Wait, wait. I must be missing something here. There must be something I just don't understand about cgod's long response. It got a badge and lots of cooing. however it seems to boil down to: 1) some folks shouldn't raise chickens (agreed); 2) some folks don't know what to do once a hen is beyond its egg-laying years (completely understandable); 3) the intersection of "chicken-parenting challenged" and "hipster" is not also the union (again, totally agreed); 4) folks have been using "hipster" to replace "arsehole" or "douche bag" when there are also differences (again, a good point); 5) it makes cgod angry to see the diverse patrons where he works clumped with the people they spent their lives avoiding (oh yes, agreed); 6) Then someone told an old Chris Rock joke from his 1996 HBO special (now it starts to fall apart); 7) This somehow puts 'hipster' into a harsher context as a pejorative (not necessarily a syllogistic conclusion but not necessarily wrong); 8) It also therefore equates 'hipster' with racial slurs, some of the most offensive ones in the English language. (...come again?) 9) Thus it's perfectly fine to throw racist comments around because cgod just proved he can't be a racist. I'm sorry. It doesn't work that way. Where I come from, I walk away from this trash. Now it's staring me in the face. You want to think "hipster" is as bad as wop (we'll take the softest slur in the bunch as an example)? That's cute, but it's wrong. No one lynched any hipsters recently. No one gets denied a job or a mortgage for being a hipster. It's not the same. It's not even close. I am seriously angry that the community favors cgod's remarks. His (there, I said it) white privilege (I'm saying it too) is showing. If you honor that, then you're part of a much larger problem.
I think in this particular comment the community responded in a way that makes sense to me. cgod's original comment was short, curt and to many I would wager offensive, given that it lacked explanation. Two people clicked on this comment's hubwheel to show appreciation. Then, cgod took the time to explain his original comment in a longer, more nuanced and thoughtful way and it received much more positive acknowledgment. I think that's great. I've enjoyed this conversation and while cgod's original comment was, by my estimation, hyperbolic. His thoughts on the use of the word hipster as a pejorative has changed my thinking, and I'm the one that got in to a debate over a year ago with him about this topic. (cgod, I looked and looked for that thread but I cannot find it anywhere). "Hipster" has become a brand. It was first sold to us as the "intelligent, thoughtful, well read, well listened, connoisseur of all things "hip". Now it is being morphed in to the "lazy and cynical". -The media builid-ith up and tear-ith down. I'll admit, I've used the word as such in the past, but cgod has changed my thinking on it. It would be "lazy" of me to lump an entire group of people in to those categories. Based on what? Their clothing? Where they drink their PBR? -Okay, that one was below the belt. But seriously, stereotyping is stereotyping. edit: sorry for the double shout out cgod.
I'd like for the following image to be a piece of Hipster brand merchandise: And to keep my comment on-topic, I think cgod's response was hyperbolic. If I had been unfamiliar with cgod's comment history and I saw the comment in question without any frame of reference, then I'd probably think he's just another internet racist. I think it's good to remind ourselves every once in a while, of the limitations of communicating and commenting on things via a text-based format and how they might be viewed.
I posted this to the Hubski Facebook Page and it used that image in the post. People have to wonder what the hell that image has to do with Backyard Chickens and Hipsters, ha. Great image though, I'm not complaining.