3 ms·

An awesome way to smear or discredit any product or practice is to affix the "hipster" label to it. Seriously, mason jars?

DanBC 11y ago
Mason jars are used by some people as glasses because those people have a bunch of mason jars handy. "Hipsters" appropriate that for purely image purposes. A mason jar is in most ways worse than an actual glass. And a cocktail bar in east London doesn't happen to have a bunch of mason jars for preserving home grown produce. They buy them in. It's annoying to see rich people play-acting like poor people for fun. Jarvis Cocker sings about it in Common People. Wayne Hemmingway has spoken about his dislike of people who collect kitsch for irony. Last decade it was trucker hats.
- douche 11y ago
  When I drink water, I like having a big glass, to avoid filling it up every two minutes, so I either use a quart Mason jar or glasses I made out of magnum wine bottles. Otherwise, you're pretty much reduced to cheapo-deapo plastic Walmart glasses at that size. I do tend to always have mason jars kicking around, though, because every time I go home I get loaded down with freshly-canned produce by my mother.
- mc32 11y ago
  Does anyone "own" any aspect of any culture? While I agree there is a degree of image projection and wanting to look a certain way, does it really matter? Am I appropriating middle class by wearing matching clothing? Am I appropriating upward mobility by attending university? Really, I'm of the mind that none of the cultural signifiers are owned and thus there is no appropriation. People are free to either follow trends or not follow them and I really don't care. Let people do as they like. You grew up in housing estates and enjoy classical music, great. You came from a middle class family and inject east London lexicon into your speech, great, enjoy it. Everyone is a unit onto themselves and owe no one any apology for wanting to express themselves the way they want. crying appropriation is insular and is ironic in a sense. Yes. We are part of a society but it will turn on you in an instant, so, no, we don't owe it any deference.
  - tunesmith 11y ago
    "Appropriation" is one of those terms that has been overloaded and abused. Real appropriation is using another culture's culture and using it to pervert the meaning to the opposite. I completely agree with your point, just also pointing out that there are also real examples of appropriation out there - I guess many of the holiday traditions would qualify (native american thanksgiving stuff for commercialization, pagan christmas symbols used for christianity, etc).
    - mc32 11y ago
      Actually, to me, it makes no difference. So Christians took yuletide traditions and appropriated them. No difference to me. Etc, etc. Take whatever you want as an individual, I don't care. If it were not for "appropriation" society would not be beyond farming. The greatest philosophical lineages which allow us to have these discussions are mostly Greek and Chinese traditions. The rest of us have appropriated those institutions along with learning and education which have all allowed us to ponder these things. Else we'd be like nomads and tribes who have traditions and culture but are little conscious of their provenance. It's not as if non modern cultures just up and spontaneously developed in cultural vacuums. We all have borrowed taken and appropriated consciously or unconsciously with and without premeditated purpose by weaker and stronger parties. To me, neither make a difference. Let everyone be what they want to be individually. In large groups their use can seem unfair, but individuals are not their groups. Not only that, but to not appropriate can only work in unconnected monocultures and I really don't think that's the direction either groups or individuals want to take, by and large. To some degree it seems denouncing appropriation is a bit like wanting to eat the cake and have it too.
      - tunesmith 11y ago
        Well, I think you'd agree that abuse is bad. So, in the cases where cultural "borrowing" is driven by the intent to abuse, rather than the actual desire to assimilate the practice into one's own culture, would you agree that that is bad, also? Because that is the only point I'm making - that that is what the original definition of appropriation was about - where willful abuse was the point of it. Where it's a method of abuse. Beyond that, it's a spectrum and a matter of degree. Mason jars is not appropriation. A silly pop star wearing cornrows is probably not appropriation, although some valid counterpoints might exist. Someone wearing a native american headdress to sell cars, or the Washington Redskins refusing to rename, or the KC Chiefs singing the tomahawk song at their stadium... those debates get a bit meatier.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]

DanBC 11y ago

Mason jars are used by some people as glasses because those people have a bunch of mason jars handy. "Hipsters" appropriate that for purely image purposes. A mason jar is in most ways worse than an actual glass. And a cocktail bar in east London doesn't happen to have a bunch of mason jars for preserving home grown produce. They buy them in. It's annoying to see rich people play-acting like poor people for fun. Jarvis Cocker sings about it in Common People. Wayne Hemmingway has spoken about his dislike of people who collect kitsch for irony. Last decade it was trucker hats.

douche 11y ago
When I drink water, I like having a big glass, to avoid filling it up every two minutes, so I either use a quart Mason jar or glasses I made out of magnum wine bottles. Otherwise, you're pretty much reduced to cheapo-deapo plastic Walmart glasses at that size. I do tend to always have mason jars kicking around, though, because every time I go home I get loaded down with freshly-canned produce by my mother.
mc32 11y ago
Does anyone "own" any aspect of any culture? While I agree there is a degree of image projection and wanting to look a certain way, does it really matter? Am I appropriating middle class by wearing matching clothing? Am I appropriating upward mobility by attending university? Really, I'm of the mind that none of the cultural signifiers are owned and thus there is no appropriation. People are free to either follow trends or not follow them and I really don't care. Let people do as they like. You grew up in housing estates and enjoy classical music, great. You came from a middle class family and inject east London lexicon into your speech, great, enjoy it. Everyone is a unit onto themselves and owe no one any apology for wanting to express themselves the way they want. crying appropriation is insular and is ironic in a sense. Yes. We are part of a society but it will turn on you in an instant, so, no, we don't owe it any deference.
- tunesmith 11y ago
  "Appropriation" is one of those terms that has been overloaded and abused. Real appropriation is using another culture's culture and using it to pervert the meaning to the opposite. I completely agree with your point, just also pointing out that there are also real examples of appropriation out there - I guess many of the holiday traditions would qualify (native american thanksgiving stuff for commercialization, pagan christmas symbols used for christianity, etc).
  - mc32 11y ago
    Actually, to me, it makes no difference. So Christians took yuletide traditions and appropriated them. No difference to me. Etc, etc. Take whatever you want as an individual, I don't care. If it were not for "appropriation" society would not be beyond farming. The greatest philosophical lineages which allow us to have these discussions are mostly Greek and Chinese traditions. The rest of us have appropriated those institutions along with learning and education which have all allowed us to ponder these things. Else we'd be like nomads and tribes who have traditions and culture but are little conscious of their provenance. It's not as if non modern cultures just up and spontaneously developed in cultural vacuums. We all have borrowed taken and appropriated consciously or unconsciously with and without premeditated purpose by weaker and stronger parties. To me, neither make a difference. Let everyone be what they want to be individually. In large groups their use can seem unfair, but individuals are not their groups. Not only that, but to not appropriate can only work in unconnected monocultures and I really don't think that's the direction either groups or individuals want to take, by and large. To some degree it seems denouncing appropriation is a bit like wanting to eat the cake and have it too.
    - tunesmith 11y ago
      Well, I think you'd agree that abuse is bad. So, in the cases where cultural "borrowing" is driven by the intent to abuse, rather than the actual desire to assimilate the practice into one's own culture, would you agree that that is bad, also? Because that is the only point I'm making - that that is what the original definition of appropriation was about - where willful abuse was the point of it. Where it's a method of abuse. Beyond that, it's a spectrum and a matter of degree. Mason jars is not appropriation. A silly pop star wearing cornrows is probably not appropriation, although some valid counterpoints might exist. Someone wearing a native american headdress to sell cars, or the Washington Redskins refusing to rename, or the KC Chiefs singing the tomahawk song at their stadium... those debates get a bit meatier.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]