The person to whom you replied is annoyed that the article explicitly calls a group by the epithetic moniker "hipster". Thus the respondent invoked a variety of racial and homophobic slurs with the implied intention to equivocate.

I can concur that cgod has merit in pointing out the inherent bias of the article. Firstly, how is everyone in a certain generation is at fault for a new problem? Secondly, the term in use is not an acceptable sui generis when a quotation from one of the victims provides a closer moniker, one that is also wielded by its members:

“It’s the stupid foodies,” said Britton Clouse, 60, who admits she speaks frankly. “We’re just sick to death of it.”

However, it is important to note that certain epithets that cgod invoked are also horrible slurs. One of the implicit rules of Hubski is that we carry polite and positive conversations, ones we would not be embarrassed to join if spoken in public. cgod is flouting this, which with I and perhaps others would take umbrage.

I had originally typed a snark for the final paragraph, complete with footnotes. Then I realized I do not want to join in breaking hearts‡ on Hubski: I want to uphold the decorum. I do not want to become the beast, bring down the level of discourse. Even as one of the assailed races in cgod's slur array, I do not feel comfortable quoting it let alone saying any item from it. I like being an intelligent voice in an intelligent hall, so I am doing my part to keep it that way.

Thus I will leave the footnotes with and without context but have rewritten my closing response.

Footnotes:

† I realize "honky" is a slur as well. It's also an assumption: cgod may not be white, Caucasian, or otherwise privilege-blinded. I could assume cgod is also male based on posting history, but I have no explicit evidence.

‡ I mean this in the sense of the card game, Hearts. Breaking Hearts means a player cannot follow suit and is therefore allowed to play a card in a suit that would hand out points.