. Both are pejorative though, and both of them often include those hats that aren't really fedoras but people call them fedoras anyway.

It's never been my consensus and the board is littered with plenty of threads demonstrating that.

As far as I can tell, for most people, "hipster" means "anyone I don't like".

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Nigel, you're right-- I was using a lazy pejorative as shorthand in order to make my point. The person I was talking about was the kind of person who uses protest as a fashion accessory. I should not have used the word "hipster".

Thanks, man.