Hipsters and Their Fucking Drama

I have to admit: I have absolutely no idea what a hipster is. Is this, like, an American thing, or am I just being clueless? I know people who dress alternatively and cheaply, but they're all students, so they generally do not have any money anyway.

Howithurts wrote:

I don't get how you could spend 15K on a wedding. What in the world costs that much? Are they spending thousands of dollars on food?

Her dress was apparently a huge chunk and they flew in a photographer and put her/him up in a hotel instead of going local.

But the largest amount of money seemingly went into buying antique quilts to cut up for tablecloths and bunting.

Hey, I've worked weddings where the flowers alone cost $19,000. Imagine having to set up tables for 450 people with $19,000 worth of flowers. Let me tell you, its not fun. Average cost of flowers for the company I work for is about $2,000-$3,000. It's insanity.

Jay/Cris wrote:

I have to admit: I have absolutely no idea what a hipster is. Is this, like, an American thing, or am I just being clueless? I know people who dress alternatively and cheaply, but they're all students, so they generally do not have any money anyway.

The actual definition is kind've iffy, but basically, Hipsters tend to be upper-class trust-fund kids who want everyone to think they're poor, despite living in massively expensive rented lofts. They ride bicycles, but they're expensive bicycles-it's not they can't afford a car (most of them probably can), but they prefer to pretend that they don't have the money (also, cars are mainstream and bad for the environment). They also drink Pabst Blue Ribbon. I'm not a drinker myself, but I've been told by people who are that PBR is a truly shitty beer. Apparently Hipsters drink it to show everyone how ironic they are, while smoking expensive imported cigarettes. The ones who aren't part-time students generally hold marginal 'jobs' (if you can call them that) like being indie musicians or writing for free newspapers. Part of what caused the trouble with the Fake Hobo wedding thread is that apparently, the groom's father is supposedly a 'noted musician' who's actually had one hit, which, when someone bothered to dig it up is a a tender love song about an Uncle sexually molesting his niece. The groom is an online cartoonist.

The problem for a lot of us wasn't the wedding itself, it was the aura of superiority that surrounded it. Also the fact that, according to the bride, they bought literally dozens of hand-made quilts and then CUT THEM TO PIECES to make runners for their tables. Plus, the knowledge that these people were poking fun at an era in America where thousands of people had no jobs and many literally starved to death due to the dust bowl just kind've stuck in our craw. My grandparents and parents lived through the Depression, and it was not a happy fun time. Most hobos road the rails because they were trying to find work, and usually had a family somewhere they were sending what money they made home to.


The closest I can think of to something related to Europe that might cause the same kind of reaction is a Holocaust Themed Wedding.

CaptainMcNeil wrote:

Hey, I've worked weddings where the flowers alone cost $19,000. Imagine having to set up tables for 450 people with $19,000 worth of flowers. Let me tell you, its not fun. Average cost of flowers for the company I work for is about $2,000-$3,000. It's insanity.

Those must be some nice flowers.

This whole business of spending $15,000 to pretend to be poor--ugh. It's tasteless, to say the least.

Someone called me a hipster once. I thought they had mispronounced hippie. (I often dress in hippie-style clothes, and no, it's not to be ironic. I just like the look.) It turned out the person was referring to my glasses, which, oddly enough, don't look like something worn by Buddy Holly and actually are to correct my vision.

$15,000 for a wedding with 150 guests is $100 per person. That cost can be avoided if you want to go super-cheap or to have fewer guests.

Once you've rented a site that will hold that many guests, gotten a caterer, hired a professional wedding photographer and DJ and all the rest of the basic, expected stuff, $100 per guest isn't expensive, it just isn't super-cheap.

The claim of being poor could be correct if the couple got others to pay for much of these costs. Tight-fisted relatives will sometimes shell out for a wedding but not for anything else.

Howithurts wrote:

CaptainMcNeil wrote:

Hey, I've worked weddings where the flowers alone cost $19,000. Imagine having to set up tables for 450 people with $19,000 worth of flowers. Let me tell you, its not fun. Average cost of flowers for the company I work for is about $2,000-$3,000. It's insanity.

Those must be some nice flowers.

Speaking as someone who works for a florist's shop, do you know how much flowers cost? To grow actual bouquet-level flowers you must:

-Own land
-Buy seeds
-Pray to god they take, using perfect amounts of nitrogen & phosphorus fertilizer, and a timed watering system
-Keep employees on staff who know what they're doing
-Cut, store, and transport to shop

This = $$$ for florist to purchase said flowers. The florist then has to:

-Re-cut flowers to perfect length, a mindless, repetitive task that cannot be screwed up, because then that flower is lost
-Pick out dead and imperfect petals
-Arrange into bouquets

This = More $$$ for customers

Now we factor in a wedding. Weddings are often themed, color-wise. And brides more often than not want long-stem roses, which are very expensive. Even if they don't, they want exact colors. So now the florist must put in a special order for these colors, often having to call several distributors. Then the florist must gather their staff and have them make the bouquets, bride(s)'s and bridesmaids', the boutonnieres for the groom(s) and groomsmen (Fun times when there's two brides, you end up wanting to fucking kill yourself), the mother-of-the-bride corsage, etc. Then the table arrangements and end-cappers for the rows come in, and sometimes more than that, garlands, vase fillers, corsages for everyone, etc. The florist must also pay their staff for setting everything up/delivering. (Sometimes the wedding party arranges the items at the location)

So a large wedding = Easily thousands of dollars

Flowers are not actually all that cheap.

While I can see how it can cost that much without going all out, I still don't think 15,000 is inexpensive. It might be a reasonable amount for what they got, but that doesn't make it a cheap wedding, as they seem to think it is.

There seems to be this trend that people HAVE to have a shit ton of flowers, that they HAVE to have all these random things, for it to be a real wedding. That isn't their fault, but it does speak to the larger American culture. So does this whole hipster thing, with cultural appropriation and destruction of historically significant items/symbols because it 'looks cool.' I really kind of want to punch them in the neck for the destruction of antique quilts to be fucking table cloths. I suppose since everything has to be enjoyed 'ironically,' then nothing is truly valued.

For the record, I don't count the hobo theme as cultural appropriation, just bad taste. Extremely bad taste.

Rabid Badger wrote:

I'm not a drinker myself, but I've been told by people who are that PBR is a truly shitty beer.

The thing about PBR is that while it does taste like shit it is no worse than Bud or Coors while typically being much cheaper.

rae wrote:

While I can see how it can cost that much without going all out, I still don't think 15,000 is inexpensive. It might be a reasonable amount for what they got, but that doesn't make it a cheap wedding, as they seem to think it is.

Oh, no, that was a response to how flowers can cost in the five-digits. Most weddings, we can swing it so the flowers are a couple hundred, and you can actually get them much cheaper if you just listen to the florist. Roses are not a necessity, is the thing you really have to convince people of, and the idea that you need an elaborate bouquet. Often times, a simple one works better.

Seriously, roses. Those are expensive, and so many brides are convinced they need roses, and won't even look at other options.

Spoiler:

Spoiler:

Spoiler:

Spoiler:

Spoiler:

Seriously, you do not need roses. There are thousands of other flowers, most just as beautiful. And cheaper.

And do you have any idea how much a wedding dress can cost nowadays? Easily a few grand. And it's considered an essential that the bride(s) have a perfect white dress. The white dress is fairly recent actually. Used to be you got married in a pretty dress, but a dress you could use again. Then rich people starting getting more elaborate ones, to show off their wealth, like hey, I can afford to spend all this money on a dress I'm only going to wear once. Then it trickled down through the masses. It's a stupid tradition, and wasteful. You don't need that either.

Spoiler:

Spoiler:

Spoiler:

Spoiler:

I think the thing about the wedding in question I am most upset about is how they cut up antique quilts for decorations. It really makes me mad actually. Quilts have history, they're not something to be discarded like that.

^ That 2nd bouquet is lovely. I think orchids are far better than roses for arrangements, myself. I like rose bushes just fine, and I will cut my own roses if they have a nice smell, but those are short stemmed and go in a mug or some crap for a few days before being turned into potpourri. Point is I never pay for roses, at least not dead ones.

But yeah, the whole wedding industry is a monster, a soulless machine design to convince people to spend money they do not have on something they do not need in order to look like they have money they still do not have. Probably that is what the hobo wedding guys were thinking, and this was their way of making fun of that. And for 150 guests 15k would require being thriftier than the average wedding. It is still fucked to all hell to claim you are poor and fork over that much for a party, though. I do not care how screwed up the rest of the country is, it does not make you sane to be slightly less insane than normal.

The whole hipster thing is like that. It has some of its roots in middle class kids making jabs at conspicuous consumption by intentionally spending less money than they had on highly visible items like clothes and cars and the like and acting like that was cool. And it was cool because they were being smart with their money and refusing to buy into this unsustainable, super material culture that so many people get trapped into. The problem came when attractive young people started making that shit look desirable (imagine that!) and stores that were making money selling things that people bought in order to look rich (like Ambercrombie and Fitch, which you have to pay extra cash for in order to sport a logo that mean nothing except to paid extra cash for the privilage of wearing it) realised that looking rich was loosing popularity in their target demo, so they started producing faux-poor clothing, like all that pre-faded and ripped stuff (which admittedly are easier to find in a flattering fit when bought new). So you get rich kid spending shit-tons of cash to buy clothing that makes them look poor. Meanwhile, the people who were thrifting and such all along start getting pissed at being associated with dumbfucks of that caliber and start to bitch, moan, and whine that they were doing it first and they were doing it right and try to move onto the next way to entertain themselves cheaply that has been untainted by the idiot masses. This creates a cycle of indy-type hipsters "discovering" a thing and liking it until poser-type hipsters appropriate it and the indy-type hipsters stop liking it because it sucks now that it is popular, so you get two distinct sub-groups of hipsters who both are equally annoying and who both hate each other. The best part is each group call the other group "hipsters" and means it as an insult.

(Reepi lived in Portland aka the hipster mecha for 4 years and is all over this shit)

Anyone still confused about hipsters could check out the Stuff White People Like blog. Feel free to subsitute "White People" with "Hipsters". I like a lot of shit this blog claims white people like, even the shit I know is super silly like the hierarchy of T-shirts. What? Vintage thrifted> vintage that was sold as vintage> AA/ Threadless> faux-vintage> foreign-made> foreign-made faux-vintage. If you dissagree you are the Wrong Kind of White Person. Even if you are not white, damnit. Oh God, and the bottled water? I totally drink Brita filtered water out of a re-usable water bottle. So this is what I mean when I say I am fucking hipster is some ways. I just have to hope being able to laugh at myself is enough to grant me forgiveness.

Reepicheep-chan wrote:

The problem came when attractive young people started making that shit look desirable (imagine that!) and stores that were making money selling things that people bought in order to look rich (like Ambercrombie and Fitch, which you have to pay extra cash for in order to sport a logo that mean nothing except to paid extra cash for the privilage of wearing it)

Uh, as someone who works for an A&F retailer, I feel the need to say that A.) yes they are super-expensive, but they put on monstrous sales (as in, 60%+ off) if you pay attention, B.) the clothes they sell without the giant logos are quite nice, and C.) If you buy an Abercrombie and Fitch shirt, short of you staining it or changing clothing sizes in a huge way, that shirt will still be wearable and look good as new years later. So yes, it seems expensive if you're not the kind of person who really cares about their clothing, but if you like to look fashionable and have clothing that can withstand the weathering of years, it's well worth the expense. Also, they're the only place I can think of that cut their jeans in such a way as to create the illusion of an ass on me.

Lady Anne wrote:

This whole business of spending $15,000 to pretend to be poor--ugh. It's tasteless, to say the least.

That's what gets me, really. You would think simulating the poor would be cheap, but no. Authenticity is just expensive I guess.

Ack, I didn't catch that about the quilts. That kinda sucks. :/

Reepicheep-chan wrote:

I totally drink Brita filtered water out of a re-usable water bottle. So this is what I mean when I say I am fucking hipster is some ways. I just have to hope being able to laugh at myself is enough to grant me forgiveness.

I was totally pissed about how I bought the Brita sink filter, and none of the adaptors work.

Nihilist wrote:

I was totally pissed about how I bought the Brita sink filter, and none of the adaptors work.

Oooh, that sucks. I made the mistake of buying a PUR sink adapter and the filtered water tasted like paint. Ick. I would recommend one of the pitchers if you have the room in your fridge, much cheaper investment and less chance of bullshit happening. More annoying yeah, but it works.

TheHedonist wrote:

Reepicheep-chan wrote:

The problem came when attractive young people started making that shit look desirable (imagine that!) and stores that were making money selling things that people bought in order to look rich (like Ambercrombie and Fitch, which you have to pay extra cash for in order to sport a logo that mean nothing except to paid extra cash for the privilage of wearing it)

Uh, as someone who works for an A&F retailer, I feel the need to say that A.) yes they are super-expensive, but they put on monstrous sales (as in, 60%+ off) if you pay attention, B.) the clothes they sell without the giant logos are quite nice, and C.) If you buy an Abercrombie and Fitch shirt, short of you staining it or changing clothing sizes in a huge way, that shirt will still be wearable and look good as new years later. So yes, it seems expensive if you're not the kind of person who really cares about their clothing, but if you like to look fashionable and have clothing that can withstand the weathering of years, it's well worth the expense. Also, they're the only place I can think of that cut their jeans in such a way as to create the illusion of an ass on me.

A lot of the more expensive brands of clothing are like this: they cost around twice as much, but often last three to five times as long. There is true value in buying these items, value beyond the value of trendiness. If you can manage to get the right amount of money up-front at the right time, and you do research into exactly how durable the items are so you don't accidentally buy flimsy expensive clothing, you can save tons of money in the long run.

I love that we're calling the internet drama over this "hobowank." Hobowank. Ho-bo-wank. I've got the giggles.

One thing I've noticed: subcultures are for the wealthy. Corsets and special-order corpse makeup are expensive. Vintage clothes and handpainted teapots from Etsy are expensive. Apartments in Williamburg are expensive. Earrings and pocketwatches with exposed gears are expensive. A graduate degree, tickets to the Opera, good wine, and tweed jackets are very expensive. Hip-hop shoes and chains are expensive. This punk rock T-shirt is $20.

The only subculture poor people can more than just admire from a distance is juggalo - Faygo comes cheap. And that's depressing.

Used to any disaffected twentysomething could run off and be a beatnik or a hippie or a punk, only shilling out for drugs and music. It was very lazy but very democratic. Now it's all about "buy this extremely rebellious $300 outfit of or GTFO." Poor lonely poor people, unable to meet a standard of fashionable poverty.

littledorrit wrote:

I love that we're calling the internet drama over this "hobowank." Hobowank. Ho-bo-wank. I've got the giggles.

One thing I've noticed: subcultures are for the wealthy. Corsets and special-order corpse makeup are expensive. Vintage clothes and handpainted teapots from Etsy are expensive. Apartments in Williamburg are expensive. Earrings and pocketwatches with exposed gears are expensive. A graduate degree, tickets to the Opera, good wine, and tweed jackets are very expensive. Hip-hop shoes and chains are expensive. This punk rock T-shirt is $20.

The only subculture poor people can more than just admire from a distance is juggalo - Faygo comes cheap. And that's depressing.

Used to any disaffected twentysomething could run off and be a beatnik or a hippie or a punk, only shilling out for drugs and music. It was very lazy but very democratic. Now it's all about "buy this extremely rebellious $300 outfit of or GTFO." Poor lonely poor people, unable to meet a standard of fashionable poverty.

I know a lot of poor people who do manage to jump over that $$$$ barrier by going into crafting. Then you can be part of the crafting subculture (with supplies from the dollar store, or from when Wal-Mart decides to sell off its glut of cloth for $2 a yard, or from dumpsters, or from those better-off friends who just have way too much yarn) and you can also make your costumes for Renfest.

Or, if you really can't make anything, you can do cheap RPG with used gaming manuals a decade old and candy instead of figurines (you kill the monster, you eat the monster).

Lady Anne wrote:

This whole business of spending $15,000 to pretend to be poor--ugh. It's tasteless, to say the least.

Someone called me a hipster once. I thought they had mispronounced hippie. (I often dress in hippie-style clothes, and no, it's not to be ironic. I just like the look.) It turned out the person was referring to my glasses, which, oddly enough, don't look like something worn by Buddy Holly and actually are to correct my vision.

One way to detect a hipster is if their glasses have lenses in them. I shit you not, I sat next to one girl in philosophy class who for an entire semester wore the Buddy Holly style frames with no lenses in them. And yet she was constantly readjusting them, sliding them down her nose to read fine print, pushing them back up in true poindexter fashion like she actually needed them to read the board. It was all a very carefully practiced act. I often had a fleeting urge to throw my pen cap through one of her nonexistent frames just to see what would happen.

rae wrote:

While I can see how it can cost that much without going all out, I still don't think 15,000 is inexpensive. It might be a reasonable amount for what they got, but that doesn't make it a cheap wedding, as they seem to think it is.

There seems to be this trend that people HAVE to have a shit ton of flowers, that they HAVE to have all these random things, for it to be a real wedding. That isn't their fault, but it does speak to the larger American culture. So does this whole hipster thing, with cultural appropriation and destruction of historically significant items/symbols because it 'looks cool.' I really kind of want to punch them in the neck for the destruction of antique quilts to be fucking table cloths. I suppose since everything has to be enjoyed 'ironically,' then nothing is truly valued.

For the record, I don't count the hobo theme as cultural appropriation, just bad taste. Extremely bad taste.

This pretty much sums up the hipster culture, in my opinion. Young people who've never had to work for their money and have tons of it to throw around generally don't value much, except for the fleeting social approval of other rich kids, and they constantly have to entertain each other by finding something else to enjoy ironically. That was one of my pet peeves going to an elite liberal arts college, the spoiled rich kids who have literally had everything in their lives handed to them. Which is not to say that being privileged is automatically detrimental, but the astounding lack of empathy that they have for people who live frugally because they have to and not because it's a fashion statement can be infuriating. And when rich people decide they like something and are willing to spend big bucks it makes the price go up for everyone else as well, hence $15000 weddings being "modest."

Notanoni wrote:

TheHedonist wrote:

Uh, as someone who works for an A&F retailer, I feel the need to say that A.) yes they are super-expensive, but they put on monstrous sales (as in, 60%+ off) if you pay attention, B.) the clothes they sell without the giant logos are quite nice, and C.) If you buy an Abercrombie and Fitch shirt, short of you staining it or changing clothing sizes in a huge way, that shirt will still be wearable and look good as new years later. So yes, it seems expensive if you're not the kind of person who really cares about their clothing, but if you like to look fashionable and have clothing that can withstand the weathering of years, it's well worth the expense. Also, they're the only place I can think of that cut their jeans in such a way as to create the illusion of an ass on me.

A lot of the more expensive brands of clothing are like this: they cost around twice as much, but often last three to five times as long. There is true value in buying these items, value beyond the value of trendiness. If you can manage to get the right amount of money up-front at the right time, and you do research into exactly how durable the items are so you don't accidentally buy flimsy expensive clothing, you can save tons of money in the long run.

Haha, sorry about that. I called out A&F specifically because I have a vivid memory of a pre-worn clothing display with bs like fake credit-card wear in the back pocked and I-shit-you-not fucking rope belts. It irritated the fuck out of me. I believe you though; I spend megabucks on AA clothes for the same reason. They are sturdy and they look good. As long as you buy classic looking stuff and not something that will embaress you in a year, and as long as you are not in the process of changing size, than expensive clothe can be very worth it. Pants in particular, finding a good fit at a thrift store is a huge time investment for me and my huge ass and long waist.

Pricey shoes are also typically worth the investment. Not Chucks though. Fuck those things.

Of course if you are me and can sniff out $160 Naots at Goodwill for 5 bucks then nevermind.

Owlish wrote:

One way to detect a hipster is if their glasses have lenses in them. I shit you not, I sat next to one girl in philosophy class who for an entire semester wore the Buddy Holly style frames with no lenses in them. And yet she was constantly readjusting them, sliding them down her nose to read fine print, pushing them back up in true poindexter fashion like she actually needed them to read the board. It was all a very carefully practiced act. I often had a fleeting urge to throw my pen cap through one of her nonexistent frames just to see what would happen.

Well that is stupid. She should have gotten clear sunglasses; that is what I do. You can get clear lenses put in any Costco frame for free last I checked.

Notanoni wrote:

(you kill the monster, you eat the monster).

This is very archaic and I approve.

Reepicheep-chan wrote:

Pricey shoes are also typically worth the investment. Not Chucks though. Fuck those things.

I love my Chucks. They normally last me a few years. I had the same pair from age 15 to 22, and I'm not an inside person. They give great range of movement, they're not thick, and I can climb fences in them.

I REFUSE TO REVISE MY OPINION ON CHUCKS.

Reepicheep-chan wrote:

I REFUSE TO REVISE MY OPINION ON CHUCKS.

Seriously? Chucks are awesome. They mold to your feet, they feel awesome, and while they rarely last me Lapin's whopping seven years, I do manage to wear and tear them out in a year or four. My previous white pair lasted me five years and only failed on me back in San Fran, after I took them through the Rockies, the Grand Canyon and Yosemite Park.

In short:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Love Chucks. Love yourself. :p