The truth is that today the counter-culture is the right wing dudes (and ladies) who won't be beholden to trigger warnings, won't treat particular words as if they have magical powers and won't try to get you fired if you openly believe that male and female are real concepts. If your cursor is hovering over the downvote button right now then that's natural - counter culture isn't popular. By definition.
That's precisely the irritating image people like that have of themselves, which does not correspond to reality. What does it mean "beholden to trigger warnings"? I'm not sure in which sense you are beholden to something which you likely haven't even encountered outside of internet posts making fun of trigger warnings. What magic words are those? Not saying n*gger in polite company isn't censorship, it's just good manners. And who exactly has been fired for "believing male and female are real concepts"? This is some borderline delusional shit.
The "I know I'll be downvoted for this brave opinion" bit is the icing on the cake.
> Not saying n*gger in polite company isn't censorship, it's just good manners.
Is this not polite company? Do you think adding an asterisk makes a significant difference?
I'm black myself, do I get to say it? Could the question be more complicated than you're making it out to be?
edit: I mean - MCNeil at the NYT was quite literally doing what you just did: discussing whether certain language was acceptable or should be punished. Imagine being fired for this post two years from now. I don't care about McNeil in particular (the US is an "At-Will" country, workers have no real rights, he's a privileged guy), but the state of free expression right now is bizarre. The fact that it comes when old (and most of new media) media is more consolidated than it's ever been is not coincidental.
That is ridiculous. Newscasters are far less polite and far more openly partisan, combative, and opinionated than they use to be. Comments on articles and videos, and in social media, are far less polite than people replying with letters to the press in the past.
I guess you should be considered lucky for not being exposed to the Freeper comments section 20 years ago, or Fox News comments sections, or Patch.com comments sections. They've always been bad.
I'm pretty sure if you ask anyone they would say there was nothing polite about that exchange.
By what definition was that exchange polite? None that are based in reality or relevant.
I'm not interested in arguing about the definitions of words.
I think you are saying that mainstream culture has adopted rude behavior, while I am saying that any behavior adopted by mainstream culture is, by definition, not rude.
I've worked at at least one place where if I stated "male and female are real concepts" I would have raised eyebrows at min and received some official reprimand at max
Well yeah if I said "bacon was made to be eaten" in disdain to vegetarians, Hindus, Muslims, and Jews that would get essentially the same reaction because it is essentially wrongly invalidating others by deliberate exclusion.
well, he was downvoted. but not overwhelmining so; let's call it controversial.
> And who exactly has been fired for "believing male and female are real concepts"?
I recall some kind of minor debacle about a Stack Overflow moderator (or employee? details are vague) who got in trouble for something related to individual choice of pronouns. It seems to be what they're refering to.
LARPing with boffer swords is counterculture. Kink is counterculture. Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster is counterculture. You don't need to brandish a tiki torch to be sufficiently different -- but that's the loudest counterculture, and they're getting all the attention. I know of an ancient forum related to a counterculture intentionally not listed here, and it's ticking along just fine, thankyouverymuch.
Of course, there's a difference between "unpopular" and "intentionally or callously offensive". All of my examples are of the former kind (so long as the kink happens in private spaces, I guess). Church of Satan is borderline in my mind, but I suppose that some Christians might put it in the latter category.
I agree those things you mentioned aren't very popular, and possibly where you are the mainstream culture is different than where I am, but I don't see any of those things as counter-culture in the sense that none of them are opposed by the dominant culture. e.g. If it came out at work that you were a member of a group that fought with foam swords, had unusual sexual preferences, or were funny atheists, you wouldn't be fired. People might say "oh, that's weird" but they aren't going to hate you.
I'm not saying any of those things are bad (in fact, I like fighting with fake swords) but there's not hostility to them from the culture and they, in turn, are not hostile to the mainstream culture, so I just don't think they're countercultural at all.
By definition I think countercultural groups will strike you as weird and bad unless you belong to them specifically. Q-Anon, for example, which speculates that the leaders of society are <bad things>, is a countercultural group because they both hate and oppose elements of the main culture and are hated and opposed by it. The kind of antifa or anarchists who are attempting to burn down courthouses or police stations in Portland are another clear example.
I think that FSM does satisfy your stricter definition of counterculture. Like the Church of Satan, one of the stated goals is to force legal examination of whether or not "freedom of religion" actually means "freedom to practice Christianity".
LARPing and kink also have some opposition by fairly mainstream religious-types. They're seen as counterculture, even if they don't define themselves that way. Sorry. Changing my mind on kink -- that's a really big umbrella. Some people get off on being shamed for whatever it is they're into. Those folk are only satisfied when seen as counterculture.
Maybe the FSM is counter cultural but only in the way that housecats and lions are both felines. There is a very large difference between trying to hang Mike Pence or kill police and believing that established religions are illogical. Maybe it's slightly countercultural in the areas where Christianity or other religions predominate (which is not where I live).
I have family that literally think that Harry Potter turns children to Satanism, and think that the books should be banned on that basis (JKR was cancelled on the right long before she was cancelled on the left). You might consider those folks to belong to a counterculture in your context, but Evangelical Christianity is extremely popular in large swathes of the US.
And yes, both lions and housecats are felines. There's gradients and degrees. I'd call the folks you're talking about as "extremists" not a mere counterculture.
It's hard to say things like kink or spaghetti monster are counter culture when they were routinely held by people in high positions of power in the culture and used to destroy or attack the impediments to capitalism. Atheism is capitalism's best friend, because it completely defangs any spiritual argument against consumerism and productivity; kink is capitalism's best friend because it opens up many lucrative and well paying methods to commodify sex itself.
Ironically, both are disliked some because of that. The nofap rose as a real counterculture to commodified kink and porn; and the "i love fucking science" type of reddit atheist the FSM people were at heart are mocked.
Consider: your HR department is left leaning, your boss is probably left leaning, your teachers are left leaning, the government is left leaning.
How on earth could the "counter culture" be the hegemonic culture of the most powerful billionaires on earth, and the people who have the most power over the most people in their daily lives (HR departments for adults, school administrators for children)?
The people who you instinctively dislike, and who society counts as something that needs to be corrected are by definition the counter culture.
That doesn't necessarily need to be seen as a bad thing, btw. It just means that the hippies basically won and have all of the power now.
Look at California Prop 16 for a concrete example. It was universally supported by left-wing groups, endorsed by the Chamber of Commerce broadly and by many of the state's biggest companies individually, passed the legislature with 75%, but failed at the ballot box with only a touch above 40% in favor. When policies left-wing groups favor are that much more popular among business and government leaders than among the general public, I dunno what to call that other than "left leaning".
I don’t know about that specific legislation. The effect you describe makes me think that business and government are, in fact, right leaning.
When left-wing groups agree with right-leaning govt and business, perhaps the general public is a bit wary of bipartisan policies. An argument like: If it’s popular among partisans of both parties, then it must be particularly exploitative of the general public.
Prop 16 was a repeal of a previous amendment to the state constitution that effectively banned Affirmative Action in the state for public positions.
Basically, if Prop 16 passed, various public sector jobs would be able to consider race/sex/whatever when looking to hire.
That's technically a double-edged sword. As while it allows for things like Affirmative Action, it also allows for discrimination based on those attributes as well.
So I can see a perfectly reasonable reason while progressives would also be wary about passing Prop 16.
> Consider: your HR department is left leaning, your boss is probably left leaning, your teachers are left leaning, the government is left leaning.
You are doing an awful lot of generalizing from your own experiences. I have met a LOT of conservative managers and business owners, including more than a couple openly sexist and racist ones, who are doing just fine for themselves in life. The idea that conservatives are some sort of tiny suppressed minority is bonkers.
The left can lean much further. Someone advocating for socialist and welfare policies or even communism or anarchy would run afoul of HR departments and the powerful billionaires.
Corporations pay lip service to the left but they don’t really follow through. There’s no divestment from China, fossil fuels, or even Diversity and Inclusion that reaches the board level.
The bog standard opinions of CPAC, a recent President, nearly every straight-laced conservative, and the majority of Republicans aren't counterculture, they're just grievance culture. There are some grievances they like to complain about, but it is still part of mainstream, popular culture to do so, and plenty of people have ridden to fame and fortune repeating those grievances to mainstream audiences.
That's a fun and interesting way to look at it, thanks!
TBH I think you got downvoted just for mentioning it, I don't think what you said is actually that controversial unless you're making a lot of assumptions about _your_ intent in sharing this, which doesn't seem fair.
I'm not surprised by the downvotes haha. I never said I agreed with the things I mentioned - I am by no means one of those right wing people - but it's clear which way the cultural winds are blowing today.
What side of the counter culture position would you have been while MLK was pushing for reform? Would your line "its clear which way the cultural winds are blowing today" align with the prejudice side? I think so. Do you look back and see that movement as an evolution and betterment for all of mankind or do you see it as "winds were blowing the wrong way"? Change is hard and change requires you to acknowledge your line of thinking, beliefs, ethics, all of it may be out dated or no longer the form. Imagine how folks born at the turn of 1900's felt when MLK was popular.
I'm not really sure what you're trying to get at here, but I will always side with human rights. I am not American BTW so this little piece of cultural trivia is not especially relevant to me.
> Would your line "its clear which way the cultural winds are blowing today" align with the prejudice side?
When your "counter-culture" comprises the ideology of half of your country, is based on a traditional religious and cultural status quo, and is the doctrine one of your two political parties, it is not in any conceivable way counter-culture. It is simply the death-throes of the establishment desperately trying to maintain its credibility and relevance in the face of changing demographics.
No it isn't. (Sub)cultures are not the same thing as countercultures.
Right wing vs. left wing is the same as choosing between Coke and Pepsi.
There is no way to get to a modern counterculture when the focus is on Identity and Individual Consumer Choice.
In your original comment, and to a lesser extent here, you seem to be saying that counterculture necessarily has negative connotations.
I listed some counterexamples in another comment, but take "bronies" for another. Does the notion (grown men obsessing over a kids show) make people uncomfortable? Yeah, kinda... but is that because dominant culture says only girls should like ponies? Or is it because we assume men who like stuff meant for kids are pedophiles? I find both of those viewpoints to be intolerant of diverse expressions of masculinity.
Many countercultures are pretty much neutral (LARPing, for example -- which offends only the most religious and closed-minded). But, like the bronies, they make space for folks who fall outside social norms in harmless ways. They make space for diversity of thought and expression -- that is generally seen as a positive thing.
Contrast to the rally in Charlottesville, where self-described nazis showed in force. Sure, folks who desire a white ethnostate tick the "diversity of thought and expression" box at a surface level (it certainly is different), but their stated desire is to eradicate (or evict) all other such diversity. So I don't see that particular counterculture as a positive thing.
Comparing to my comment[0], I think we're seeing a divergence in the meaning of "counter-culture" as either:
a. Counter or opposing the dominant culture
b. An uncommon or rare culture
I argue in [0] that (a) is increasingly likely to be negative as society grows more just. However, as you mention, (b) can include all manner of neutral cultures, which are of course not necessarily negative.
I largely agree with you, but for another example: sportsball. I went to a school that was real big on it. We had a Rival Team, with an annual The Big Game. I had family and friends at the Rival School. I can imagine a reality wherein I give a shit about sportsball. In that reality, I might find myself rooting for the Rival Team: I'd belong to a counterculture. Maybe I'm already in the counterculture because I don't give a shit about sportsball. I don't see sports disappearing should society become more just; I don't see such a counterculture being inherently negative.
> By the way, a lot of people here seem to think that the term "counter culture" has positive connotations. It doesn't, necessarily.
I would expand on this to say:
If society and culture are unjust, then to be moral and just necessitates dipping into counterculture. Example: Participating in the underground railroad would be counter-culture in a society built on slavery.
If society and culture are truly just, then the counter-culture is perhaps necessarily unjust.
Of course, real life is never so clear-cut (we will never live in a truly just society), but I would argue that society now is substantially more just than it was for most of human history, and consequently this reflects back on the sort of counter-culture that exists.
> "I would argue that society now is substantially more just than it was for most of human history, and consequently this reflects back on the sort of counter-culture that exists."
that's a pretty broad claim, implying that the current counterculture is necessarily unjust because our current society is so relatively just. it's really difficult, likely impossible, to show how the justice delta is irrefutably positive now (not to mention the cutural-to-countercultural delta is negative). this instead likely merits an examination of perceptions and biases, especially of dichotomous reasoning, leading to that belief.
Counterculture should also be against the mainstream culture. Neither Right nor Left wing as defined by Republicans and Democrats, or the NYT and Fox News, are against mainstream culture.Nor are the increasingly smaller subcultures on the margins of either side.
The difference is that our norms promote an expansive view of human rights, both in terms of what counts as a "right" and who counts as "human". The conservative Christian norms... did not.
Freedom of speech, religion, conscious and the right to bear arms are all vigorously opposed by the modern left. I cna also think of a group of people who the right fight for who the left don't even consider people.
No, neither of those mainstream models of living are countercultural.
The LGBTQ+ was countercultural, but is no longer. It's nice that a person's individual choices, whatever they may be, are no longer controversial.
But that also means we have to look beyond individual expression to find the present day counterculture, something that a lot of people in this thread seem to miss.
