Generational cringe and The Millennial-Hipster conflation

03 Aug, 2026

There’s been a trend in recent times to look back at the 2010s millennial-hipster era as cringe, often with a focus on the music from back then; what has been dubbed the “stomp-clap-hey” genre.

I have to admit that I am quite peeved by this. Perhaps it is bias. I was born in ‘95, which is right on that Millennial-Gen Z hinge period, although I’ve always identified more with the Millennial¹. When I’ve sat down to think about it, I’ve found two things that peeve me particularly about this.

1. The way these comments tend to go seem to take a more antagonistic or divisive approach than I would hope, or than I think is warranted or necessary.
2. These discussion seem to flatten the complexity, nuances and diversity of culture and subcultures from that time.

These two things together lead to a perspective that draws a sharp cultural line that misses the ways in which a lot of typical Gen Z attitudes and characteristics are inherited directly from Millennial culture(s) and exist in a continuum, rather than a divisor line.

The common criticism expressed now is that Millennial culture is “cringe”, the optimism is naïve, too heartfelt and honest, and its liberal-utopic portrayal of life was deluded. Opposite to that is the Gen Z cynicism, ironic detachment, and critical doomerism.

A common place for this criticism is music. There have been waves of people criticizing the Of Mumfords & Men style of music typical of the early 2010s, for its trope of stomps and claps and its naïve earnestness and optimism. But there is a lot of variance in this style of music. Mumford & sons was quite different in themes and vibes from Edward Sharpe and the magnetic zeros, and they were both very different from a song like “Best day of my life” by American Authors. And to top it off, this dislike comes associated with a similar criticism of the Millennial-Hipster aesthetic.

But wait… were these bands… Hipster? Really? Are we sure we’re using that term right? And does it apply to all of them to the same degree?

Hipster is an ambiguous word precisely because, as anyone who was there would tell you, a Hipster would reject the label and abandon the aesthetic signifiers as soon as they became identifiable and commodified. They were there before it was cool, not once it went mainstream.

But sparing the discussion of what is and isn’t Hipster, one thing is for certain; Hipsters where not complacent, naïve, and optimistic. They were detached, filled with irony —bathed in it. God forbid you were earnest, basic, cringe, mainstream. They covered themselves in irony precisely to distance themselves from cultural elements they found banal, empty and consumerist without substance. Instead they tried to live out this critical opposition to establishment that was contradictorily more authentic and yet a façade, a performance. Living according to certain values they cared about; buying organic, second hand, supporting underground instead of commercial art, creating alternative living arrangements from the norm. And there is also the question of how much this came from a Marxist criticism of neoliberal America and how much was just… you know… a vibe. A desire to be counterculturally cool. Whether they succeeded or got caught up in their own contradictions is beyond the point.

Another thing that must be said is that the hipster aesthetic was profoundly committed to the uncool. Doing so came from a deep rejection of mainstream normative values about what is to be desired, expected, and valued in life. They reclaimed the dork, the outcast, the loser, and the non-normative as a valued aesthetic. Think of movies like Napoleon Dynamite, Submarine, and the whole Hipness purgatory aesthetic that was so characteristic of that alt-softboi zeitgeist. In so doing they moved the needle on what was culturally acceptable and valued and they paved the way for more eclectic aesthetics to come.

Eventually hipsters faded away, the aesthetic got commodified and became a widespread signifier of the time, and the fedora, the dorky look, the alt style, the moustache, the glasses and beanie just became variances of a more generalized fashion. Yet a lot of the things they stood for also remained latent in that diffusing; spread out, more commonplace and less countercultural.

So when we look at the “we are young!” optimistic vibes of “millennial” music and call it hipster, I scratch my head. There’s nothing less Hipster than radio beats.

What’s more, when the criticism shifts to how it was a “simpler time” and people could be naïve and optimistic because the world hadn’t gone to shit, this completely overlooks how we talked about Millennials at the time. They were constantly at odds with the economy, the housing market, future work prospects and having to find ways to make life manageable in a world that wasn’t giving them many options. Sure, 2016 happened and things have continually been getting grimmer since, but Millennial optimism was never naïve, they didn’t have an uncomplicated and unproblematic scenario to contend with, they were already fighting the same fights that have only worsened now for Gen Z.

So to pretend a disconnect, a sharp distinction, a divide, is so weird to me precisely in these 2 ways.

1. Millenials and Gen Z were in the same fight for a future, just at different stages
2. Gen Z culture inherits so much of 2010s countercultural thought and irony. There is no sadboy, softboy, mullet-wearing depression-pilled youth making yt commentary from their bedroom without the hipster they so often mock. They are siblings.

And so much of niche internet music genres now come from niche internet music genres of that countercultural 2010s, like vaporwave, seapunk, and late-nite lo-fi. Lest we forget the impact of lo-fi chill beats to study/relax to.

What I ultimately mean to say is, when I see people making these comments mocking 2010s music and vibes, they seem to conflate the 2010s under one flat culture, and this homogenization flattens the perspective of what many of those things meant and how they connect to the present. You’re allowed to dislike stomp-clap-hey, but once these claims start to become something more, that flattening betrays reality.

In the end, Irony and cynicism were present back then, the same way hope and optimism is present now. There is a resurgence of hope in hopecore, hopepunk and solarpunk movements and aesthetics that seek to rescue the act of being hopeful as a form of resistance against the grimness of our times. Why can’t we see the throughline from millennial hope in the face of broken promises of a sustainable future. Hope need not be naivety. It can also be a form of resistance.

#blog