"Hipster"? Really?
The appropriation of the word, hipster, as a descriptor analogous to other charming archetypes such as emos, cholos, goths, Wapanese, etc. has struck me as being somewhat inconvenient. Before this relatively new corruption, I'd always considered the term to be a catch-all phrase used for those who follow and/or propagate the latest trends before they become popular. This could apply broadly, or be limited to a particular niche that eventually transforms the larger culture (See hip hop). For instance, those who are ahead of burgeoning trends in music, fashion, or graphic design are all "hip" in their respective areas of expertise. The meaning, in this case, being to be "in the know" or "ahead of the curve" when it comes to the latest trends, whatever they be. This definition often connotes the avant-garde, the cutting edge, or the flourishing of a subculture that is unencumbered by the traditional mores of the mainstream. For example, advocates of the Romantic movement in the 18th century, Dadaists of the early 20th century, the "Beat Generation" of the 1950's, and followers of the punk movement of the 1970's are all examples of "hipsters" that eventually influenced their respective historical periods. That this once dynamic and fluidly applicable term has become pigeon-holed into its own insular Class seems completely bass-ackwards, and, by gosh, totally unhip.