[Glice]

No, you fuckwit. No. It doesn't work like that.

If you want to talk about nomenklatura, we can do; if you you want to make petty semantic points, go ahead (oh, you have. Well done). Labels exist and are meaningful; I'm saying that the label hipster is exclusively negative and phantasmic, based on some ill-defined notion of cohesion of 'other' (small 'o'). That 'other' is always reductive, based on an assumed cohesion and language community of idiocy, which may never be verified or agreed upon. It's basically 'these are some other people who are wrong [for spurious/ non-existent reasons]'. I'm not saying any notion of intellectual/ semantic cohesion of 'other' is automatically wrong - I'm saying that hipster specifically appertains in definition to idiosyncratic (but not sociolectical) anxieties of 'how other people think/ feel/ understand/ experience'. There are no hipsters, only people saying that 'someone else' is a hipster.

If I was being hysterical/ polemic I could probably say that it's structurally analogous to notions of 'other' related to racism; the problem is that different cultures appertained by 'other-isms' in that do actually exist, just not in the negative space (and this is faintly related to the epistemic status[es] of diachronic approaches to language which we (yes, we) voided nearly a century ago). Ergo, hipster is spurious notions returning to personal social anxieties, and racism remains bad for different reasons.

Though a caveat - I'm not part of a North American language community, so I might be wrong (but I severely doubt I am).