5 ms·

Besides being a reductio ad absurdum[0] argument that ads nothing to the discussion, I'll address your comment. Music, Art, Food, Literature and Architecture g

by mthoms 6y ago

Besides being a reductio ad absurdum[0] argument that ads nothing to the discussion, I'll address your comment. Music, Art, Food, Literature and Architecture generally don't go out of style every 6 months (although companies are trying harder and harder to make it so). Nor do they have the same toxic effect on the environment (possible exception: food?) and personal self esteem as high fashion. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
nemothekid 6y ago
You are conflating high fashion and fast fashion. High fashion doesn't go out of style every 6 months. Louis Vuitton still sells the same Monogram purse that they did 10 years ago, likewise my aunt has several $1000+ handbags she has owned for 20+ years. Your comment about high fashion going out of style every 6 months is just untrue, and to the other posters point just highlights the myopic lens in which software engineers view fashion. Also, the NY article is not about fast fashion (Zara, H&M), it's about high fashion (Marc Jacobs, Balenciaga, Alexander Wang).
- mthoms 6y ago
  High fashion sets the trends (and the 6 month cycle) that the fast fashion outlets follow. When talking about negative influence on society and the environment they're pretty inseparable. I agree I could have made the distinction between high and fast fashion clearer in my comment though. For the record, the handbag example is an extreme outlier and not at all illustrative of the how the industry actually functions (makes money).
on_and_off 6y ago
men fashion does not go out of style in 6 months (in 10 years, though, some trends do change). Also, Architecture, music and movies also have trends. Not a lot Brutalism projects are started today and westerns have been replaced by superhero movies. It does not make any of these projects pointless either.
- mthoms 6y ago
  There are trends in every creative field imaginable, that wasn't the point. The trends in fashion move the quickest and are completely, absolutely arbitrary. Fashion also dictates that still-functional products get discarded on a whim, unlike say, architecture.
  - on_and_off 6y ago
    according to you .. miner garments invented 150 years ago are a staple of nowadays fashion.
    - mthoms 6y ago
      Pointing out an extreme outlying example does nothing to contradict my assertion. A single example does nothing to negate what is obviously an overall trend.
      - rndmze 6y ago
        ok, let's rewind. First, gp comment just give a basic example (chinos or tshirts, or lots of other clothes would have been admissible too) showing that your assertion is pretty weak. But let's not focus on that one. Let's see what the thesis is : - there are new trends (dictated by celebrities and designers) - these trends only sow insecurities and environmental destruction. Let's disregard the first one, even though as shown above it could be debated. but focus on the second part. You assert that fashion work only sow insecurities and environmental destruction but provide nothing to prove that point. You can repeat as many as you want that an art form brings nothing, you will be no closer to have an actual argument. I am really not a fan of fast fashion and its environmental practices but if anything it is more of a parasitism of the work of fashion designers. By a large margin, the bulk of what fast fashion companies produces does not come from well known designers and for good reason : there is a lot of work on materials, techniques and fitting that get into such pieces. This is just not doable at any scale. If anything, a better argument would be that late stage capitalism or lack environmental taxation allow companies to produce lots of goods without any regard for the environment. "these trends only sow insecurities" is a very sad statement. Clothing choices is way of self expression for many people. The world would not be a better place if we all worn black pants and grey tshirts, only a less interesting one.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
argonaut 6y ago
You seem to be under the mistaken impression that reductio ad absurdum is a fallacy. It isn't. It's a logical argument.
- mthoms 6y ago
  I called it an argument. Quote: >Besides being a reductio ad absurdum[0] argument I'm not sure how your failed attempt at pedantry adds anything useful to the discussion.

by mthoms 6y ago

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

nemothekid 6y ago

You are conflating high fashion and fast fashion. High fashion doesn't go out of style every 6 months. Louis Vuitton still sells the same Monogram purse that they did 10 years ago, likewise my aunt has several $1000+ handbags she has owned for 20+ years. Your comment about high fashion going out of style every 6 months is just untrue, and to the other posters point just highlights the myopic lens in which software engineers view fashion. Also, the NY article is not about fast fashion (Zara, H&M), it's about high fashion (Marc Jacobs, Balenciaga, Alexander Wang).

mthoms 6y ago
High fashion sets the trends (and the 6 month cycle) that the fast fashion outlets follow. When talking about negative influence on society and the environment they're pretty inseparable. I agree I could have made the distinction between high and fast fashion clearer in my comment though. For the record, the handbag example is an extreme outlier and not at all illustrative of the how the industry actually functions (makes money).

on_and_off 6y ago

men fashion does not go out of style in 6 months (in 10 years, though, some trends do change). Also, Architecture, music and movies also have trends. Not a lot Brutalism projects are started today and westerns have been replaced by superhero movies. It does not make any of these projects pointless either.

mthoms 6y ago
There are trends in every creative field imaginable, that wasn't the point. The trends in fashion move the quickest and are completely, absolutely arbitrary. Fashion also dictates that still-functional products get discarded on a whim, unlike say, architecture.
- on_and_off 6y ago
  according to you .. miner garments invented 150 years ago are a staple of nowadays fashion.
  - mthoms 6y ago
    Pointing out an extreme outlying example does nothing to contradict my assertion. A single example does nothing to negate what is obviously an overall trend.
    - rndmze 6y ago
      ok, let's rewind. First, gp comment just give a basic example (chinos or tshirts, or lots of other clothes would have been admissible too) showing that your assertion is pretty weak. But let's not focus on that one. Let's see what the thesis is : - there are new trends (dictated by celebrities and designers) - these trends only sow insecurities and environmental destruction. Let's disregard the first one, even though as shown above it could be debated. but focus on the second part. You assert that fashion work only sow insecurities and environmental destruction but provide nothing to prove that point. You can repeat as many as you want that an art form brings nothing, you will be no closer to have an actual argument. I am really not a fan of fast fashion and its environmental practices but if anything it is more of a parasitism of the work of fashion designers. By a large margin, the bulk of what fast fashion companies produces does not come from well known designers and for good reason : there is a lot of work on materials, techniques and fitting that get into such pieces. This is just not doable at any scale. If anything, a better argument would be that late stage capitalism or lack environmental taxation allow companies to produce lots of goods without any regard for the environment. "these trends only sow insecurities" is a very sad statement. Clothing choices is way of self expression for many people. The world would not be a better place if we all worn black pants and grey tshirts, only a less interesting one.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

argonaut 6y ago

You seem to be under the mistaken impression that reductio ad absurdum is a fallacy. It isn't. It's a logical argument.

mthoms 6y ago
I called it an argument. Quote: >Besides being a reductio ad absurdum[0] argument I'm not sure how your failed attempt at pedantry adds anything useful to the discussion.