10 ms·

>being a grown-ass adult in pajamas out in public I'm with you about all the other things but people wearing whatever clothes they want to affects you in liter

• keiferski 4y ago
  A society is made up of people. The way people act, dress, talk, or do anything else has a pretty direct impact on other people in that society. Unless your definition of society is an extremely disconnected one, comprised of alienated individuals that have no interaction with each other, yes, it does affect other people.
  • kelseyfrog 4y ago
    Maybe I have something to learn, but what load-bearing social foundation would public pajama-wearing endanger?
    • keiferski 4y ago
      Respect for other people, general social norms, polite behavior, personal dignity, and in general just a respect for one's appearance and a desire to make "civilization" aesthetically appealing. People seem to enjoy living in beautiful buildings with green parks nearby, without pollution or noise, and yet somehow think dressing like a slob or putting zero effort into one's appearance is unimportant. To be honest, if you don't find this obviously true, I'm not sure any argument is going to convince you. I'll also add that in many countries outside of America, it is just the default to care about your appearance when in public.
      • meheleventyone 4y ago
        > I'll also add that in many countries outside of America, it is just the default to care about your appearance when in public. Like forcing women to wear headscarves in Iran. The reason your argument is not self evidently true is the reason it’s not important FWIW.
        • keiferski 4y ago
          [flagged]
          • meheleventyone 4y ago
            My response is neither low quality nor trolling. There is absolutely a connection between the OPs attitude towards pyjamas and women being allowed to show their hair in Iran. It’s the same social mores except one opinion on how others dress is palatable to some and the other not. Which is particularly important given the on going struggle in Iran. Likewise the OP should consider how their opinion is reflected in that light. And your style of empty comment is the one that’s explicitly discouraged in the site guidelines. Edit: oh lol, you are the OP, I assume that touched a nerve.
            • generalizations 4y ago
              Dude, I have to agree with the OP here. Chill out. > There is absolutely a connection between the OPs attitude towards pyjamas and women being allowed to show their hair in Iran Except there isn't, because women's dress codes in areas under sharia law is enforced with violence and generally considered oppression; whereas pyjamas are an unenforced expectation. Also: > Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously; don't cross-examine. Edit out swipes. > Please don't fulminate. Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community. > Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive.
              • the_only_law 4y ago
                Oh yeah the community can sneer at whoever the fuck they want but god forbids someone does it to them.
      • kelseyfrog 4y ago
        Wanna play 5 Whys with it?
      • laserlight 4y ago
        > if you don't find this obviously true Not the one you're replying to... Not only I don't find this obviously true, but also I find it obviously wrong. I prefer people stop being offended by how others look and stop judging people by their looks. I consider such attitude very shallow.
        • noodleman 4y ago
          I'm not going to defend the other commenters point but I find your position strange. Imagine a person covered in poo, ripped clothes leaving visible track marks from using intraveinous drugs. I'm sure if you were forced to interact with that person, you'd not be happy, right? Does that make you shallow? I'm not sure someone wearing pyjamas is the slippery slope the previous commenter thinks it is, but their point about preferring people who make themselves more presentable is valid.
          • laserlight 4y ago
            I’m rather confused. The topic was how one looked. Where did poo and drugs come from? And where did happiness come from? Do you consider happiness a judgement?
      • uneekname 4y ago
        I try not to argue with strangers much on the internet, but I really disagree with you on this one. What someone wears is a part of their self-expression. In this post, you use the phrases "respect for one's appearance" and "care about [one's] appearance" to suggest that people have a responsibility to follow certain norms in how they dress in order to make "'civilization' aesthetically appealing," in your words. Aesthetic is a subjective, and I think it's funny that you are so eager to project your aesthetic onto others. I for one actively choose to wear pajamas, go barefoot, keep my hair disheveled in public because that is my aesthetic and I think it looks good. I will also clean up my local park, reduce my ecological footprint as much as possible, insert socially responsible behavior here...but you should consider widening your view of what is and isn't ok to wear in public.
        • keiferski 4y ago
          Some people think that aesthetics is entirely subjective. This is the default view of Western liberal democracies, especially among people that haven’t really thought much about the topic. Some people, including a lot of philosophers and art theorists that can be considered “experts”, disagree. I would consider myself in this camp, although not a credentialed expert by any means. And no, I’m not “projecting my aesthetic” on to others, simply defending the idea of norms and expectations. This is a very different thing. As I said in another comment, if you can’t get beyond the idea that Value is not entirely subjective and that everything isn’t just “your opinion, Dude,” then no argument is probably going to convince you of anything. Hence you will just end up in a situation like the OP posted about.
          • meheleventyone 4y ago
            How do you know what the objectively correct attire is and how did you measure it? And if you don’t know what it is then why would you say pyjamas aren’t it? Norms and expectations have varied wildly not just geographically in the present day but over time as well. To the point it was and actually is common to physically harm people.
            • keiferski 4y ago
      • hackerlight 4y ago
        But I find enforcement of arbitrary dress codes to be aesthetically unappealing. I feel disgust towards those traits of a low-freedom society, whether that low-freedom comes from social pressure or actual laws. Have strict pollution and noise laws because those things actually hurt people beyond your personal subjective imagination.
      • atonse 4y ago
        I am someone who, for much of the last 15 years has been happiest in a t shirt and shorts. But your points are ones I’ve thought about a LOT the last few years. In spite of being someone who rejects the idea of dressing fancier going deeper than just superficial beauty, I remember how I carry myself differently when I wear a suit. I feel more confident when I dress well. My wife loves when she sees that I made the effort and I love it when she has (as she often does). I also remember a friend telling me that the way people dress often also reflects their self esteem. And I know I dress worse when I’m feeling worse. These things matter. And I do think the general drop in quality of how people dress is a more visual sign of how we care less about each other.
        • teg4n_ 4y ago
          I feel worse in a suit and it makes me feel like a fake. Wear a suit if it makes you feel good, I won’t because it makes me feel bad.
          • atonse 4y ago
            That's totally fine, I'm not advocating for suits per se – my point was more about the fact that what you wear DOES affect how you think (and in your case it seems like that particular piece of clothing makes you feel worse). I am genuinely curious why you make the association between wearing a suit and being fake – have most of the people you encountered that wore suits, been dishonest?
      • moistly 4y ago
        A trip to “Citizens of Walmart” (or whatever it’s called) provides a much more solid argument for dress standards. Pyjamas are pretty crass, but they don’t hold a candle to the vulgar, bizarre, and even pornographic stuff that you’ll see on that website.
        • keiferski 4y ago
          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People_of_Walmart https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People_of_Walmart
      • deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
    • mablopoule 4y ago
      I kinda hop on this bandwagon to recommend the book "The righteous mind" by Jonathan Haidt, specifically the notion that there tends to be 3 main 'modes' of morality: a logic of individualism (Especially in the western word, and doubly so in affluent classes), the logic of community, and the logic of sacrality. I feel that this back-and-forth about public pajama-wearing is really at heart a back and forth between a logic of pure individualistic moral (if nobody is hurt, then what's the deal), and more community-focused moral (yeah, nobody is hurt, but it's not bad either to uphold some standards in society). I've never been to America, and I'm also living in Paris, where clothing is kinda important, but honestly I'm a bit shocked at the idea of going out in public in a pajama. I feel that, unless you're in a really bad place in your life, you should put some effort in presenting a 'good' version of yourself in public, and public pajama-wearing would be a huge signal that you're letting yourself down/are having a huge breakdown, or have mental health issues.
      • nicbou 4y ago
        I live in Berlin, where the dress code is far more relaxed. I noted how well-dressed people are in Paris and my friend answered “because they pretty much have to”. It’s a social pressure and you’re expected to conform to that standard regardless of your means or interest in fashion. I love not thinking much about clothing. I wear what works, spend less on something that doesn’t matter to me, and save my energy for what does. I’m not sure how I would benefit from raising the pressure until I am forced to dress better at my own expense.
    • goodpoint 4y ago
      Taking care of the most basic forms of aesthetics is a form of respect and care towards others. There's a healthy balance between following some strict victorian dress code and wearing a pajama. It's not about the colors or shape, it's about the message it sends: "I don't bother to dress up"
  • ok_dad 4y ago
    It only affects people who care about what other people wear, and those people shouldn’t have any sort of societal influence because that’s stupid. Name literally one reason that wearing pajamas in public will cause another person actual harm and I’ll take back this statement.
    • keiferski 4y ago
      There are a lot of things that don’t cause “actual harm” (which is itself a very narrow and short-sighted metric to exclusively focus on) but are probably important to worry about. Clearly people care about “cultural things” even if you personally don’t care.
      • simonh 4y ago
        That’s the thing, I do care. I care that people should have freedom of self expression. My daughters are 18 and 19. Some day soon I’ll be the parent their boyfriends will come home to meet. I hope they feel they have the freedom to wear what they’re comfortable in and that represents their genuine identity. So yes of course context matters, we are social beings, but expectations of what is acceptable changes. I’ve seen it change in my lifetime, and that happens by people pushing the boundaries. Good luck to them.
        • LAC-Tech 4y ago
          Some day soon I’ll be the parent their boyfriends will come home to meet. I hope they feel they have the freedom to wear what they’re comfortable in and that represents their genuine identity. Really? My hope is that I don't raise my daughter so poorly she ends up with a slob who wears pyjama in public.
          • simonh 4y ago
            Sure. Nothing I said implies I want them to have slobs for boyfriends, or would be happy if they did. I raised my girls to confidently exercise critical thinking and have decent values, but at this point they’re out in the world making their own decisions. It’s up to them now.
  • deafpolygon 4y ago
    So, "we live in a society"?
  • harimau777 4y ago
    The underlying assertion of this post and similar ones in this thread seems to be that non-conformance in dress is associated with weakening of social bonds. However, that doesn't seem to match the way that people actually behave. In America, people who advocate for greater freedom of expression in things like dress and social roles are generally progressives who support strengthening social institutions. On the other hand, people who tend to promote traditional dress and roles are generally conservatives who support hyper individuality.
    • dri_ft 4y ago
      The liberals want to strengthen explicit institutions (welfare, education, etc). The conservatives want to strengthen implicit institutions (trust, community).
• wincy 4y ago
  [flagged]
  • jMyles 4y ago
    > billions of years of sexual selection > fertile attractive woman wearing the shortest shorts possible ...so she's wearing more clothing than she did for 99% of the time period in question - that's the observation you're making, right?
  • ok_dad 4y ago
    Sorry you got a boner once in public, but that doesn’t mean you can dictate women not to wear short shorts. Maybe you need to learn to deal with boners better.
• 2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago
  Broken window theory of dress. Poorly dressed uncaring people attract more of that behavior and the poor attitude bleeds into other interactions.
  • adrianmsmith 4y ago
    But how far do you go? Using that approach, people 100 years ago wearing a suit and tie and a hat would probably want to ban what we wear today, on the grounds of broken glass theory. Yet we are (I presume) law abiding citizens here, etc.
    • eldritch_4ier 4y ago
      It's really not that intellectual or complicated. Just don't dress like a bum in public? Not everything needs a theorem or rigorous, tested, scientifically researched set of rules. Nobody is asking you to walk around in a 3 piece suit, there is no slippery slope or conspiracy theory here, it's just "dress like you give a shit about the public space and others in it".
      • meheleventyone 4y ago
        But that’s a subjective criteria and one that’s obviously ripe for subversion. What about people’s right to freedom of expression?
        • noodleman 4y ago
          Is it a form of expression to walk around in semen encrusted sweatpants?
          • meheleventyone 4y ago
            Obviously. In the same way you are largely able to say what you want even if it’s distasteful.
        • josephg 4y ago
• thrwawy74 4y ago
  I disagree with this. People - at not just Walmart - with brown stains on the rear, or pajamas that don't cover their butt. :x
  • Zircom 4y ago
    Okay except I didn't say anything about people with literal shit stains or exposing themselves, stop putting words in my mouth. Both of the things you mentioned can apply to ANY kind of clothing.
• eldritch_4ier 4y ago
  Dress how you want in your own house. The public space isn't yours and you don't have a right to dress indecently in the public space. Turns out, some of us want to live in a society that takes itself seriously and gives a shit. Walking around in your Cookie Monster PJs just doesn't cut it. THIS mindset is what I think is the root of all the other listed problems. Somehow freedom has come to mean "I can do whatever I want as long as it doesn't cause you physical injury" - completely throwing the ideals of common decency, mutual respect, obligation to your community, etc out the window. We're not atomized individuals with nothing to do with each other except transact for individual gain. If we want to be a community with a unified social fabric, we have to act like it, and that means putting aside some "freedoms" that make the commons worse for everyone.
  • thfuran 4y ago
    Hold on, you're saying Cookie Monster is indecent?
    • goostavos 4y ago
      Contributing directly to the downfall of society! Put on some pants, Cookie Monster! There are rules!
  • dragonwriter 4y ago
    > Dress how you want in your own house. The public space isn’t yours and you don’t have a right to dress indecently in the public space. “Indecently”, perhaps [0], but… > Walking around in your Cookie Monster PJs just doesn’t cut it. I mean, you do have a right to do this; its not indecent by any definition that is excluded from the scope of personal rights, it just doesn’t mean some people’s fashion preference. > Somehow freedom has come to mean “I can do whatever I want as long as it doesn’t cause you physical injury” - If you delete “physical” with “legally cognizable” [1], that’s…exactly what freedom actually means. > completely throwing the ideals of common decency, mutual respect, obligation to your community, etc. out the window. “common decency”, “mutual respect”, and “obligation to your community” (beyond legally defined obligations) are subjective, mutually defined limits, and freedom means that you are not bound by other people’s idea of them that you do not share, and, similarly, they aren’t bound to yours, except to the extent that each of you decides to be, perhaps because you want something from the other beyond what is legally obligatory. [0] EDIT: Though, honestly, while I don’t see the usual definitions of this in the West as urgently problematic, I’m skeptical of the usefulness and compatibility with liberty of the general concept of “indecent” dress. There are very good health and safety regulations about dress in certain contexts, but the idea that the visibility of body parts is a source of the kind of harm to anyone that would warrant limitations on free choice aside from those particular contexts is dubious. [1] EDIT: and additionally, define what is “legally cognizable” injury by a robust concept of personal rights both defining such injury from the PoV of the rights of the injured and defining exceptions to when injury is legally cognizable based on the rights of the actor who might cause injury. You can have a bad definition of what injuries are legally cognizable which conflicts with freedom.
• gpderetta 4y ago
  Arson, Murder and Jaywalking (https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ArsonMurderAndJaywalking https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ArsonMurderAndJa... warning, TVTropes link).
• seanp2k2 4y ago
  This; I’ll take other people in pajamas that doesn’t offend me one bit vs stupid loud exhaust (especially on non-performance vehicles and doubly so when they floor it in neighborhoods) every time. The latter serves no purpose other than annoying many many people around you, and plenty of trucks in particular do it explicitly for the intimidation / “manliness” factor. In addition to polluting a ton more and literally degrading the air we have to breathe when you remove the catalytic converter (which isn’t even legal in many places) it’s just a giant asshole move. The good thing is that sound cameras with automated ticketing are already here, and I cannot wait until we get them in the Bay Area. https://www.autoweek.com/news/technology/a39906304/california-targets-loud-exhaust-with-sound-activated-camera-enforcement/ https://www.autoweek.com/news/technology/a39906304/californi...
• maerF0x0 4y ago
  > whatever X they want to affects you in literally no way shape or form. Replaced "clothes" with "X" to point out a pattern. This has been said a lot, and I'm not sure it's true. It's true on a case by case basis that individual freedom does not affect us perceptibly. But I'm pretty sure it's not true in aggregate. Maybe the PJs don't matter, maybe yelling in the stairwell at an apartment once a year does'nt matter. But it seems in aggregate they might exponentially matter (kinda like CO2). Its not just the PJs, but also the butting in line, rude/crass ways of speaking, going behind people's back in a variety of ways (sex, taking credit for work, not reciprocating efforts), driving in a way that causes a series of traffic micro events on the road which exponentiate behind them (if you leave a big enough gap for safety, folks speed to fill it in, so you have to slow down to let the gap increase, so even more people pass you), a little white lie here and there to get ahead unjustly etc.
  • deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  • deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
• laserdancepony 4y ago
  I enjoy the fact the American „clothing culture“, e.g. going to the shop in rags, hasn’t caught on in Europe yet.
  • mensetmanusman 4y ago
    It comes after the obesity epidemic. Once >40% are obese (adult obesity is 60% in the US), the people stop caring and don’t have the energy or self confidence to care.
  • ben_w 4y ago
    Rags? As in, pre-torn jeans? No, we had those in Europe in the 90s. Or was it the 80s?
• LAC-Tech 4y ago
  Seeing ugliness everywhere you look absolutely effects you. If you can reason about noise pollution, then surely visual pollution is not too great a jump.