Hipster – an all too commonly used term by the new generation. Bandied about on blogs, online conversations and cafes, hipster is everywhere now.

An article in the papers prompted me to dig up a little bit more about this term, by which I meant I looked up wikipedia – hah.

The hipster subculture typically consists of white millennials living in urban areas.[1][2] The subculture has been described as a “mutating, trans-Atlantic melting pot of styles, tastes and behavior”[3] and is broadly associated with indie and alternative music, a varied non-mainstream fashion sensibility (including vintage and thrift store-bought clothes), generally progressive political views, organic and artisanal foods, and alternative lifestyles.[4][5][6] Hipsters are typically described as affluent or middle class young Bohemians who reside in gentrifying neighborhoods.


“While mainstream society of the 2000s (decade) had been busying itself with reality television, dance music, and locating the whereabouts of Britney Spears’s underpants, an uprising was quietly and conscientiously taking place behind the scenes. Long-forgotten styles of clothing, beer, cigarettes and music were becoming popular again. Retrowas cool, the environment was precious and old was the new ‘new’. Kids wanted to wear Sylvia Plath’s cardigans and Buddy Holly’s glasses — they revelled in the irony of making something so nerdy so cool. They wanted to live sustainably and eat organic gluten-free grains. Above all, they wanted to be recognised for being different — to diverge from the mainstream and carve a cultural niche all for themselves. For this new generation, style wasn’t something you could buy in a department store, it became something you found in a thrift shop, or, ideally, made yourself. The way to be cool wasn’t to look like a television star: it was to look like as though you’d never seen television.”

— Matt Granfield, HipsterMattic[28

In a Huffington Post article entitled “Who’s a Hipster?”, Julia Plevin argues that the “definition of ‘hipster’ remains opaque to anyone outside this self-proclaiming, highly-selective circle”. She claims that the “whole point of hipsters is that they avoid labels and being labeled. However, they all dress the same and act the same and conform in their non-conformity” to an “iconic carefully created sloppy vintage look”.[14]

– Julia Plevin

Definitely fascinating. And quite true. I find hipster quite hard to define, but there are certain annoying trademarks. And I just don’t get being overly obsessed with expensive coffee. Although it is preferable to those beings who are obsessed over Starbucks and Branded Goods and Brands. Maybe I have just a tinge of hipster-hood. Or just nerdiness.






I have this blasted irritating headache, and achey neck, but I just have this feeling that I have to write. If you understand. 我有话要说。But I don’t know what is it that I have to say.

I have to say that I was wondering why does something exist. I have to say that why does the idea of a divine being lead to the erection of solid buildings that I cannot walk through, to the creation of imaginary barriers that I cannot break through. “Metaphysics of atheism”, someone wrote. That atheism, might oxymoronically have a metaphysical slant. No matter. If something does not exist, can it create something that can exist, that I believe to exist.

Remember Inception, the movie that never was good but which introduced ideas into people’s minds. Half-formed ideas that are supposed to grow and take shape and fill conversations and spawn silly fanatics. Well ideas, and concepts, are powerful things, and can create things, that we can believe to exist. But not always.

That is perhaps why divine beings can seem to exist in some people’s minds, because they feel like they experience it, be it in their reality, in their perception of reality, or in reality. Whereas in my reality, that idea is weak, illogical in that it does not conform with my physical perception of reality, and does not comply with my sense of logic. Therefore even if I try to believe it, I will always know that it is simply a figment of an idea planted by someone else, and it isn’t real.

It has always been the marvel of human beings to be able to hold contradictory ideas in the same mindspace, and to imagine and conceptualize the impossible.

I once asked S, or rather, posed to her, what if/if  the utopian afterlife commonly referred to as heaven lasted for eternity, what does it mean on the time scale? If we draw an impossible long timeline horizontally, the fraction of that which would be spent in real human life on Earth would be an impossibly tiny fraction at the beginning. Something like 1/infinity. Anyway in the mind of a person in the utopian afterlife, the afterlife would stretch for eternity in both directions, forward and back. How can a simple human recall what happened eons ago? (assuming no change in memory power). How can life on earth have any meaning in that mindspace? Consequently, there will be no feeling or concept of arriving in utopia. So does the life on earth make a difference? Maybe not. Or maybe one could argue that if it didn’t work out, one wouldn’t end up in utopian afterlife, and that would be the difference. But in that case, one would cease to exist and one would never be aware of such a difference. If one lived without the concept of utopian afterlife, one would spend life, not thinking it exists, and not going to any such a place. Hence no problem. But then one would argue that hey you’ll be in distopian afterlife, commonly known as hell. Okay… Now why, logically, would this kind of distopian afterlife serve to exist for? What purpose, to what end? To show people that there’s a difference? To allow people in believe in utopian afterlife? What if I posed the possibility that distopian afterlife does not need to exist? You see, a deterrent does not need to exist in order to act as a deterrent. It only has to be imagined to exist. Just like a threat. Of course to be believable a threat has to appear to be real. Just like we know that prisons exist because we can see them, because we know of ‘criminals’ who recount their experiences. But not the same for our distopian afterlife which we cannot see or hear of. It only needs to be imagined to exist. Well sure all this sounds like blasphemy, but it isn’t. Simply because here I am debating whether the law exists, not whether the law is correct. Nvm what was that distraction for. Imagine if  all offenders are sent away forever and ever to a prison island we never see and nobody ever returns. What is the difference if all these people were actually killed and buried secretly and no prisons exist. We would never realize the difference would we?

Of course here I am only arguing against the utopian afterlife problem, I’m sure there are other arguments to be made against other points. And utopian afterlife isn’t the point of everything or everyone.

So that’s what I had to write about before I sleep.

No this isn’t why I have an headache.