Generation Y is about change(in fads)! lol

I voted for Ron Paul.

That would require meaningful contributions, not just marketing. "Green" consumer goods, measly donations to charities (with the purchase of their new product, naturally), sponsoring music festivals and other ploys used to exploit popular sentiment are not going to change the world. All it does is create an environment in which the majority of people believe they can spend their way out of their responsibilities.

Oceans up another centimeter? Buy our new green HD TV, now made with 2% recycled material! AIDS in Africa? 0.0001% of sales from our new line of lipstick goes to AIDS research!

It's all just lipstick on a pig. The system doesn't work. The math doesn't lie. The way things are going, we're all proper ****ed if we don't start changing. I'm not talking about changing to a green fabric softener. I'm not talking about trading in your Hummer for a hybrid Escalade. I'm talking about changing the world. Changing politics. Changing commerce. Changing cities. Changing transportation. Changing manufacturing. Changing culture.

God dammit. I hate it when I get all doomsayer...

Maybe not a big ass escalade, but a hybrid neon would be nice. better yet, ride a bike.

+1 for making this thread about bikes.

lol

ya, ok, but what if we all did a little bit more everytime you can, buy cfl the next time you're at the store, now what if that cfl was made in your state isntead of china, then you are doing something as a consummer, look at our auto industry, they are suffering because we buy japanese cars for what reasons?
the newer tvs and electronics use less and less power so you save energy while staying current, and what if the last computer you had was mearly changed into your new one through local recycling, then there are even more jobs...

it can go on and on, it is what capitalisism is supposed to be but we got that confussed with comunism

sorry, did we/i digress, didn't this start out about a social article in a scene magazine that barely mentioned bikes? bikes are still an nuderlying connective part of the reason why this dialouge is

fixed.

Edit: i'm putting this in the article comments.

Nope, I'm your age. I just write a bit more concisely. (Ooooh, burn.)

Some 15th century European dandys wore codpieces stuffed with a cubic foot of cloth. Others adopted a 'sword fighter' stance, and dressed as if they were always ready to duel, yet were wimpy little powdered-wig punks that just sat around in bars and posed. Nothing is new here.

Well, now we all have cameras, myspaces, and forums, and email, and... etc. Just more ways for degraded communication to echo and make things seem a bit bigger and dumber than they are. It's a bit bewildering for folks raised on rotary phones and manual typewriters.

Shut up!

Sorry but I felt the urge, but a douche is a feminine personal hygiene product. A douch is somebody losing the bite in an insult due to poor spelling skillz.

I've found that you only need to worry about being a hipster if it really worries you in general. I dress in clothes that, involve myself in activities that, listen to music that is easily called "hipster" or "indie(y?)" or "scene" or what was once refered to correctly as "emo." Do I count myself as any of those? No. Why not when if it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, and ****s like a duck, it must be a duck, right? Because ducks don't know or give a damn that they're ducks.

If you care about being called a hipster then you are closer to being one than not. Ride your bikes. Ride them how you want to. Get yo' chedder. Be good to other riders. That's all that matters.

As has been pointed out before, there is censorship on this board.

****** ****** ******.

See? Good job with the bolds and italics though, that did the trick. Of course the mods might give you a warning for trying to bypass the word filter. Nice try, though. You would have had me dead to rights if you weren't wrong.

I did see, even before your reply. I let fly with an s-bomb and it got *'ed up. I'm curious as to what your exapmel words were, though.

Still, it wasn't what I was looking to do; bypassing the censors that is. Infact I wasn't under the impression that there were filters for the word in question. It was meant to be a spelling correction joke without prior knowledge of the "e" being clipped for censor sake, thus leading me to believe it was a heartfelt error. Not to mentioned it wasn't directed towards you either, but the guy you were calling a troll.

If only the intertubes allowed eye contact.

Pay Jabba no botha'.

This is from the adbusters website describing what they're about:

"We are a global network of culture jammers and creatives working to change the way information flows, the way corporations wield power, and the way meaning is produced in our society"

That made me chuckle. They could have just as easily said "we're a bunch of loud mouths with a bloated sense of self-importance that no one can stand listening to so we mostly shout at one another and pretend we're being heard".

You know one way to establish significance is to try and portray another group as being insignificant. Insightful this article was not.

And on the "hipster" angle, I'm old enough to be the father of most hipsters so I don't qualify as being one.

Chris

The word I used was ******. Oh wait, I mean douch. See, this is exactly why I'm spelling it that way.

I guess you didn't notice that somebody else in this thread was already called out on the spelling of the word douch, but replied that he did so because of the word filter. Rather than use d0uche or do|_|che or play with italics to bypass the censor, I just followed the precedent already set for simplicity's sake.

And if you wanted to direct that post to the person I was quoting, you should have quoted them instead.

I'm not a big fan of the article, but I do like parts of the paragraph about dancing:

"too self aware to let themselves feel any form of self liberation, they shuffle along, shrugging themselves into oblivion."

I couldn't agree more.

The statement "only to have brakes installed on a piece of machinery that is defined by its lack thereof." is pretty dumb.

Geez...

The older generation always hates the one after it for arrogance, ignorance and getting laid.
The younger generation always thinks they are the first to f*ck and takes up what the generation before them rejected.

So it goes.

Again and again and again.

Viva hipsters. They know not what awaits them.

Yeah, it's like saying a bicycle is defined by the fact that it has drop handlebars. Or a cat is defined by the fact that it craps in a little sandbox. A common but optional trait of a particular thing is hardly a defining characteristic.

Yeah it's also funny because the name fixed gear is so unambiguous. Clearly, a fixed gear bike is defined by its lack of a free wheel ... hence FIXED ... where does this whole brake thing come into the definition?

The author of the article is so ignorant it hurts me.

And also, can I point out that real hipsters ride brakeless, obviously, so the author makes a moot point, lmao.

"...only to have brakes installed on a piece of machinery that is defined by its lack thereof"

And all this time I thought fixed gears were defined by the fixed rear hub.

Actually, I've done a little soul-searching, and... you're both wrong.

They're defined by Riser barz for mad barspinz.

we're working away from attacks against each other again, good...

has it been pointed out that the early bicycles had only a fixed gear? i'm not sure of the dates, but in the early tours de france the only way to change gears was to flip your wheel around, and then came multi speed freewheels that needed brakes (unless brakes were utilized before shfters). and track racing was once very popular, henry miller bought one from a european rider at a nyc 6 day, and he road it almost daily around the city.

all early work bikes were fixed, so its only natural that the messangers adapted track and frankenstein bikes for work, when its got to 'cross town quick, put it on a bike.

no gears = no chain skip or slip, super low to no upkeep, sabatoge avoidance, man and machine as one and at one with their environment

but as for riding without brakes, autos can't and should never be trusted, think of how quick and controlled you can stop with three forces instead of one... i enjoy riding and going fast too much to have it ruined by skidding under a vehicle because i don't have brakes, besides, i like the sleeper aesthetics of levers and cables that aren't so obvious connected to brakes that are

every buddy is an elitest, isn't that the same thing as a hipster?

Yeah, I'd like to ride with no brakes...

150 years ago when the freewheel had yet to be invented and cars were about as common as playstations, but these days... not so much.

Anyone else feel like the world is on a slippery slope into illiteracy?