Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
If you have an email ending in @hotmail.com, @live.com or @outlook.com (or any other Microsoft-related domain), please consider changing it to another email provider; Microsoft decided to instantly block the server's IP, so emails can't be sent to these addresses.
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE
"Goth kids/hipsters claim to be non-conformist, but they all look the same, LOL!"
Making a complete fool of myself in 3, 2, 1...
"Conformist" here refers to "conforms to the golf-playing establishment" not "conforms to groups in general". This is what goth kids and hipsters mean when they say they're "non-comformist", even if they are technically conforming to that goal with the rest of their goth/hipster buddies. They see anybody who's popular or wears a business suit as "conforming" because the people doing so are superficial and obsessed with the approval of the other popular/suit-wearing folks, and the goths/hipsters, by wearing all-black or checkered shirts, are "non-conforming". It's retarded, but it makes sense in its own way.
I make this thread not because I like hipsters or goths, but because I think the jab in the title represents a deliberate lack of thought by the person making it - because anybody who spends more than five seconds contemplating the paradox should be able to understand the (admittedly dumb) logic behind it. I think if people were to attack goths/hipsters from the angle of "your ideas of what conformism is are retarded" rather than the more simplistic angle of "you're dressed same as your other hipster friends", they'd have a more effective jab.
Comments
"because the people doing so are superficial and obsessed with the approval of the other [goths/hipsters]"
There's the problem.
People are still talking about goth in this day and age? Paging '96, ya there '96?
Ahem. Anyway, I don't deny that opting for a subculture's sense of fashion over the mainstream-approved options is more often than not a wilful act of defiance, but those still hung up on the whole conformism thing seem to be in early/middle adolescence, characterised by both a need to prove yourself and a frequent inability to express your opinions with nuance. Maybe it's because the goths (who're pretty far removed from the common stereotypes anyway) I'm friends with are over 18 and have left the sceney bullshit behind, or if we just breed 'em different over here in Oz, but I haven't heard much 'lol stupid mundanes' in person. Also seconding Malkavian in that there isn't a one single look, just one defining colour and a lot of people who aren't willing to look past that.
All the above isn't to say that the topic line doesn't have any truth to it at all - why else would one of Hot Topic's biggest sellers have 'You laugh at me because I'm different. I laugh at you because
I'm a fucking dipshityou're all the same.' written on? And there's still plenty to mock, like the prevalance of cliquey elitist shit that people should have long grown out of (speaking of which, the whole 'just a phase' thing is a topic all of it's own). But then, people who are really into suits are probably guilty of similiar.And maybe it also comes down to living outside of the US, but until I see a neo-flannel and lensless glassess wearing pencilneck for myself, I refuse to believe that hipsters aren't a monstrous caricature of indie fans - a caricature that working class New York residents really hate, so I've found.
tl;dr: I'm a bargain bin Louie Theroux who thinks way too much about this.
v Indeed, hence the line about suit wearers. It's easier to point out and criticise something the 'other' does that you don't notice or otherwise minimise, but is equally prevalent in your own subset.
Take bad apples, extrapolate to rest of the group, tack on a set attitude for what is for most people a fashion choice, and voilá, you too can feel smug and superior. While I wouldn't trade the beating stick that subculture stereotypes are for the world, the lack of self-awareness that some fellow partakers of this behaviour display is simply astounding.
On a side note, everyone who limits his or her wardrobe slavishly to one subculture is deserving of scorn.
^^ It's a testament to how quickly Old Man Syndrome kicks in that I still have no idea what scene actually is.
^ With work and formal social gatherings being what they are, one single type of clothing isn't really possible anyway.
...Or would knowing that make me a conformist?
But I don't care so I'm non conformist
Yet I asked...
Conformception!
Also, being meta about it is even more conformist than using memes.
Why do people make cliques these days anyway? I understand that generally one is not going to be able to have a circle of best buddies that includes everyone, but I feel like the way some exclude others for silly reasons goes beyond that.
Cliques on the internet bug me even more because of how arbitrary they seem to be and because of the smugness they create (i.e. more or less refusing to reply to someone unless he or she is part of your clique). I think it can be really tough trying to enter into a new online community. I believe that rejecting new people because they do not know all of the ends and outs of your clique is quite rude and that it is a great way to avoid exposing yourself to potentially new and interesting ideas and perspectives.
Sorry, I might be a little harsh here. I guess this kind of thing just bothers me a good deal.
DonZabu,
Yep, I agree that the whole "non-conformists are really conformists" claim is pretty silly. After all, I would guess that there are a lot more people who are not goths/hipsters and such than are so even if one may be conforming to a certain subculture, that subculture is still small enough relative to the dominant culture that it could still probably be considered non-conformist.
Learn to language, bro.
Sorry if it sounded like I was accusing you of defending cliques. That was not my intention and the lack of clarity in my post was probably at fault there. I do agree with your definition of a clique though. As for the idea of groups outside of the 'normal' range of people, I feel like people tend to care too much about weirdness in general.
On one side of the spectrum you have people who would prefer it if everyone just conformed to their sense of what is normal and did not do any unexpected things. On the other side you have people who purposely try to attract attention by flaunting their eccentricities and how extraordinary they are. I feel like the first perspective brings with it a lack of respect and tolerance for the individual while the second comes with a sense of entitlement and selfishness.
That being said, I think it can be pretty tough not to fall into seeing weirdness with either of those two problematic viewpoints (or both as strange as that may sound).