The Beginning Of True “Post-Hipsterism”

The Necessary New Position On The Left/ The Counter-Point To Narcissism

Perhaps better phrased, what is valued in a person in post-hipsterism is not how interesting they perceive themselves to be, but how good they are to be around. This can be qualities like kindness, humor, listening, loyalty, friendship, fun.
This diverges from the hipster notions of uniqueness, being the most interesting, having the strongest opinion, being the most culturally up-to-date, deepest understanding of art, being the most empathetic to those we aren’t.
The hipster is judged on the story, the post-hipster is judged on the conversation.


I am a Cis. Straight White Male.

I went to private school.

I am hipster.

These are not shameful qualities in a person. By all means, I have shameful qualities, but they are not inherent in any of the facts above.

In fact, these facts are not important.

The hipster movement is perhaps most interesting in that at its core, one is to distance oneself from being called a hipster.

It is belivable that one could live above a coffee bean roaster, grow all of one’s own food, have a nokia phone, have a mullet, have a tattoo of vishnu, have a beard; and ultimately be offended when someone calls you a hipster.

Inherently, this makes this position volatile at the best of times, as the achievement and recognition of one’s own goals is fundamentally insulting.

And of course, the hipster movement is left-wing. It believes in environmentalism, micro-communism, sustainability, equality, free-speech, peace, the arts and individuality.

However, it has become clear to me that the mainstream left has become uninhabitable for many people that believe in the genuine core tenets of liberalism and/or left-wing politics.

Today, ‘readily becoming offended’ has become the cover charge to enter the club, and once you are in, you are expected to renounce any opinion that goes in any direction but that of the tide.

Common activities include; Posting articles that “educate” the masses, seeing everyone but oneself as not only uneducated, but actively ignorant and hungry to belittle; all while never reading any articles that offer genuinely intelligent counter-arguments to your own.

How can I know that? How can I know that they aren’t reading the other side, while hypocritically asking their followers to do just that?

When one is informed of the opposition’s opinion in an intelligent way, one learns that their opinions do not come from a place of malice, but rather, from the same good-hearted place as yours. The only difference is that they have different facts.

Take anti-vaxxers. These people are not trying to actively kill their own children by exposing them to Whooping Cough. Rather, it is on their best information that they see vaccination as more harmful than good.

While the science overwhelmingly disagrees with this opinion, the basic humanity of the movement comes from a good place, to have healthy children, it is just misdirected.

Given that example, it is not therefore outside of the realms of possibility that we the left are misguided on at least some accounts, save for having the wrong information.

Donald Trump has exposed a huge hole in this movement; while the mainstream left may be able to band together a keyboard warriors, if you don’t care, they hold no power. They are inherently weak.

In fact, “not caring” is actually perceived as confidence now-a-days.

So, out of this, the reaction is ‘post-hipsterism’ on the left. Too many people I know have been squeezed out of their own political leanings because of this rampant offence in offensiveness, and the self-imploding confusion of the hipster.

So therefore, what makes a “Post-Hipster”?

Perhaps you have seen this person? While maybe this particular individual has escaped you, this photo is just the diffused version of a regular hipster, hell-bent on claiming your attention, all-the-while pretending it it’s the most normal thing anyone has ever done on a Tuesday.

It’s the walking, talking, equivalent of the selfie.

“Look at me,” it says, “But because I am not physically speaking, I have plausible deniability that this is attention grabbing.”

Don’t get me wrong, I am all for individualism, and I am even for this level of it, but at least admit it has something to do with the fact that you don’t otherwise know how to be interesting.

I know, because that used to be me. I used to go out wearing “sleggings” (leggings worn as sleeves under a shirt or singlet), pretending that it was just a look, all the while knowing that from the moment I left the house, I was acquiring piqued interest.

Post-hipsterism is about understanding that you are inherently unique. You don’t need to try. Your life experience already makes you interesting, no matter how “traditional” or “normal.”

This has become most obvious to me recently, as I have pondered the reason why hipsters are so quick to defend people that are being attacked, comes from a place of insecurity.

I did this thought experiment; Consider that you lose a breast or testicle to cancer, and everyone that you know knows this is the case. Would you rather them never bring it up, constantly avoiding any conversation that even skirts the issue, or would you rather them acknowledge it, so you can talk about other balls and boobs in day-to-day life?

Personally, I find the former option revolting. I would rather my friends roast me about having one ball, so that we all can agree we have come to terms with the facts, and simultaneously acknowledge that it has no bearing on who I am as a person.

If it happens or doesn’t, I am the same guy, just in one case, I’m about 30 grams lighter. And anyone that think it changes who I am, I don’t like, nor do I take their opinion as anything but basically insecurity. I have no problem putting myself into that mental position.

In the same way, it makes sense that hipsters so quickly jump to the defence of people, even if they target doesn’t want to be defended. This is because if the case was reversed, and the hipster was being insulted, they don’t have any genuine qualities or achievements that allow them to withstand a personal attack.

If someone doesn’t think I am interesting, nice, smart, attractive, funny, polite or caring; that has no effect on me. I have genuine achievements I am proud of, and I have direction. I also have a strong idea of my potential.

And this all basically comes with having put myself out there and being able to accept that much of what I do, most people don’t like. That’s fine, because I understand that what I do right now has no bearing on my potential. This might suck, but I know that I can make something much better, I just need maturity.

At the same time, I acknowledge I cannot really understand some art in the way other hipsters seem unable to admit, with poetry being a notable example. There is no shame, and certainly no pretense from me pretending I do.

But even things that I am interested in I haven’t delved into the depths of entirely. I love cinema, but I have yet to see a Werner Herzog film. It doesn’t mean that when he comes up, I have to attack the conversation with ‘but have you seen Richard Ayoade’s films. Magical. (Let’s turn the conversation back so I can talk again).’

The pretentiousness around art in hipsters is exactly the same as it is in the bourgeois; which it is important to remember that the hipster is a reaction to. The only difference is the brand of clothes on the speaker.

Not knowing of or having read certain authors is not a mark of shame. Rather, as the one presenting the new artist to the person, should take it upon themselves to explain perhaps why this person should use time that could be devoted to watching a Pixar movie to your artist of choice.

It is also important to recognise that having gone to a private school does not make me out of touch with the common man. All it means is that more was expected of my education.

You don’t have to be educated to be a good person, and being an outsider does not inherently make you a good person either. In fact, in post-hipsterism, one’s education plays almost no role in one’s quality as a person, as it does in hipsterism.

I have met trans people that were great people to be around, and I have met trans people that were assholes. Same with straight people and gay people. Same with any other way of differentiating any person from another. I’ve met great poor people to be around, and great rich people to be around.

The post hipster world is therefore far more colourblind than the hipster. One’s merits come not from being oppressed, but from being nice, regardless of other factors.

The qualities upon which I judge people are not intellectual, and so my having a private education plays no part in the person I am. Nor does gender. I volunteer thrice a week, and I know people that think I’m ignorant simply based on my gender who do not volunteer their time, despite coming from the same background.

The reason I volunteer is that I recognise that the difference in my education has a high likelihood of allowing me to earn more, and gives me more chance of understanding others. Again, money not being a factor upon which one earns any reputation in post-hipsterism (it’s actually inverse in hipsterism, where the phenomenon of “poor bragging” genuinely exists), means that my job is to give back to kids an education that I got through luck. So that is what I do, free tutoring.

Perhaps better phrased, what is valued in someone is not how interesting they perceive themselves to be, but how good they are to be around. This can be qualities like kindness, humor, listening, loyalty, friendship, fun.

This diverges from the hipster notions of uniqueness, being the most interesting, having the strongest opinion, being the most culturally up-to-date, deepest understanding of art, being the most empathetic to those we aren’t.

The hipster is judged on the story, the post-hipster is judged on the conversation.