Hipsters and Elitists

Last week, the annual event known as SXSW descended on the city of Austin. I don’t have anything to say about that, but, being interested in language, I was pondering how many times the word ‘hipster’ was spoken/tweeted/IMed/etc. over the course of the week.  And while I’m not going to explore it now, how often was ‘fucking hipster’ said?

Full disclosure- I have used the term ‘hipster’ in a derogatory manner more times than I can count.  I make fun of the boys wearing tight pants, the girls wearing spandex unitards (I’m probably a few years late to the party on this one) and everybody who wears neon framed sunglasses they got at a sponsored party the day before. 

Ask me to define a hipster? I have no idea.  If I was out at a bar with friends, and someone pointed me out, asking “Is that a hipster?” I am certain the answer would be in the affirmative.  I don’t wear tight pants (normally in overalls), I like to listen to country music, and I am a bit of a rural hick from Nova Scotia.  But, by virtue of being a 29 year old in a bar, drinking a Lone Star, I could easily be pegged as a hipster. 

The best definition of hipster that I’ve encountered is this: anyone who uses the word hipster, whether the use is positive or negative (how many times have you heard hipster used positively?) is in fact a hipster.

Simple and effective.

Onto word number two.

 I recently finished a book entitled Just Food written by James McWilliams.  It’s a good book that explores the straightforward (well, it should probably be straightforward) reality that feeding a potential 10 billion people in 2050 is a huge challenge.  More specifically, he questions the locavore movement’s argument that small scale, organic agriculture is the only path we should be pursuing as we try to re-orient our culture to a truly sustainable approach to feeding ourselves, and everyone in the world. 

In the context of a discussion on local vs. big Ag, it is common for the word ‘elitist’ to be introduced at some point or another.  Taken beyond the food discussion, elitist appears in just about any conversation or debate between those who might be considered liberals (elitism is a common term applied to this ‘side’) and conservatives.

Full disclosure- I studied Philosophy and Anthropology in University, and I was hugely critical of any and all of the work I studied that was created from an Ivory Tower.  Basically, I thought very poorly of ‘elitists’. And my reasons were partially sound.  I once made the case that no philosophical view/theory/perspective/etc. would survive a weekend with some of the people I grew up with and a couple of two-fours of Moosehead.  It was my ineloquent way of stating that the vast majority of people who have influenced the history of philosophy were well-off, and never worked hard a day in their life. I had a hard time expressing it, but I felt that any theory of knowledge was incomplete if the person led a privileged life.

The irony of this, of course, is that I was critical of elitism at the same time I was attending university, pursuing a degree in Philosophy and Anthropology.  True, with the way the system of higher education exists today, it’s debatable just how elite a person may be who attends. However, the fact remains I was studying Philosophy, and paying a pretty penny for it, which has at least some element of elitism.

While the term hipster is generally always used negatively, there are, I’m sure, at least some people who would not be offended if they were called elitist. I imagine they are in the minority. It’s most common use carries with it some type of negative connotation, often in the form of “what would you know about the real world?” And just like hipster, I’ve never found a definition of the word that seems to match up with its use.   

So, here we are, with two words that are both applied to a large group of people who, in general, would harshly disagree with the term being applied to them. And from my own observation and experience, this very same group of people are likely to use the term to apply to others. 

I find this interesting.

Who the Hell Uses the Internet?

I got to thinking about something today, as I read Jeff Bercovici’s post on Google’s recent addition to search, which allows users to permanently block a specific website from appearing in future results. His title asks why Google won’t tell us who their users hate (they’re keeping the data private).  It was the word users that caught my attention.

What the hell is an internet user?  Somebody who uses the internet, obviously.  But that’s too simple. Over the last few months, content farms have been getting attacked as repositories of shit that cripple the efforts of good, honest, hard-searching people in their noble attempts to find what they want on the internet.  Let me make this clear- this is not a defense of content farms, spam sites, link bait, etc.  They really do tend to fuck up pretty basic queries with the digital equivalent of cow paddies scattered over an otherwise beautiful meadow. And they can certainly throw a wrench into the attempts of somebody to find the information they are seeking.

So what’s the issue?  Well, tech bloggers and journalists throw around the word ‘internet users’ in just about every post on the issue of search quality, and how damaging it is for them to be exposed to the horrors of shitty content.  But how many people who use the internet pay any attention whatsoever to the wheelings and dealings of the modern tech field?  Sure, sites like TechCrunch and SAI and blah blah blah get millions (MILLIONS- THAT MUST BE CLOSE TO EVERYONE ON THE INTERNET EVER) of visitors a month, but what do those millions account for as an overall percentage of people who use the internet, not as part of their job, but as part of their day to day life? Not fucking much.

It’s an argument coming from an Ivory Tower in digital form.  The simple fact that tech wankers fail to acknowledge is that they are addressing a particular market, and in no way take into consideration the way an average person (someone who does not work in tech, media, etc., aka a shit ton of people) approaches and uses Google or the internet as a whole.  Most people have no clue who Demand Media or Associated Content or Johnny Link Fucker are.  And if they’ve heard of them, they probably don’t give two shits about their soiling of the bounties of internet enlightenment.

Why? Because people aren’t nearly as stupid as tech bloggers make them out to be.  I’ve seen some beyond useless articles on sites like eHow, like How to Convert a Diesel Truck to Gasoline.  It only takes four steps.  Tools needed? A well stocked garage.  No one is stupid enough to use this information.  But doesn’t this just prove these companies are employing shady practices to get to the top and bury the good stuff?  Fuck no! Are there any people out there who plan on converting a diesel truck to gas, and expect the fucking internet to tell them how?  If there are, they are happy to dick up their truck in any way they see fit.

Tech bloggers, stop pretending like you know what’s best for ‘internet users’.  And stop acting like ‘internet users’ are some group of annonymous people with the same basic character, that give a beaver’s ass about search quality. You’ve got no right, qualifications, or balls to state what’s good and helpful for people using Google.  You want to block content farms from your seach results? Good for you! Go right ahead.  Just stop acting like what’s good for you somehow applies to EVERY PERSON ON THE INTERNET! You douchey, elitist asshats.

I Want to be a Social Media Passionisto!

My new life goal is to become a 'Passionisto'.  

Today's Wall Street Journal has an, um, interesting (?) look at the emerging market for social media metrics, and the strategies people can employ to be marked as a high level influencer .  The benefits of ranking high on the influencer scale can include: "...a free Virgin America flight, a shopping splurge at Mark's Work Wearhouse and an all-expenses-paid trip to New Zealand fashion week...", at least for one lucky influencer.


Apparently, though, it's not as simple as, say, being an intelligent, kind person who does there best to utilize social media in ways that assist or inform others.  Nope, you've got to take lots of photos of you drinking martinis, tweet once an hour (including on vacation- according to one passionisto "...you better be prepared to see your scores drop..." if you slack off for a few days) and play up your ego.  But how do you do this?


Imagine your at a party and there is a giant, cocky, loudmouthed douche.  Mimic his behaviour, but only through 'social media'.


Baaarrrffff.


In other news, China is experiencing a drought that could result in the loss of over half their wheat crops, reports the New York Times.  The Chinese Government cites a lack of high-level social media influencers as a major cause in the lack of rain.