That's not right, and that's not what the post says either. There are strong elements of originality in later-wave punks too, across various media, up until the mid-80s. The first punks didn't even have mohawks or leather jackets, just to mention two of the most (in)famous elements associated with the word; punk looks, sounds, art, and practices, continued to evolve throughout the '70s.

A common milestone is typically considered to be when The Clash release (and tour) Sandinista! in 1980, veering towards a pop sound. The punk scene effectively starts to self-disintegrate at that point, increasingly unable to reconcile its minoritarian attitudes with its by-then-undeniable mainstream popularity. By the middle of the decade, in most of the world punk had become the formulaic subculture you describe, losing its experimental streak; but until then it had been a living and evolving organism.

> how do you know someone is a "punk?"

should I know?

right here in the comments for this post are several people explaining how the core of punk is a DIY ethos. i'm neither agreeing nor disagreeing with that, but if that was correct, then (a) it wouldn't matter if i could tell that someone was a punk (b) punk at its core has no connection to a "kit"or "package" or "look" at all. someone even argues that using mastodon to help find cures for cancer (i may be paraphrasing a bit) is an example of punk in 2024.

you seem very attached to the idea that punk is nothing more than a style sub-culture. i don't know if that's true, but there seem to be quite a few people who think it is false.