Anti-Hipster Hooligans Trash an Urban Outfitters in Milwaukee
reposted from infoshop.org/inews, 15.08.2008 16:11
On Thursday the August 14th, a gang of anti-hipster hooligans trashed an Urban Outfitters in Milwaukee. Around eleven in the morning, the group infiltrated the store, one-by-one. Then, when the moment was right, they made their presence known. "Die hipster scum!"
Anti-Hipster Hooligans Trash an Urban Outfitters in Milwaukee
The following communique was delivered today:
"On Thursday the August 14th, a gang of anti-hipster hooligans trashed an Urban Outfitters in Milwaukee.
Around eleven in the morning, the group infiltrated the store, one-by-one. Then, when the moment was right, they made their presence known.
"Die hipster scum!"
A person juggled eggs (all over the merchandise) while informing the customers that the circus was in town, but they were the freak show. Displays were broken, tables were flipped, merchandise was scattered all over the store, and piles of shameless Obama gear was looted and destroyed.
Let it be known, hipsters, your time has come. No longer will we sit by idly while you appropriate symbols of the working class, queer culture or revolutionary struggle while creating no cool of your own. We'll meet you on the front lines of gentrification and cultural erasure and fight you at each encounter. And Richard Hayne, don't think we've forgotten about the disgusting amounts of money you've donated to Focus on the Family and Rick Santorum, and all their anti-queer crusades.
Today we hit one of your stores. Tomorrow it might be one of your clubs, your cafes or maybe even your condos.
Put down the Polaroids and V-necks; take up the rocks and bottles.
Love,
some fans of stores in shambles"
 http://news.infoshop.org/article.php?story=20080814231116379
hipster war
15.08.2008 - 19:17
Why isn't this happening everyday?!
lillie>
Haters
15.08.2008 - 19:24
It seems like a great idea to target Urban Outfitters the store, and to challenge gentrification and all that, and i am not against the property destruction, but...it seems a little ridiculous to chant "Die Hipster Scum" at customers who you know nothing about. You are making an awful lot of assumptions here (and no, i don't shop at urban outfitters, but i have checked the clearance rack). This is the sort of alienating bullshit that helps keep anarchists so marginal in this country. It seems like the focus on the store is lost in an action like this, and the only thing people remember is that you came off as pompous assholes.
And here is a gem from the article: "Let it be known, hipsters, your time has come. No longer will we sit by idly while you appropriate symbols of the working class, queer culture or revolutionary struggle while creating no cool of your own. We'll meet you on the front lines of gentrification and cultural erasure and fight you at each encounter."
People who hate on hipsters are usually hipsters themselves. And who the fuck are you to talk about appropriating symbols and cultures?! Like you aren't part of some anarcho-hipster scene that utilizes a "poverty chic" uniform. Verbally attacking so-called hipsters, whatever the fuck the term is supposed to mean, is not going to get much accomplished if you are serious about furthering your ideas. How about talking about the real race and class dynamics underpinning inequalities in wealth and power, instead of attacking an amorphous ascetic? Self-righteous, lefter-than-thou, presumptuous rants against some minor sub-culture, or against the customers who may have been in the store, seems like a pretty alienating tactic. Personally, I believe anarchism should be about building up community and cooperation. That means we all need to see our commonalities, and go from there. Why does the focus always have to be on chaos and destruction. I thought that was just an unfounded stereotype about anarchists propagated by the corporate media, but i guess some of you bought into it too. I guess what I am trying to say is that going on a rant against so-called hipsters, when to most people you are probably viewed as hipsters yourselves, just seems really hypocritical. Also, empty threats don't really do anything when everybody knows that they are empty.
Unity>
unity
15.08.2008 - 20:15
By your logic an anti-anti-hipster, must also be a hipster.
bad dudes>
Dear Unity
15.08.2008 - 20:21
"You are making an awful lot of assumptions here"
That is actually really funny, being that your entire response is filled with nothing but assumptions, which I'll make note of below. But really what assumption was made? Urban Outfitters is a pioneer of gentrification, exploits sweatshop labor, and yes appropriates imagery and markets it back to queer people while its owner uses the profits made from such recuperation to fund Focus on the Family and Rick Santorums anti-queer crusades. Not assumptions, facts.
"this is the sort of alienating bullshit that helps keep anarchists so marginal in this country."
The existence of capitalism is alienating. The media driven mass consumption of Urban Outfitters and all other bastions of hipsterdom are alienating. So do something about it.
" It seems like the focus on the store is lost in an action like this"
How does trashing a store, destroying property of a store and looting a store take the focus away from said store?
"And here is a gem from the article: "Let it be known, hipsters, your time has come. No longer will we sit by idly while you appropriate symbols of the working class, queer culture or revolutionary struggle while creating no cool of your own. We'll meet you on the front lines of gentrification and cultural erasure and fight you at each encounter." "
I don't see the humor. The consumption patterns and aesthetics of hipsters are in fact appropriated from revolutionary, working class or queer movements. (i.e. the Keffiyeh, which was a symbol of palestinian liberation only to be stolen and devalued by trendy urban outfitters customers).
"And who the fuck are you to talk about appropriating symbols and cultures?! Like you aren't part of some anarcho-hipster scene that utilizes a "poverty chic" uniform."
Assumptions, assumptions assumptions. Being that you don't know anything about the people who did this, how can you make any judgement on who they are or what background they are from? And you seem to be missing the difference between those who create culture and those who recuperate it. One might recall that after the Seattle riots in 1999, Urban Outfitters dressed its mannequins in all black with black bandanas.
" Verbally attacking so-called hipsters, whatever the fuck the term is supposed to mean, is not going to get much accomplished if you are serious about furthering your ideas."
No, but taking direct action against shitty stores will.
" How about talking about the real race and class dynamics underpinning inequalities in wealth and power, instead of attacking an amorphous ascetic?"
Gladly. Modern hipsters are symbols of the recuperative tendency of capitalism to steal the aesthetics and bodies of people of color, queers, and the working class only to sell images back to them. Its not about opposing this or that subculture.
Oh, and maybe look up the difference between an 'aesthetic' and an 'ascetic'
"lefter-than-thou"
Hahaha. Watch who you call a leftist. (this is another one of those darn assumptions)
" I guess what I am trying to say is that going on a rant against so-called hipsters, when to most people you are probably viewed as hipsters yourselves, just seems really hypocritical."
again with the assumptions. You sure play a tired game
"Also, empty threats don't really do anything when everybody knows that they are empty. "
Go ask the manager of Urban whether the threats made by this gang were empty.
Oh and fuck anarcho-hipsters, too.
Chaos and Destruction>
chaos and destruction?
15.08.2008 - 21:33
wow, foam at the mouth much?
so maybe we should drop the combative tone a little. i would like to respond to some of your comments.
" It seems like the focus on the store is lost in an action like this"
'How does trashing a store, destroying property of a store and looting a store take the focus away from said store? '
I guess i'm referring to your rhetoric, and not your actions. i honestly have no idea what you actually did. i guess my entire response is to the "Die Hipster Scum" tone of your article. you make some very good points about Urban Outfitters and why they suck. but were you talking to the store when you said that? because i don't think all those corporate profits are going to middle class hipsters shopping downtown in milwaukee.
"And here is a gem from the article: "Let it be known, hipsters, your time has come. No longer will we sit by idly while you appropriate symbols of the working class, queer culture or revolutionary struggle while creating no cool of your own. We'll meet you on the front lines of gentrification and cultural erasure and fight you at each encounter." "
'I don't see the humor. The consumption patterns and aesthetics of hipsters are in fact appropriated from revolutionary, working class or queer movements. (i.e. the Keffiyeh, which was a symbol of palestinian liberation only to be stolen and devalued by trendy urban outfitters customers).'
ok, but what makes one a hipster? because they bought the keffiyeh at urban outfitters? instead of using the word "hipster" it seems like you are really saying "poseur". are you really talking about class war or is this just junior high. superficial attacks against the customers of one particular trendy store just seems kind of pointless. sure, attack the store, sounds like fun. i agree that i shouldn't really judge the action itself. but your rhetoric just rubbed me the wrong way, sorry. it seemed really silly.
'"Oh, and maybe look up the difference between an 'aesthetic' and an 'ascetic'"
'lefter-than-thou'
"Hahaha. Watch who you call a leftist. (this is another one of those darn assumptions) "
way to point out the typo! congrats, you must be brilliant. and yeah, i don't know anything about you, nor about your semantic proclivities. so, regardless of whether you use the word "leftist", you get the idea.
"Oh and fuck anarcho-hipsters, too. "
umm, ok. that'll show 'em. and if you are talking to me, im pretty sure i wouldn't fit your definition of a hipster. personally i think the term is pretty stupid, and isn't really useful, so i don't really use it.
unity>
i lol'd
15.08.2008 - 21:53
As an unapologetic hipster and frequent shop(lift)er, I find this action pretty damn hilarious. Wish I could've come and got some free clothes. My friends who work there were a bit more mixed.
"Oh and fuck anarcho-hipsters, too."
So you hate like, what, half of Milwaukee's anarchists and your friends? They're better than the anarcho-hippies.
looter>
ha
15.08.2008 - 22:01
I work there. I wish it had happened while I was working.
disgruntled>
looter
16.08.2008 - 00:00
"As an unapologetic hipster and frequent shop(lift)er, I find this action pretty damn hilarious. Wish I could've come and got some free clothes. My friends who work there were a bit more mixed."
"So you hate like, what, half of Milwaukee's anarchists and your friends? They're better than the anarcho-hippies."
And again we are haunted by the vapid vagueness of the word hipster. What does it really mean, especially when even hipsters deride its usage? It seems it has to do with ones position within the culture industry, as consumer and producer of raw material for the ever present demand for new markets. A recuperating material force of destruction.
I demand an apology, there is no excuse for the ironic wandering of these poor soon to be yuppies.
tout niquer>
Wow
16.08.2008 - 02:14
This is by far the dumbest, most ridiculous action I have EVER seen. This is a new low for the Milwaukee activist community. Honestly, I've got to say I'm embarrassed to be a part of that community right now. I'm generally a guy who's open to new tactics as well.
Whoever did this event clearly had more of a problem with the FASHION of mainstream society than they did with the world around them. This is pretty much straight up adolescent hormones acting up behind a facade of "activism" or some other weird theory bullshit. Really, really weak.
I'm not going to get into a debate as to whether this action was a legitimate, from the heart protest of mainstream culture. It's obvious, by the language of this very article, that the action was one against hipsters as a general group, although no "hipsters" (whatever that term even means) were targeted in any way whatsoever. The community has no way of understanding what was done or why. There was no clear target, no real message that an uneducated public could receive, nothing at all to demonstrate why this reckless act of childish vandalism occurred.
This action fails on every level, from its nonexistent message on down to the maturity level of those involved.
Please never, ever do anything like this ever again. You make everyone look like an idiot.
PS. The COMMENTS made about why Urban Outfitters sucks are GREAT. Its a huge shame that the action's purpose didn't have anything to do with that at all.
Shocked>
I'm here all week, folks.
16.08.2008 - 03:52
Pip the hipster has a sister,
Who had a tryst with some resisters.
They trashed an UO, fought enlisters
Desipte critique they were persisters.
Pip said: "My friend I must insist:
create a list of all the lispers,
queers limp wristers, cool resisters.
Aren't you a aware they are just hipsters?"
Obviously, this made her pissed.
"I do not care," replied Pip's sister,
"For in the hearts of all resisters
resides a dream to not desist.
(and afterwards we'll all play twister.)"
nmc>
dear shocked,
16.08.2008 - 11:11
Shocked, you may not be able to tell if this action has a message (when it was obviously stated to you), but can you tell the difference between your floppy penis and a petition board? Because I can't. Your wienerism is alienating all the chaos seeking youth out there that want nothing less than the destruction of this miserable world. Do you really think you're in a position as an activist to speak about how any change can or cannot happen ever?
bad dudes>
i'm confused
16.08.2008 - 16:05
All the time I hear people talking about 'hipsters', but I have not yet to my knowledge actually seen one. So I'm pretty convinced they don't really exist... Can one qualify as a hipster just by shopping at Urban Outfitters?
Also- to anyone who participated in this event- what were you trying to accomplish by doing this? If your main motivation behind this was just to cause chaos and destruction then I fail to see why you would cause chaos and destruction at an Urban Outfitters rather than a BP or Mobile station, the US Bank building (or any bank for that matter), or any buisiness headquaters.
You wanna destroy capitalism, right?
I think it'll be easier to do that by convincing other people to help you instead of breaking things and insulting people who could easily end up as our comrades.
andrew>
good job?
16.08.2008 - 17:41
i don't think you guys accomplished anything besides actin a fool. i mean i get it. i'm not gonna condem it. i'm sure it was fun and what not.
i think it was just easier for you kids to go make a huge spectacle instead of productively explaining your completely justified distate for a store with a lot of fucked up policiesto shoppers who probably more likely than not would agree with you.
theres no doubt in my head that i probably know some of the anti-hipster posse behind this event so i'm just gonna throw it out there that its a hell of a lot easier and less confrontational to do something like this in a store like urban outfitters were the target group and witnesses are gonna be privileged white kids who the perps themselves might even know than go after a more "mainstream" group.
i guess i'm just sayin the people who were affected by what you did aren't completly lost but your actions probably alienated them from your struggle. yes. capitalism the state wu wu wu all that shit is alienating no doubt but like oh this is pointless.
hmmm>
you guys
17.08.2008 - 10:31
are fucking idiots
the former>
Stating the Obvious
17.08.2008 - 14:03
Trashing a trendy store isn't going to help anyone who needs it. The things that were ruined will swiftly be replaced and the frightened shoppers continue to shop (if not more now), as the attention-hungry antagonists of the Milwaukee Activist Network will continue to erode and degrade the public's reception of the mission we're trying to live out. Sure, it pisses me off that Urban Outfitters exploits workers to obtain their product. Of course, I'm annoyed with the hypocrisy of the supposedly socially conscious shopper that UO attracts. But I think it's important to realize that fighting hypocrisy and injustice with more hypocrisy and injustice isn't going to bring anything close to the resolution we're looking for. "Die Hipster Scum!" is an idiotic thing to say. It more closely resembles the hate-speech spewn on The 700 Club, than any sort of call of accountability for Richard Wayne and the people who purchase his ill-attained product.
Randolph>
News Flash
17.08.2008 - 14:38
President Bush announced today that the Iraq War was being canceled due to an incident of vandalism at a clothing store in Milwaukee. He also announced that he would be stepping down, effective immediately, and taking steps to dismantle what remains of the former government of the United States, which is in total disarray after the incident. "A temporary disruption in sales at a retail outlet in a minor Midwestern city was something that we were simply not prepared to cope with," said White House spokeswoman Dana Perino.
In the days since the incident, poverty, racism, and violence have completely disappeared in Milwaukee. "Thank God for those hooligans," said one jubilant resident. "I'm so glad that they directed their energies towards making confrontational cultural statements towards a tiny section of white middle-class shoppers, instead of actively supporting my community's struggles for economic justice. If they had done that, who knows what would have happened?"
Ted Koppel>
calling all specialists of struggle,
17.08.2008 - 14:57
It should be stated that this action was probably not intented to appeal to left-liberal activists, nor would any action they take probably be intended to appeal to such naive hand-wringing sensiblities. They can complain as they always do about people acting uncontrolably, but what interest are these complaints to the uncontrolables? Fighting injustice and hypocracy is not in the interests of a total transformation of our conditions, it is in the interest of a friendlier face of misery, a greener capital, a state that dominates us with a smile.
A discourse on the complete destruction of capital/civilization will not be viewed as rational, especially by those who seek to perpetuate these conditions (ahem).
tout niquer>
a legitimate question
17.08.2008 - 15:13
How many people who assume a single action can be generalized as sole praxis for social struggle (andrew, randolph, hmmm, and all others) does it take screw in a light bulb?
#>
a helpful definition
17.08.2008 - 15:28
recuperation:
"Recuperation, in the sociological sense (first proposed by Guy Debord and the Situationists), is the process by which "radical" ideas and images are commodified and incorporated within mainstream society, such as the movement for civil rights in the United States or the push for women's rights. It is the opposite of detournement."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recuperation_(sociology)
the internet>
some more musings on the hipster
17.08.2008 - 15:56
"An artificial appropriation of different styles from different eras, the hipster represents the end of Western civilization – a culture lost in the superficiality of its past and unable to create any new meaning. Not only is it unsustainable, it is suicidal. While previous youth movements have challenged the dysfunction and decadence of their elders, today we have the “hipster” – a youth subculture that mirrors the doomed shallowness of mainstream society."
for more visit:
http://news.infoshop.org/article.php?story=20080815161225397
the internet>
Detournment, recouperation, spectacle, etc.
17.08.2008 - 17:10
It is a well-known historical fact that the civil rights movement and the women's movement accomplished absolutely nothing worthwhile. On the other hand, incomprehensible francophone jargon and the inaccessible street theater inspired by it have improved the lives of millions.
Guy D. Bored>
liberal hand-wringers?
17.08.2008 - 17:36
"It should be stated that this action was probably not intented to appeal to left-liberal activists, nor would any action they take probably be intended to appeal to such naive hand-wringing sensiblities. They can complain as they always do about people acting uncontrolably, but what interest are these complaints to the uncontrolables? Fighting injustice and hypocracy is not in the interests of a total transformation of our conditions, it is in the interest of a friendlier face of misery, a greener capital, a state that dominates us with a smile.
A discourse on the complete destruction of capital/civilization will not be viewed as rational, especially by those who seek to perpetuate these conditions (ahem)."
just because someone criticizes your action, or in my case your rhetoric, does not mean that they are hopelessly bought-off, liberal, naive, hand-wringers, etc. it also does not mean that they seek to perpetuate inequality, as you insinuate. perhaps your 'with us or against us' attitude is the biggest problem here, and it has tainted your action and your rhetoric, making you all seem self-righteous and arrogant. perhaps some of us who criticize your action also seek a total transformation of our society/civilization (i know i do), but we don't like being talked down to, and we don't think that non-anarchists - many of them our friends, family, and lovers - need to be talked down to either. you seek a discourse on the complete destruction of capital/civilization? well, telling people who may or may not be in any sort of position of power or authority, who may not have any more money than you, who may not know about your 'enlightened' ideas but might be interested in them given the chance, or who may not be exactly where you are in their politics but might be going in that direction, (these descriptions could very well describe any number of people shopping at urban outfitters, or people who you might describe as "hipsters" simply because you don't like their style) that their "time has come," and that you will fight them at every encounter, and also telling them to "die" and calling them "scum" simply because they are shopping at a particular trendy store one day, or they might appear to you to not be legit enough to wear a keffiyeh, well, (i know this is a run-on sentence), that doesn't sound like rational discourse to me.
perhaps you may have some very good points in your responses here, but perhaps you may want to consider that other people who disagree with you might also have some good points. that is what rational discourse is all about. or perhaps i misunderstood your last comment about rational discourse, and in fact you are really saying, fuck rational discourse, these people are too stupid to understand it anyway so i will just tell them all to fuck off, that i am right and they are wrong. is that the case? because if it is, well, go ahead, stay an irrelevant clique, an irrelevant and ineffectual circle of the righteous, a circle that you will find getting smaller with every passing year, and your total transformation will never happen, at least not by your hand.
Unity>
Bandwagon jumping?
18.08.2008 - 13:36
Is it just a coincidence that this would happen so soon after the recent AdBusters cover story on hipsters as the "dead end of western civilization"? I mean, why does the keffiyeh thing keep getting brought up (as it is in that article,) has ANYONE in Milwaukee ever been seen wearing one?
(see http://adbusters.org/magazine/79/hipster.html?page=46 )
EthrDemon>
problems
18.08.2008 - 15:46
The problem is not that people wear kaffias (sp?), but that urban outfitters sells them.
$>
dear unity,
18.08.2008 - 17:32
To be clear, it isn’t that a respectful and open discourse isn’t desirable on this site; but many posters are driven to arrogance by a river of assumptions that have flooded past any reasonable possibility for dialog. To address all of these errors, to work to merely be on the same page seems and enormous task, which becomes especially daunting when one only has a small fragments of a day to tolerate sitting in front of a screen pondering such banalities. To the best of my ability I have only commented on the statements and questions raised here, not assumed. If in moments of my weakness I lapse into what appears as arrogance it should be seen as frustration at the seemingly impenetrable ideological armor of some (who resist the temptation to cast off their shells).
“perhaps some of us who criticize your action also seek a total transformation of our society/civilization:”
The comments made thus far have not shown this. What they have show was that there are differing ideas about the total transformation of our conditions, that people understand these conditions differently, and that they have different understandings regarding how this transformation is to be achieved.
“but we don't like being talked down to, and we don't think that non-anarchists - many of them our friends, family, and lovers - need to be talked down to either.”
It has never been an intention of mine to talk down to others, anarchists or otherwise, especially not merely because they weren’t anarchists. What would the purpose be?
“well, telling people who may or may not be in any sort of position of power or authority, who may not have any more money than you, who may not know about your 'enlightened' ideas….that their "time has come," and that you will fight them at every encounter, and also telling them to "die" and calling them "scum" simply because they are shopping at a particular trendy store one day, or they might appear to you to not be legit enough to wear a keffiyeh, well, that doesn't sound like rational discourse to me.”
Obviously this action is provocative, I would guess that these statements were made in jest and not made deliberately to threaten anyone in the store. That said, I would also guess that it was not in the interests of anyone to convince shoppers or employees of their ideas. The goal was probably most importantly to spark dialog in other places (places where people are interested in listening) about the role of recuperation in our struggles. The service industry workers who hold positions within the culture industry are not the enemy. The lines become blurred for them when these workers find themselves identifying more with the status of proximity to such raw and exciting material for capitalism, when they fetishize the very commodities and conditions which separate them from their lives. But thankfully most often workers do not value their alienated existences and rejoice whenever chaos causes a lapse in their boredom. They hate their managers and would be overjoyed if a tear were to ever fall from their cheeks.
“or perhaps i misunderstood your last comment about rational discourse, and in fact you are really saying, fuck rational discourse, these people are too stupid to understand it anyway so i will just tell them all to fuck off, that i am right and they are wrong. is that the case?”
Those who are caught up in certain conditions, whether they wish to perpetuate them or not, will view most actions that change these conditions as irrational, but I would argue that this should not solely limit or devalorize these actions. It’s not that these people are unworthy of discourse, but that isn’t always as important. For example; many must have found the actions of slavery abolitionists to be extremely irrational at the time (and the abomination of slavery surely did drive many to irrationality), but this shouldn’t have been the slightest concern. Rationality is not determined by us it is defined by a social order we are opposed to. Where does this place us and our actions if we are to seek to effectively transform our conditions, especially when the “rationality” of this society limits us to ways of thinking and acting that merely perpetuate its logic and social relation?
tout niquer>
Thanks Tout Niquer
18.08.2008 - 18:44
Thanks for your response. I appreciate your comments, which were thought provoking. I can't say i completely disagree with you.
That being said, I still find this action and the rhetoric that accompanied it, extremely problematic. Also, I would like to respond directly to a couple of your points.
"Obviously this action is provocative, I would guess that these statements were made in jest and not made deliberately to threaten anyone in the store."
Oh, I get it, fuck off and die is a joke. ha ha. we will fight you wherever we find you, how funny. of course i have no idea what happened in the store. but the rhetoric publicizing this action sure doesn't sound jocular. it seems like a pretty clear (empty) threat.
"That said, I would also guess that it was not in the interests of anyone to convince shoppers or employees of their ideas. The goal was probably most importantly to spark dialog in other places (places where people are interested in listening) about the role of recuperation in our struggles."
I am guessing that this represents a fundamental difference between our political philosophies. I feel that in order to successfully fight against oppression, and to bring about the fundamental changes needed to do this, mass movements are necessary. Limiting dialog to those places where people are already in agreement with you, well that seems rather pointless. how is that going to unite people? Unless more people are attracted to your ideas, then no amount of direct action is going to make any difference. I am not saying that people shouldn't do direct action. And i am not saying that one must do an action that everyone can get behind. But i am saying that if one does not make much effort to make their direct action accessible to a group larger than just those already in complete agreement with them, then their actions are irrelevant and useless. In this case it seems that not only did these individuals not make much of an effort to explain themselves (fine, maybe not always the MOST important thing), they actually seemed to go out of their way to insult people based on a particular aesthetic (i spelled it right this time!). What is the point of that?
"For example; many must have found the actions of slavery abolitionists to be extremely irrational at the time (and the abomination of slavery surely did drive many to irrationality), but this shouldn’t have been the slightest concern. Rationality is not determined by us it is defined by a social order we are opposed to."
so i guess that leaves no room for critique then does it? if one does not agree with an action, and finds it silly, or finds the rhetoric to be alienating, then they are equated with supporting slavery. what a joke. perhaps, just perhaps, the critics here may have a point. after all, people visiting this site are not (for the most part) right-wingers, nor even liberal democrats for that matter. Most people here want an end to capitalist oppression and exploitation. If even these people think the action is fucked up, well maybe it might just be a little fucked up.
Finally, the more I think about it, the more I am convinced that the term "Hipster" does not describe an actual group of people or subculture, but instead is a generic put-down used to describe "poseurs," or individuals with too strong an affinity for irony, or people that dress really "hip." But people that get described as hipsters can have widely varying political views, class positions, consumption habits. So why should we focus on "hipsters" as a target of our ire, when the term is so vague and useless? and why should anyone care about hipsters anyway? if the target of this action was the store, why the vague threats against hipsters? if the target really was "hipsters," then what is the point? so they can reclaim "their" recuperated trends? how superficial. I would suggest people forget about reclaiming "their" cool and think about organizing with those that don't give a fuck about cool.
that's all. I promise to withhold all future opinions.
Unity>
Hey people
18.08.2008 - 20:46
ENOUGH INSULTS on BOTH sides, please! They just distract people.
Dear Chaos and Destruction,
Could you please provide links to UO's links to right-wing groups? Totally not sarcastic here: I'd love to have that shit around. Thanks! :-)
--
Dear tout niquer,
You don't have to assume that left-liberals DON'T want the state to end; we merely consider different ways of ending it. I don't assume your arguments are unreasonable; I think they're wrong, but I'd like to discuss them with you and try to figure out where you're coming from. :-)
--
Dear the internet,
We shouldn't judge people's politics exclusively from where they shop. Yes, shopping at Urban Outfitters is a mistake, but it's only one. (It certainly isn't as petty as the hipster-partiers your article mentions.) Plus, if someone seeks to "escape wealth" (as your link suggests), doesn't that suggest that they're more eager than most to legitimately fight authority? I'm sure their hipster-ism will hinder them by making them feel falsely complacent that they're in the proper direction, but only if the proper direction is already valued.
Are they bad because they haven't created new meaning, though? They certainly haven't taken up any causes, but in this postmodern culture, they certainly aren't alone. Plus, people don't have to create new meaning: There's plenty of "old" meaning left to be defended: Feminism, anti-racism, labor rights... (Marx, a very "old" meaning, can sufficiently answer the postmodernism you see as so problematic in hipsters--look up Frederic Jameson.)
Diprosopus>
congratulations
19.08.2008 - 11:35
Congratulations on a job well done. Hipsters, yuppies and pro-war liberals are suffocating us. It might be better to describe their values for what their "values" really are, middle-class(mediocre & crass). Chainstores pimping out coolness is just another symptom of the problem in US society. Businessmen are scum, we shouldn't need a slogan to trash one of their stores.
genocideoftherich>
 e-mail:: nguyen
Dear unity,
19.08.2008 - 13:35
“I feel that in order to successfully fight against oppression, and to bring about the fundamental changes needed to do this, mass movements are necessary”
What is oppression and how do we fight against it successfully? Are we working for groups to be treated more fairly within capitalism? What is a mass movement and why is it necessary? To change our conditions is surely a social activity, but changing them is not necessarily mass or a solidified movement. More often mass perpetuates a totalitarian logic where individuals are seen as pawns, statistics, for an ideology which is supposed to represent their interests. Ideologies don’t represent people’s interests they are represented by people who are molded by them. Somehow this situation which is devoid of individual agency for the sake of false unity is supposed to lead us to a situation in which individual agency is the primary concern? I’ve never been convinced of this. Throughout history, from the rise of fascism, to the workers movements, mass movements have been a means to control not to liberate. They are more often a primitive means for capital in crisis to manage social conflict. What would truly liberating and effective class/social war look like? Maybe it would look like a massive number of individuals finding affinity with each other and taking it upon themselves to act for themselves, and each other, autonomous from any singular organizing body.
“Limiting dialog to those places where people are already in agreement with you that seems rather pointless. how is that going to unite people? ”
There are certain places where dialog is extremely unlikely to happen, but because honest dialog occupies so little space and time we are forced to act outside of this. But now, we (you and I) are communicating with each other and we are not in agreement. This is a place where people usually don’t, but sometimes listen. Does this seem pointless?
”But i am saying that if one does not make much effort to make their direct action accessible to a group larger than just those already in complete agreement with them, then their actions are irrelevant and useless. In this case it seems that not only did these individuals not make much of an effort to explain themselves”
What makes an action accessible? Sorry to ask all these basic questions, but the inaccessibility of actions is assumed as obvious when it is not. Who is it not accessible to and why? Is it not accessible to the sensibilities of middle class shoppers, to retail workers, disenfranchised and angry youth, and the generally dispossessed? When certain ways of relating are unacceptable, in this case conflict with retail stores, merely acting in this way communicates something. It communicates that people are in conflict with retail stores and that people act in this way, therefore others can as well. As this comes to be seen as a way people can act socially it becomes accessible and sustainable to more and more people. Maybe they too can live at odds with what is imposed upon them and take control of their lives.
”so i guess that leaves no room for critique then does it? if one does not agree with an action, and finds it silly, or finds the rhetoric to be alienating, then they are equated with supporting slavery.”
No, I was merely talking about how actions will be perceived. The end of slavery was irrational for those who saw slaves as mere machinery to be used and believed they depended upon it for their livelihood, developing a world-view around this relationship to justify their class position. If you’re interested in a respectful and honest dialog, I am always more than willing to be a part of it. Critique all you want (most on this site are not willing to do so with intelligence or respect).
”But people that get described as hipsters can have widely varying political views, class positions, consumption habits.”
People can be described as hipsters by their ironic and real worship of consumption (in their fetishization of raw capital), their middle to upper class position, and their most often a-political and seldom vapid political views. They can never be described as those who disdain consumption (regardless if they consume), never for a truly working class position, and never for an anti-political perspective. They can most often be described by the extreme arbitrary nature of their existence, which they have dedicated solely to consumption habits.
"I would suggest people forget about reclaiming "their" cool and think about organizing with those that don't give a fuck about cool."
How ironic? Not giving a fuck about cool is already a trend (a cool) that has been recuperated by hipsters and capitalism. Cool and anti-cool has always been at the forefront of youthful marketing strategies. A rebel without a cause has always got to have his leather jacket, coca-cola and cigarettes. There’s nothing worth reclaiming other than our autonomy to determine and create our own cultures. What is presented as autonomy by way of consumption habits must be shown for what it is - the very opposite.
tout niquer>
Diprosopus
19.08.2008 - 14:00
Diprosopus, by definition left-liberals don’t want the state to end. Their position is dependent upon the state not against it.
“I don't assume your arguments are unreasonable; I think they're wrong, but I'd like to discuss them with you and try to figure out where you're coming from”
If you have something to say then spit it out. Saying someone is wrong, but having nothing to back it up means nothing.
tout niquer>
The Last Straw + More Information
19.08.2008 - 15:01
I'm sorry, but this is the last fucking straw for me.
I was informed by a very reliable source that the initial target was the new American Apparel store, directly next to Urban Outfitters.
Are you aware that American Apparel's clothing is made in a factory in California, where the employees are payed well over $10/hour?
So all the bullshit about attacking sweat shops and capitalism is just a cover for the GIANT fuck-up that was the quick change of plans.
You are giving all anarchists a bad name.
Congradufuckinlations. Hope you're all happy with yourselves.
This is all coming from someone who has continually participated in anarchist activism and protests for the past several years. This is coming from your side. Even your own group is disagreeing with the actions that took place.
Please don't ever let this happen again.
ex-anarchist>
AA
19.08.2008 - 22:30
"I was informed by a very reliable source that the initial target was the new American Apparel store, directly next to Urban Outfitters.
Are you aware that American Apparel's clothing is made in a factory in California, where the employees are payed well over $10/hour?"
Never mind the exploitation of women, fucked-up hiring/firing practices and sexual harassment charges and all that, eh?
fan of the v-neck>
to ex-anarchist,
19.08.2008 - 23:02
Hey, if you'll notice, that communique never said anything about sweatshop labor (though that would have been warranted). It talked about the fact that the owner of Urban Outfitters donates millions of dollars to focus on the family and Rick Santorum, and thus is involved with campaigns that cause tremendous violence against queer people every day.
Thanks for putting your heterosexist bullshit on display and for completely ignoring struggles that affect queer people.
sykes>
tisk tisk tisk
20.08.2008 - 16:58
I have removed a number of comments because they were personal attacks on individuals (as well as the comments that refer to the comment, because it doesn't make much sense without the orginal). Please, children, play nice. Don't assume that you know who is anonymously posting, even if they say really dumb things and this makes you angry. Even if you do know the person, let's talk about their silly ideas rather than them as people.
If you have problem with this, suggest another way of dealing with it. This was done in an effort to encourage respectful and constructive dialog, as oppossed to a torrent of personal insults.
Mod>
hmm
20.08.2008 - 17:49
ISN'T THROWING EGGS AROUND NOT VEGAN???????????
you fucking RETARDS
VEGANxANARCHISTxCORE>
stupid people say stupid things
20.08.2008 - 18:06
"ISN'T THROWING EGGS AROUND NOT VEGAN???????????
you fucking RETARDS"
You must obviously have something wrong with your brain.
Heeeeeeeeeee. Hoooooooooo.
international of unreasonable torpedos>
I am always right!
20.08.2008 - 19:22
Anyone who disagrees with me is a racist, liberal, sexist, heterosexist moron!
Know it all>
know it all
21.08.2008 - 11:01
"Anyone who disagrees with me is a racist, liberal, sexist, heterosexist moron!"
Is this really the best you can do? You forgot classist, but really who that isn't a moron would believe as you do that just because someone talks about racism, liberals, sexism, heterosexism, etc, that it means that they are beyond critique? You're inability to address any of these ideas is what makes this beyond critique and a petty game of name calling, and you are therefore are unable to be taken seriously.
bad dudes>
Proving my point
22.08.2008 - 11:07
It is called sarcasm. And thanks for proving my point by living up to my caricature of you.
Know-it-all>
Beyond Guy Debord
22.08.2008 - 15:12
Let's move.
anon.>
know it all
22.08.2008 - 17:19
You haven't proven shit regarding my comments. What you have proven is that you are unable to argue any point, other than a thinly veiled statement that argues that if anyone is passionate in making points which you are unable to argue against that they are the ones unwilling to participate in dialog, while the opposite is true. I dare you to try to make a coherent argument.
bad dudes>
anon.
22.08.2008 - 17:40
Beyond Debord?
Where to?
What does using the ideas of Debord have to do with not moving beyond Debord and the situationists? To critique capital does not make one a Marxist, just as talking about recuperation does not make one a situationist (or pro-situ).
tout niquer>
jeez...
25.08.2008 - 11:45
I really wish that people would understand that if they put in the work to ORGANIZE A POSITIVE, LIVING, BREATHING, FUNCTIONING positive response to their personal or political assertions (IE a handmade clothing co-op ect.) instead of acting like a bunch of in-it-for-the-minute maximum ultra-ists.
anarchy is not about destruction, and it's kids like this that rely on all their hipster friends to come to their benefit show when they get locked up for stupid shit like this, in the meantime gaining some sad state of martyrdom through the socially disorganized group they bike around with.
I just wish that all of the motivated people HIPSTER OR NOT, BLACK OR WHITE, GAY OR WHATEVER, instead of speaking out by destroying, would just MAKE THEIR COMMUNITY BETTER THEMSELVES. Getting UE or AA to close will just make people to get in their car and drive to the next one, dont you understand? PEOPLE WHO WANT TO GO THERE WILL, regardless of your actions. they dont read the paper, they dont care about the CCC.
IT is up to you to create a POSITIVE place to attract people and help them learn a little more about the shady ways of capitalism. IDEOLOGY IS is a "teach a man to fish" scenario, Destruction will lead to assumption. Through your actions, you have not taught anyone about capitalism, you just committed a hate crime against "hipsters" and now you are bragging about it to up your scene cred.
seriously, brag about cleaning up the river or something, because it will have a greater effect on the people in this city.
you are not as radical as you think.
exausted>
What is the message here?
26.08.2008 - 14:41
"Die Hipster Scum"?
Violent xenophobia is the kind of thing that we are trying to stop, not create, yet this is the only clear message sent by your act of shenanigans. You could have put your efforts into organizing an anti-sweatshop campaign or talked to the customers at U.O. about the republican ownership and business practices.
Jacob>
jeez.........
26.08.2008 - 14:55
"the destructive urge is also a creative one"
We shouldn't be tricked into thinking that we can create a human community without destroying all of what alientates us from each other, controls and dominates us. There's no such thing as community as long as the state and capital exist.
bad dudes>
Cop-out
26.08.2008 - 16:45
"We shouldn't be tricked into thinking that we can create a human community without destroying all of what alientates us from each other."
Ok, telling people to fuck off and die because you don't like their style, that seems kind of alienating. And I'm sorry, you will never destroy ALL of what alienates us from each other.
"There's no such thing as community as long as the state and capital exist. "
That is kind of a bold statement, and frankly, patently false. People create communities all over the world, in spite of oppression, alienation, etc. People often find ways to resist, and find ways to live with dignity, in spite of whatever exploitative conditions they live in. Is there not an anarchist community in Milwaukee and elsewhere? Are there not religious communities, or activist communities, or neighborhood communities, all over the world, and in spite of pervasive capitalism? Then what exactly are you talking about? I am part of many communities. If you are waiting for the end of capitalism to start building community cooperation (the fundamental basis of any non-heirarchal anarchist society), then you have a good excuse for never even trying. Seems like a cop out to me.
Cooperation>
HELL YEAH
29.08.2008 - 17:52
THIS IS AWESOME!!!BAD ASS SUPER REVOLUTIONARY ANARCHISTS VS DUMBASS PRIVILEGED MORON PATHETIC SLIME BALL HIPSTERS.
THIS WORLD WILL BE SO MUCH BETTER OFF WHEN YOU WIPE THEM OUT OF THIS CITY!! GOOD FOR YOU!
WORD>
It Never Happened
31.08.2008 - 17:19
This event NEVER HAPPENED. It's a total fabrication.
bigfatbubba>
omgz bandanas and 40s!
01.09.2008 - 21:19
I don't think I've ever met a self-proclaimed "anarchist" in Milwaukee who wasn't a hipster (albeit one of those hipsters who's so hip they're apparently not a hipster).
c.s.>
After all that reading I'm not convinced
03.09.2008 - 03:32
As an informed, intelligent member of society and an active member in the milwaukee community I have been let down/pleased by milwaukee actions/protests I have participated in the past. I find myself wondering, "If I had been shopping in the UO when this action took place would I have known what the purpose was?"
If I saw kids faced in bandannas start trashing the store, juggling/smashing eggs, grabbing merchandise (upon which I would wonder, why steal from a store you hate? Stealing necessities as a "fuck you, I'm not paying corporations for what I need," I get. Stealing life accessories/luxuries is buying into the appropriation game UO is playing. If these items really were destroyed later, how would any of the "hipster scum" know that? It would appear to anyone in the store that the items being stolen were something of desire,) yelling, "Die hipster scum!" and whatever else happened that day, based on that action alone I would have to ASSUME (Because no real information to KNOW was handed out or even yelled into the air,) that these actions were directed at:
1.) Hipsters, because that what was being yelled in the action, a murky at best, yet to be seriously defined, portion of the community consisting of teenagers, students, poor, middle, and yuppie/rich classes, all races, ethnicitys, genders and sexual orientations. 2.) The working class, i.e. the workers of the store, because they are the ones who would obviously have to clean everything up and make the store presentable seeing as no real damage, or that enough to make the store close, was done, and 3.) UO itself since that's where the action was taking place.
Breaking that down, and going along with all previous comments made on the matter, the first two targets seem pointless and I don't think--I'm ASSUMING here based on what I know about anarchy--really what the action was made to target. In that point, I see a huge fault with this action.
Taking action against the store for reasons listed in comments above (appropriation of sub-cultures as a marketing device, money donated to places I don't want to donate to and would be by shopping at the store, etc.,) are good points but they weren't made aware to anyone witnessing the action. Knowing that the owners of UO donate millions to focus on the family and Rick Santorum is enough to make me not want to shop there...being considered a hipster by anarchists isn't. So how would I know that if I hadn't come to this site to follow-up on the story?
I feel strongly that this WAS a pretty pointless action due to poor planning. From what I have read I have to assume this action was planned. This would be an entirely different situation to me if some kids were just walking by the store and spur of the moment decided to "fuck UO's shit up," and randomly went in to the store and started turning over tables and destroying shit. I could be a little more forgiving, under those circumstances, of the only thing yelled being, "Die hipster scum!"
If there was planning involved then why not plan properly and not have to go through all the follow-up explanation and excuses? Shouldn't the actions speak for themselves. If this was a really great action all this discussion wouldn't have to be focusing on, "what's the point/was this action purposeful?" and could be focused on the bigger issues and intelligent discussion, not just bickering and taking sides and being offended.
Unless facts are provided, assumptions have to be made. All these assumptions get sketchy and people start falsely judging and hate is spawned.
The fact is that no clear facts about why the store sucks were provided. The kids working that shitty job had more shit to deal with and it can be counted on that the owners of UO are not going to compensate them for extra clean-up duties. The store will continue to be open with no real monetary losses to that particular store or any other UO across the nation. The kids who like looking cool with keep shopping there even though milwaukee has a bunch of other great options to shop at with recycled, hand-made, or vintage clothing whose owners are probably struggling to make a living. It's also a fact that using eggs (bought or stolen)in the action is not vegan, (a question brought up earlier in discussion that was mocked.)
Alyssa>
Is it a coincidence...
03.09.2008 - 10:15
... that this action and comments are spawned from the recent cover story in Adbusters?
http://www.adbusters.org/magazine/79/hipster.html
"The consumption patterns and aesthetics of hipsters are in fact appropriated from revolutionary, working class or queer movements. (i.e. the Keffiyeh, which was a symbol of palestinian liberation only to be stolen and devalued by trendy urban outfitters customers)."
You've all obviously read it. I bet the "hooligans" as well. Can't we get creative at all here? You're lifting more than merchandise. If you steal an idea, do it better!
come on, really?>
nevermind
03.09.2008 - 10:18
looks like a few of you had the same thought as me!
come on, really?>
sensitive
04.09.2008 - 16:37
This action obviously strikes a sensitive chord with all the guilty hipsters within the liberal left community. Oh to be young hip and full of causes... Stop worrying your little heads. Give up.
bad dudes>
Ignorance and Arrogance
04.09.2008 - 18:21
Arrogance and ignorance sure do make an ugly combination. Your arrogance strikes a nerve with me because your arrogant and ignorant actions will no doubt become associated with those of us who actually give a fuck. And you do not hold a monopoly on radical thought or action. Just because one thinks you are stupid as hell does not make them a "liberal," or whatever other convenient insult you can throw out there. You are as bad as Bush and Co. in never admitting you may be wrong. Maybe a little self-reflection would help you to mature in your thinking.
And what the fuck are you talking about telling us to "Give up?" I will not give up caring about real oppression in exchange for worrying about whether my "cool" has been appropriated. I will not sacrifice social movement for the comfort of being secure in my own righteousness. Who gives a fuck about your cool? Who really cares about hipsters? Who really cares about liberals? There are bigger fish to fry.
In fact, why am I even trying to tell you this. You have proven yourself irrelevant through your actions and words, so why should I care about it anyway? Nevermind. Go ahead and be irrelevant. Just don't pretend like you actually give a fuck about anybody but yourselves, because you will be seen as clearly disingenuous.
You suck!>
...
05.09.2008 - 19:34
Now, when did we ever say anything about not ever caring about anyone? It has been made obvious that we hold contempt for the left (friendly and authoritarian state worshipers alike) and for the culture industry (hipsters), but what does this have to with our likes or dislikes of others. This has not been discussed yet in our pathetic dialog that you keep coming back to like a moth to a bright light, while complaining of our irrelevance. You do not give us relevance. And it should also be obvious by now by our percieved arrogance that we are not concerned by what you deem as relevant. If it must be stated again once more, we want a complete and total transformation of our conditions, whereas most who comment seek to simply modify and better manage the current state of our misery. To this end they do a service to capital and the state. They are our enemies.
I will not appologize that my passion can be mistaken for arrogance. I will call a liberal a liberal, a leftist a leftist, etc. If you are interested in critical analysis, why not attempt it? Offer something that isn't soaked with the stench of assumption and we will respond in kind - with a respect that is mutual. Otherwise there is no purpose for such hollow boring "dialog".
bad dudes>
...
04.11.2008 - 22:45
P.S. Josh Del Collie is an idiot.
...>
|
|
