A post I wrote the other day about the things inherent to D.C. that make it difficult for the city to get hip has a lot of people very upset, proving that the hipness factor of this capital really matters to its residents. The article did not debate if or if not of our nation's capital is truly hip. I took that as a given, with no ill intent in mind. (There are plenty of perfectly nice things about D.C. that don't equate with hip.) But my critics did not agree with that premise, leading them to call the entire discussion worthless.
Beyond the objections here and there with parts of my arguments, most of the issues with the post started with the very idea that D.C. was not a hip place. City Paper's Will Sommer called the assertion "infuriating," mimicking some of the commenter sentiments in his takedown, which quibbled with some of my arguments. ("You just don't GET HIP," said one, for example.) These people want so hard to believe that the city is cool, without pointing to data that suggests otherwise. "Hey just because you work for/have worked for the government doesn't make you boring! I worked on the Hill and in the exectutive branch and I think I'm a pretty interesting person," wrote a commenter on Josh Barro's post "The Real Reason Washington Is Boring" over at Bloomberg View. All things interesting are not hip, nor are all things hip by definition also interesting.