I have to disagree with you, in part, Grant. I think that which we choose to consume, and thereby what we choose to spend our scarce resources on (time, money, attention, etc.) say a lot about us. Is there something intrinsically wrong with joining a community predicated on the monetary purchase of something (Mac user, Mini driver) moreso than joining a community predicated on the acquisition of something else that takes time or energy (an athletic skill? Knowledge?)

Is it wrong of me to feel affinity for others who have read Ulysses all the way through, like me? I think not. It tells me something about how we arrange our lives (it doesn’t tell me the whole story, but it tells me some) and how our two lives may interact. Would a Prius driver’s nod to another be as bad as a Mini driver’s? How about someone with a shared Alumni Association license plate frame? How about someone who wears your favorite team’s shirt? How about someone who shares your ethnic background (Kiss me I’m Irish)?

Does the introduction of money into the equation somehow fundamentally change the game, or am I missing something here? It just seems that you, like I, take issue at “nods” whose goal is exclusionary, but that’s likely more contingent on how the product (the subject of the nod) is defined as a signifier. That is, Macs are defined in opposition to PCs.

I think that’s what Kathy’s trying to get at: bad faith. But I think that this is a subset of the greater “nod” universe. And I think Kathy and you are largely saying that any of these gestures are sufficient in and of themselves to signify this sort of exclusionary move. I disagree. It’s ok to have affinity with people over shared characteristics/ethics/aesthetics. To a certain extent this is how we form communities, countries, and families, right?

Best,

Pete