"Hipster" vs. "Geek" as attitudinal opposites -- what I mean by that:

A week ago tonight, I posted the following in this space:

(quote) Do you think Geek and Hipster make sense as "opposites"? It's an idea that's fermenting in m'head... (unquote)

And clamnebula replied shortly after, that he thought that a lot of hipsters were geeks, once upon a time, and maybe many of them still are.

The comment took me back -- so much so, that I didn't even reply to that point at the time (sorry, Neb). And it got me thinking that maybe "hipster" doesn't mean what I think it means.

So I looked it up in that infallible* resource of cultural definition: Urban Dictionary (the "hipster"). And I was rather surprised (to put it mildly) that the top-rated listing was so glowing and appreciative of the hipster class (So no, I guess it didn't mean what I thought it meant to the people defining it). That top review concluded:

(Quote) Anti-hipster sentiment often comes from people who simply can't keep up with social change and are envious of those who can. (unquote)

I wasn't really aware that "hipster culture" was a thing, really, until the last few years, when I started reading the word in the context of disability-rights blogs written by friends and friends of friends. Going solely by the use of "hipster" in these contexts, I came to define the word like this:

Someone (usually young and privileged) who professes allegiance to progressive culture and politics, but really, for whom the highest value is irony. People who tell racist jokes, for example, and then defend themselves by saying that they're really just making fun of the racists. And if you get offended, it's just because you're not intelligent (or "hip") enough to understand the irony and subtlety.

In other words, the central attributes of (what I have been thinking of as) "Hipsterism" is aloofness, and irony -- playing it cool -- holding the world at arm's length, and therefore, believing you really are superior to everyone who disagrees with you.

And then, recently, I happened to flip to the very end of that new sitcom "Happy Endings" on ABC (American broadcast). And the main cast were just arriving at a party they thought was going to be a celebration of the 1980's... except, when they got there, it turned out the party was being thrown by hipsters, and all they really wanted to do was make fun of '80s fashion and music, not celebrate it (not sure which episode it was -- can't remember if there was a mention of zombies at the end?).

Anyway -- a little over a week ago, I defined "Geek" like this:

...[G]leeful enthusiasm is what makes a geek, imnsho. And so, our "rattling on" about whatever has sparked our imagination comes across to our "fellow villagers" as inane babbling.

.

So it's on that axis that I think of "Hipster" and "Geek" as opposites: The former is ironic and aloof (according to me) and the latter is gleeful and enthusiastic.

I can see how they're both on the same end of the cultural spectrum in terms of embracing intellectualism, though. But it's the attitude that sets the two groups apart.

Well?

Am I way off the mark, here, definitions-wise? Have I been misreading context?
*in an satirical meaning of "infallible"

This is where I try to nudge a few more folks into *Chuck* fandom.

Okay. This is the first Monday since the last Chuck of this season. And after this, there are, according to most sources I've come across, thirteen episodes for next seaon. And then, no more, don't even bother asking, etc., forever and ever, no backsies.*

However, I've learned (thanks to my experience of the Barren Years of Doctor Who on the Internet) that having fandom support in your friendship-circle is almost as good as having an actively running show to watch. 'Cause then, you can have fanfic, and inside jokes, and speculative conversations, and all that good stuff. So I am preparing now, and trying to nudge those who might already be so inclined to look it up, and maybe embrace it and fall in love with it. It's quirky enough not to be everyone's "cup of tea," and I'm not so mad as to believe that the whole world must love it, or else. But, you know... there are a few people on my f'list / in my dwircle who I think would really get a kick out of it. And it's to those folks I'm writing this post.

( So: Why I think you'd love <i>Chuck</i> if you tried it -- a bulleted list: )

A word of caution: Chuck's narrative style is a bit like a super-cool, vivid dream. You know the kind, where you're swept up by it and thoroughly entertained while you're sleeping, and you think: "This would make a great movie!" And then, when you wake up, you realize the plot doesn't really hold together: "Wait -- how did we get from point A to point B (or was that 'G')?" So if you're looking for a Spy-action thriller like you'd get from John le Carre, you'll be sorely disappointed, and I suggest you look elsewhere. But, like a dream, it holds together emotionally, and remains truthful and logical on that level.

In terms of style -- it actually kind of reminds me of the old Adam West Batman from 1960s TV -- but prettier. If we had TV-Mystery-Action-Drama Scale of one to ten, with Batman being a one, and ...oh, I don't know -- CSI: being a ten, then Chuck would be a three.

And finally, a fan-vid I found (from DVDs of seasons one and two, I think). I think it's telling that about half the clips in this vid (and many other fan vids I came across) are actually from the DVDs' blooper cuts.... just to show how much fun the cast has together, making the show.

*One source said there will be fifteen new episodes, every other source has said thirteen, so.