4 ms·

I visited SF prior to 2005 and had a general impression it was very Bohemian with a strong underground scene. To some extent I consider the city today a capital

I visited SF prior to 2005 and had a general impression it was very Bohemian with a strong underground scene. To some extent I consider the city today a capitalist parody of this former self, where you can stand in line at "Ramen Underground" and shop at the "Renegade Craft Fair".

paulcole 8y ago
> To some extent I consider the city today a capitalist parody of this former self What do you think the people who lived there in the 60s say about your assessment of 2005 SF being "very Bohemian with a strong underground scene"?
- loggedinmyphone 8y ago
  Jerry Rubin as far back as his 1970 book "Do It!" criticized the capitalists co-opting his image of the counterculture (a "revolution" in toilet paper!). I do think there was another wave of interesting people in the 90's with the Cacophony Society and original Burners, and there are still radical "scenes" happening today, most of which I'm probably too old to know about. The main structural impediment is just that it's too expensive for the kind of casual under-employment that enables these scenes to thrive.
  - paulcole 8y ago
    So to recap: It's always worse than it was but people think it was still good when they got there but got much worse shortly thereafter.
    - loggedinmyphone 8y ago
      No. Culture moves in waves. You hit the right part of the wave and it's a great ride. Time it just wrong and you wash out, but you might still have fun, especially if it's your first time out and you don't know what a good wave feels like. I don't agree with the sentiment that every time and place is equivalent to every other time and place, and that comparing them is a meaningless exercise in nostalgia, if that's what you're implying.
      - paulcole 8y ago
        What year(s) did you live in SF or spend significant time there?
        loggedinmyphone 8y ago
        I'm curious if you want to make a substantive point, please go ahead and do so without waiting for my complete biographical details.
        paulcole 8y ago
        The timeline you've laid out: Pre 2005 - "general impression it was very Bohemian with a strong underground scene" 2005-2010 - "the city had a very positive vibe" Post 2010 - "overcrowded, overvalued and overcapitalized" "a capitalist parody of this former self" My guess is that you likely moved to SF around 2005 and the city fortunately managed to maintain its "very positive vibe." Yet someone who moved there in the mid 80s would likely have a very different opinion of the same era. Similarly some tech bro who moved there in 2010 would likely have a more rose-colored take on the 2010-2018 era. I guess my substantive point is that people like to think they were there when it was good no matter when they were there.
        loggedinmyphone 8y ago
        I got that from your previous comment. I don't think it means the city is the same in 2018 as it was in 2005 or 1985. I'm talking about specific structural differences that don't have anything to do with when I got here (e.g rent).
        paulcole 8y ago
        No but it calls into question your assessment of the city.
        loggedinmyphone 8y ago

paulcole 8y ago

> To some extent I consider the city today a capitalist parody of this former self What do you think the people who lived there in the 60s say about your assessment of 2005 SF being "very Bohemian with a strong underground scene"?

loggedinmyphone 8y ago
Jerry Rubin as far back as his 1970 book "Do It!" criticized the capitalists co-opting his image of the counterculture (a "revolution" in toilet paper!). I do think there was another wave of interesting people in the 90's with the Cacophony Society and original Burners, and there are still radical "scenes" happening today, most of which I'm probably too old to know about. The main structural impediment is just that it's too expensive for the kind of casual under-employment that enables these scenes to thrive.
- paulcole 8y ago
  So to recap: It's always worse than it was but people think it was still good when they got there but got much worse shortly thereafter.
  - loggedinmyphone 8y ago
    No. Culture moves in waves. You hit the right part of the wave and it's a great ride. Time it just wrong and you wash out, but you might still have fun, especially if it's your first time out and you don't know what a good wave feels like. I don't agree with the sentiment that every time and place is equivalent to every other time and place, and that comparing them is a meaningless exercise in nostalgia, if that's what you're implying.
    - paulcole 8y ago
      What year(s) did you live in SF or spend significant time there?
      - loggedinmyphone 8y ago
        I'm curious if you want to make a substantive point, please go ahead and do so without waiting for my complete biographical details.
        paulcole 8y ago
        The timeline you've laid out: Pre 2005 - "general impression it was very Bohemian with a strong underground scene" 2005-2010 - "the city had a very positive vibe" Post 2010 - "overcrowded, overvalued and overcapitalized" "a capitalist parody of this former self" My guess is that you likely moved to SF around 2005 and the city fortunately managed to maintain its "very positive vibe." Yet someone who moved there in the mid 80s would likely have a very different opinion of the same era. Similarly some tech bro who moved there in 2010 would likely have a more rose-colored take on the 2010-2018 era. I guess my substantive point is that people like to think they were there when it was good no matter when they were there.
        loggedinmyphone 8y ago
        I got that from your previous comment. I don't think it means the city is the same in 2018 as it was in 2005 or 1985. I'm talking about specific structural differences that don't have anything to do with when I got here (e.g rent).
        paulcole 8y ago
        No but it calls into question your assessment of the city.
        loggedinmyphone 8y ago