I noted a little dissension in the thread called What is a Hippie and thought it would be fun to explore this issue.

According to John Q. Antichrist:
"The yippies were about rebellion. Hippies have a more "who gives a shit" attitude."

According to Don:
"Not at all. Real hippies gave a shit for sure. Indeed, caring deeply about change and how to stimulate benign and necessary evolution in the culture were the hallmarks of the movement. In contrast, "yippies" were a minor, acerbic, ineffectual off-shoot, as their belittling moniker would suggest."

According to Wiki:

Yippies are:
The Youth International Party, whose members were commonly called Yippies, was a more radically youth-oriented and countercultural offshoot of the free speech and anti-war movements of the 1960s. It was founded in 1968.[1] They employed theatrical gestures — such as advancing a pig ("Pigasus the Immortal") as a candidate for President in 1968 — to mock the social status quo.[2] They have been described as a highly theatrical, anti-authoritarian youth movement of “symbolic politics.”[3]

Since they were better known for street theatre and politically-themed pranks, many of the "old school" political left either ignored or denounced them. According to ABC News, "The group was known for street theater pranks and was once referred to as the 'Groucho Marxists'."[4]

And Hippies are:
The hippie subculture was originally a youth movement that began in the United States during the early 1960s and spread around the world. The word hippie derives from hipster, and was initially used to describe beatniks who had moved into San Francisco's Haight-Ashbury district. These people inherited the countercultural values of the Beat Generation, created their own communities, listened to psychedelic rock, embraced the sexual revolution, and used drugs such as cannabis and LSD to explore alternative states of consciousness.

So, What do you say?

Where you a Hippie or a Yippie and do you agree with John Q. Anti-christ or Don? :-)

Views: 875

Replies to This Discussion

I suppose, from the wikipedia descriptions, that I'm more yippie in practice, but I've never really felt political events perpetrated by bored old men to be worthy of rallying against and noisy scorn--more like worthy of a comedic broadside. I'd rather be part of a commune of people that're actually trying to succeed at being said community than some people doing political stuff.

Politics is boring; economics is interesting. I like doing justice and correcting injustice where I can, but if I'm gonna put on boots (other than my standard shoes which are boots) and march toward a goal, it's gonna be toward creating a sweeping tide of correct actions that simply wash away the old errors from Long Ago as the New Tide becomes the norm--like people are trying to do with this "going green" crap.
If all of the alternative sources of energy were combined, wind, solar, hydrogen, etc., we still would not be able to put a dent in the rate of global pollution, nor would we be able to attain a petroleum free environment. These alternative sources are ALL petroleum dependent.

Also, the efforts we each take to recycle have zero impact on global pollution or resource depletion.

Although we are all minimally responsible for pollution and resource depletion as a result of our unsustainable lifestyle the parties primarily responsible for pollution and depletion are the corporations and governments of the world. Maintaining standing armies is perhaps one of the most pollution intensive and resource depleting efforts known to man and it's impact is completely ignored.

Cap and trade along with recycling and alternative energy sources are all a complete scam.

There is no replacement for or alternative to petroleum. None.
The wave--the attempt at changing the culture--the "this is the thing we have to do; there is not alternative" notion. That's what the "crap" is.

"...it's gonna be toward creating a sweeping tide of correct actions ... like people are trying to do with this 'going green' crap." It's overhyped. It's not the greatest thing ever. I do like being more efficient and minimzing how much I fuck myself over by fucking up what I need to live.
All very well and nice. I'm not getting in the way. I'm not running with you guys, though either. But I'm certainly not running in the opposite direction, crashing into any of you either either. I'm agnostic about "climate change"/"global warming"/thing.

The point that I was trying to convey and use the segment of the "going green" thing that's being picked up in the same way that people will pick up any fad or moral panic as an example, was... well I basically said it, didn't I? Moral panic. That's really how it's being pushed. Don seemed to be poking it that way, and you took it all the way there. I'm reminded of anti-abortionists' ramblings about how immoral it is to get or give an abortion in how purely assertive and moral-flailing what I hear on this topic is.

My HOW DARE I NOT BELIEVE EXACTLY WHAT YOU BELIEVE ABOUT A THING non-conformism aside, if we substitute "like people did with Prohibition" or, though it would lack the emotional component that really gets at the heart of what I meant, "like in WWII when toothbrushes in the U.S. started getting made with nylon fibers instead of boar hair", then we get about the same meaning.
There's a serious problem in Africa. I just got my weekly email from Johnny Rodriguez, head of the Zimbabwe Conservation Task Force and the Hippo's and Ephelents (I know) are starving, there's a lack of food. I think that all of the politicians, lobbyists and corporate hangers-on in the USA would feed the animals in Africa for at least several years. It may not be the ideal diet but it would prevent starvation and extinction and solve environmental problems the world over.
Dude, I didn't say anything one way or the other about climate change now did I? What I did say is that you can recycle all the pop cans you'd like and it won't make one bit of difference. It's a profit scam and you're free labor for the people that melt down aluminum and resell it for the end-user. BUT you didn't reduce the amount of aluminum NOR did you reduce the amount of new cans being manufactured. You just wasted your time recycling your cans, FOR FREE. The same goes for recycling plastic, energy efficient light bulbs, AND there is NO REPLACEMENT FOR PETROLEUM. Do the research.
Don't have children? Both Allegra and my own daughter might very well disagree with that statement.
And Jeez man, a Prius won't even provide enough energy to climb the mountain to get to the cliff! You need an SUV, like mine!
And hippies don't recycle. We don't have to.

We don't buy stuff in aluminum cans in the first place. It's got Bisphenol-A and aluminum in it. It's poison.

We don't buy stuff in plastic bottles either. It's got Bisphenol-A and plastic polymers that leached into it.

We use GLASS, which is REUSABLE!
C'mon now, I was laughing as I was typing. Have a sense of humor.
How about " True Patriots" for those who will not be silenced, challenge overbearing authority, and will not settle for excuses while expanding their minds with other consenting adults.

And I almost always agree with Don-That wiki definition sounds like media rhetoric focused on marginalizing anyone of those people who were activists and demanded answers.

RSS

line

Update Your Membership :

Membership

line

line

Nexus on Social Media:

line

© 2017   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service