In your original comment, and to a lesser extent here, you seem to be saying that counterculture necessarily has negative connotations.
I listed some counterexamples in another comment, but take "bronies" for another. Does the notion (grown men obsessing over a kids show) make people uncomfortable? Yeah, kinda... but is that because dominant culture says only girls should like ponies? Or is it because we assume men who like stuff meant for kids are pedophiles? I find both of those viewpoints to be intolerant of diverse expressions of masculinity.
Many countercultures are pretty much neutral (LARPing, for example -- which offends only the most religious and closed-minded). But, like the bronies, they make space for folks who fall outside social norms in harmless ways. They make space for diversity of thought and expression -- that is generally seen as a positive thing.
Contrast to the rally in Charlottesville, where self-described nazis showed in force. Sure, folks who desire a white ethnostate tick the "diversity of thought and expression" box at a surface level (it certainly is different), but their stated desire is to eradicate (or evict) all other such diversity. So I don't see that particular counterculture as a positive thing.
Comparing to my comment[0], I think we're seeing a divergence in the meaning of "counter-culture" as either:
a. Counter or opposing the dominant culture
b. An uncommon or rare culture
I argue in [0] that (a) is increasingly likely to be negative as society grows more just. However, as you mention, (b) can include all manner of neutral cultures, which are of course not necessarily negative.
I largely agree with you, but for another example: sportsball. I went to a school that was real big on it. We had a Rival Team, with an annual The Big Game. I had family and friends at the Rival School. I can imagine a reality wherein I give a shit about sportsball. In that reality, I might find myself rooting for the Rival Team: I'd belong to a counterculture. Maybe I'm already in the counterculture because I don't give a shit about sportsball. I don't see sports disappearing should society become more just; I don't see such a counterculture being inherently negative.
> By the way, a lot of people here seem to think that the term "counter culture" has positive connotations. It doesn't, necessarily.
I would expand on this to say:
If society and culture are unjust, then to be moral and just necessitates dipping into counterculture. Example: Participating in the underground railroad would be counter-culture in a society built on slavery.
If society and culture are truly just, then the counter-culture is perhaps necessarily unjust.
Of course, real life is never so clear-cut (we will never live in a truly just society), but I would argue that society now is substantially more just than it was for most of human history, and consequently this reflects back on the sort of counter-culture that exists.
> "I would argue that society now is substantially more just than it was for most of human history, and consequently this reflects back on the sort of counter-culture that exists."
that's a pretty broad claim, implying that the current counterculture is necessarily unjust because our current society is so relatively just. it's really difficult, likely impossible, to show how the justice delta is irrefutably positive now (not to mention the cutural-to-countercultural delta is negative). this instead likely merits an examination of perceptions and biases, especially of dichotomous reasoning, leading to that belief.
Counterculture should also be against the mainstream culture. Neither Right nor Left wing as defined by Republicans and Democrats, or the NYT and Fox News, are against mainstream culture.Nor are the increasingly smaller subcultures on the margins of either side.
