sign language was made mainstream by the advent of the silent cinema. sorry lads you're both 100 years late.
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
Yes | 9% | 9% - 6 | ||||
No | 48% | 48% - 32 | ||||
I am not a hipster | 42% | 42% - 28 | ||||
Total: 66 |
You are learning, young padawan.-Whiteroom- wrote:
Aint nobody cooler than galt.
Not being a hipster is a wearing and thankless task.Uzique wrote:
one of the great looping paradoxes of this whole internet "fuck hipsters" thing is that it's often the anti-hipster bandwagoners who act all super serious and miserable.
Which is funny, because he's trying so hard to be a hipster without going the full hipster.-Whiteroom- wrote:
Aint nobody cooler than galt.
You never go full hipster...Dilbert_X wrote:
Which is funny, because he's trying so hard to be a hipster without going the full hipster.-Whiteroom- wrote:
Aint nobody cooler than galt.
Authenticity in what particularly?Uzique wrote:
i think the fact that we're all obsessed with authenticity in some regard signals a severe existentialist crisis in this late postmodernist age
i hope you agree
No-one does, not even hipsters, its why they're full of shit.-Whiteroom- wrote:
You never go full hipster...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authenticity_(philosophy)Dilbert_X wrote:
Authenticity in what particularly?Uzique wrote:
i think the fact that we're all obsessed with authenticity in some regard signals a severe existentialist crisis in this late postmodernist age
i hope you agree
Tropic Thunder.-Whiteroom- wrote:
Zing?
authenticity is to do with the self, not authenticity in the antique-hunting material-possession is-it-a-counterfeit sense.Dilbert_X wrote:
If you don't have authenticity you don't have anything I guess.
There'll be a reaction against the junk coming out of China badged as corporate product eventually.
J.P. Sartre on "sincerity and bad faith" wrote:
Let us consider this waiter in the cafe. His movement is quick and forward, a little too precise, a little too rapid. He comes toward the patrons with a step a little too quick. He bends forward a little too eagerly; his voice, his eyes express an interest a little too solicitous for the order of the customer. Finally there he returns, trying to imitate in his walk the inflexible stiffness of some kind of automaton while carrying his tray with the recklessness of a tight-rope-walker by putting it in a perpetually unstable, perpetually broken equilibrium which he perpetually re-establishes by a light movement of the arm and hand. All his behavior seems to us a game. He applies himself to chaining his movements as if they were mechanisms, the one regulating the other; his gestures and even his voice seem to be mechanisms; he gives himself the quickness and pitiless rapidity of things. He is playing, he is amusing himself. But what is he playing? We need not watch long before we can explain it: he is playing at being a waiter in a cafe. There is nothing there to surprise us. The game is a kind of marking out and investigation. The child plays with his body in order to explore it, to take inventory of it; the waiter in the cafe plays with his condition in order to realize it. This obligation is not different from that which is imposed on all tradesmen. Their condition is wholly one of ceremony. The public demands of them that they realize it as a ceremony; there is the dance of the grocer, of the tailor, of the auctioneer, by which they endeavor to persuade their clientele that they are nothing but a grocer, an auctioneer, a tailor. A grocer who dreams is offensive to the buyer, because such a grocer is not wholly a grocer. Society demands that he limit himself to his function as a grocer, just as the soldier at attention makes himself into a soldier-thing with a direct regard which does not see at all, which is no longer meant to see, since it is the rule and not the interest of the moment which determines the point he must fix his eyes on (the sight "fixed at ten paces"). There are indeed many precautions to imprison a man in what he is, as if we lived in perpetual fear that he might escape from it, that he might break away and suddenly elude his condition.
In a parallel situation, from within, the waiter in the cafe can not be immediately a cafe waiter in the sense that this inkwell is an inkwell, or the glass is a glass. It is by no means that he can not form reflective judgments or concepts concerning his condition. He knows well what it "means": the obligation of getting up at five o'clock, of sweeping the floor of the shop before the restaurant opens, of starting the coffee pot going, etc. He knows the rights which it allows: the right to the tips, the right to belong to a union, etc. But all these concepts, all these judgments refer to the transcendent. It is a matter of abstract possibilities, of rights and duties conferred on a "person possessing rights." And it is precisely this person who I have to be (if I am the waiter in question) and who I am not. It is not that I do not wish to be this person or that I want this person to be different. But rather there is no common measure between his being and mine. It is a "representation" for others and for myself, which means that I can be he only in representation. But if I represent myself as him, I am not he; I am separated from him as the object from the subject, separated by nothing, but this nothing isolates me from him. I can not be he, I can only play at being him; that is, imagine to myself that I am he. And thereby I affect him with nothingness. In vane do I fulfill the functions of a cafe waiter. I can be he only in the neutralized mode, as the actor is Hamlet, by mechanically making the typical gestures of my state and by aiming at myself as an imaginary cafe waiter through those gestures taken as an "analogue." What I attempt to realize is a being-in-itself of the cafe waiter, as if it were not just in my power to confer their value and their urgency upon my duties and the right of my position, as if it were not my free choice to get up each morning at five o'clock or to remain in bed, even though it meant getting, fired. As if from the very fact that I sustain this role in existence I did not transcend it on every side, as if I did not constitute myself as one beyond my condition. Yet there is no doubt that I am in a sense a cafe waiter -- otherwise could I not just as well call myself a diplomat or a reporter? But if I am one, this can not be in the mode of being-in-itself. I am a waiter in the mode of being what I am not....
Leads to thisUzique wrote:
people function on autopilot when no thing or event crops up in life to seriously challenge their identity.
Leads toJay wrote:
I'm quite happy in my own skin, and have been for many years[...]
youth cares about fitting into a scene, or a social group. They don't have a completely formed self-identity yet, and are looking for validation.RDX-fX wrote:
I laugh at the scorn of hipsters
Last edited by rdx-fx (2011-12-27 09:51:47)