Originally Posted by clutnuckle

I'm not sure why you're bringing up genres. We're talking about a term you attach to a person, not music.

"Hipster" isn't a genre. I'm fine with calling albums metal, punk, noise pop, classical, avant-garde... Hipster is just a slanderous term for people that you don't NEED to use.

I love music, but it's not a person. You can make generalizations on it, divide it into genres, call this avant-garde, that screamo, etc. But to actually put time and effort into generalizing people into a certain sect of the music-listening population - why would you even bother? Yes, people who like metal will probably naturally talk to people who think the same - is 'metalhead' really necessary, though? Some of them embrace it because they like to feel like they're part of something, but I read something in the paper last week where a kid killed himself because he was tired of being harassed at school for liking 'obscure movies'. Not everybody is as tolerant of these generalizations as others. All of those people who do enjoy feeling like they're part of something can join a club, but it's not worth it, because it simply ends up making a lot of people feel like ****.

The human mind is a lot more complex than even the most technically-demanding piece of classical repertoire you can find. Thus, it's unfair to make generalizations on a person. Music? Sure, why not. Doesn't really hurt anybody, as long as you don't get too anal about it.

ON ANOTHER NOTE, back in the 50s, hipsters actually had a positive connotation. It meant somebody who was well-versed in the arts, somebody who you could ask questions to, somebody who was 'obscure', but just because they naturally wanted to be. I'm sure some of the kids hanging out outside of your Starbucks are just like that; people who are actually interesting and open-minded if you give them the chance.