famousringo said:
I think Million's point has been pretty well established by now. Despite tarheel's best efforts to nail down the term, it's one of those words which gets tossed around so much that people just ascribe it whichever meaning suits their argument best. |
That's exactly my point about why people are doing it wrong (I feel a strong urge to post a "You're doing it WRONG" picture here...). In order to have any discussion the thing being discussed must be clearly defined. People are arguing about what they think "hardcore" really means (aka what group they belong to and why their group should be considered hardcore). If people would just reevaluate the group they describe and use adjectives whose definitions ACTUALLY DESCRIBE THE GROUP (I'm crazy, I know), then they'd realize that all but a select few like Malstrom aren't actually talking about the hardcore at all. Most are talking about enthusiasts or technophiles or some other random groups.
I think the real issue is that hardcore has been labeled as cool and 1337 and zomgawesome, and people have self-confidence issues that make them feel like they need to belong to this zomgawesome group in order to be acceptable. Thus, they simply take whatever they are and attempt to rationalize how this random group they belong to can somehow fit the word "hardcore" (even though it doesn't) so they can feel better about themselves. If people would start trying to explain how they are zomgawesome instead of hardcore, then there would be much less of an issue.
