3 ms·

This is the standard status quo objection to anything counter cultural these days. You can always find a group of people on the internet into the idea in quest

This is the standard status quo objection to anything counter cultural these days. You can always find a group of people on the internet into the idea in question and stuck in a filter bubble and completely out of touch. For any trend you want to discuss. Yes, our culture is able to apply more social pressure on the poor and disadvantaged to buy status symbols. Encouraging them to ignore the system built to keep them poor by selling them overpriced garbage with lifestyle marketing is the act of an ally. Of course having purchasing habits considered weird in a culture of conspicuous consumption is easier for the privileged. That's what being privileged means, doing anything different is easier. And I'll argue that the minimalism hipsters are a good thing. They are carving out a space where saving money and not engaging in conspicuous consumption carries social status. It would be great news for the disadvantaged and poor if that caught on more. You could apply this argument to getting exercise, eating a healthy diet, having social activities other than watching garbage TV. All done by privileged people, many of whom turn it into performative virtue signaling to get attention and annoy everyone.

mcguire 10y ago
But there's many varieties of conspicuous consumption. At least one of these looks very minimal: by not owning things that you need, you signal that you can afford to rent them, or hire someone to do the task, or buy them for one use and then dispose of them. I rather suspect that if you suggested that any of the minimalists described in the article, or those that occasionally pop up elsewhere having discarded their earthly possessions, were trying to save money, then they would be somewhat offended. Or, on the other hand, perhaps they're like Paul Erdős and and somehow psychologically impaired.

mcguire 10y ago

But there's many varieties of conspicuous consumption. At least one of these looks very minimal: by not owning things that you need, you signal that you can afford to rent them, or hire someone to do the task, or buy them for one use and then dispose of them. I rather suspect that if you suggested that any of the minimalists described in the article, or those that occasionally pop up elsewhere having discarded their earthly possessions, were trying to save money, then they would be somewhat offended. Or, on the other hand, perhaps they're like Paul Erdős and and somehow psychologically impaired.