I'd posit a unpopular viewpoint: that the attachment to the 'Bohemian' culture is more or less an unhelpful, unprogressive fixation with the past, shamelessly f

I'd posit a unpopular viewpoint: that the attachment to the 'Bohemian' culture is more or less an unhelpful, unprogressive fixation with the past, shamelessly fueled by hypocritical NIMBYs in the city with obvious incentives regarding home value. Can anyone explain why the old SF culture is any more relevant than Byzantine culture? As an Artist and an Engineer who used to live in SF and moved south recently, I'd argue most of the folks I interacted with in this oft-cried-over demographic were more aptly described as aspiring artists, and that their net contributions to the 'culture' were mimetic and surface-level at best. If you take away the weed, bob marley shirts, and hemp shopping bags, what exactly can we say they did? None of this is to say the 'nerds' were contributing much to the culture themselves, but I don't think there's much of an argument against them other than that they're boring, rich, and talked about Apps. These same people brought in quickly consumed tax revenue which the city has gorged into in its gluttonous waste. The root of the problem is the mistrust of the 'Other,' the 'Outsider' as new folks (often Nerds) immigrate to the city, which IS a net benefit to the blending of cultures and ideas. The fixation of preserving the crumbling vestige of the past is what prevents the service level workers from ever regaining a foothold, and the scapegoat is the Nerds, when it should be the landlords and Old Guard.