4 ms·

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 wan

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.
beecafe 4y ago
This is a disgusting point of view. You view those who are different from you as subhuman. I bet you see people who wear their tradional non-Western clothing as icky, or poor people as dirty. Anyone not wearing a suit and tie is not worthy of your respect? And dare someone wear something comfortable, because they don't conform to YOUR norms they're somehow being disrespectful, when YOU are the one lacking the base decency to see other humans as worthy of respect.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
goostavos 4y ago
Holy crackers. When I see a person wearing PJs in public, I think -- actually, I guess I don't really think about it beyond "huh.. PJs in public." You're out there stewing on it, writing about it on the internet, and literally thinking that people wearing things you don't like is stemming from a mindset that's at the root of society's problems. This casual insight into madness is what keeps the internet exciting.
- shigawire 4y ago
  This line of reasoning is very popular with the "west in decline due to anything I personally dislike crowd".
- shrimp_emoji 4y ago
  This is why I come to Hacker News.
  - seanp2k2 4y ago
    This whole thread of folks arguing about PJs in public is reinforcing OP’s point IMO :)
    - Dudeman112 4y ago
      Pretty sure it's just a matter of having drawn the line of "proper behaviour" in a different place instead of not actually caring about enforcing proper behaviour
profmonocle 4y ago
I went to Home Depot last weekend wearing lounge pants with cartoon foxes on them, because that's what I was wearing at home and I didn't want to change. The benefits to me (saved time, comfortable) greatly outweighed the negative impacts to anyone else. (None.) I'm not going to worry about what I wear to a freaking department store because it might offend some busybodies.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
herbst 4y ago
Do you really have an issue with people wearing what they want? Where do you draw the line? And who decides when things are turning socially acceptable? Are young people ment to wear the same attire as their parents because that is what I'd already socially acceptable? I wear stupid things in public because I barely care for anything than comfort. I never thought that could bother someone
robocat 4y ago
I really like places where people wear whatever they find comfortable (PJs, bare feet, togs, dirty work clothes). Happens near me a particular supermarket, and a shopping mall. Seeing someone in their relaxed clothes has an intimicy, like walking into their home. They tend to be friendlier, more open, smilier. Uptight suburbs where everyone is wearing "nice" clothes and more strictly following social conventions can feel unfriendly, sad and closed. I can play along with the mores, but I prefer places with more relaxed codes.
throwaway675309 4y ago
For Christ sake, if you seriously can't tell the difference between an exhaust system that physically assault one's ears bordering on tinnitus versus a goofy eccentric pair of Cookie Monster pajamas, I just don't know what to say. What does "a society which takes itself seriously" even mean? To me this just sounds like mindless conformity.

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.

beecafe 4y ago

This is a disgusting point of view. You view those who are different from you as subhuman. I bet you see people who wear their tradional non-Western clothing as icky, or poor people as dirty. Anyone not wearing a suit and tie is not worthy of your respect? And dare someone wear something comfortable, because they don't conform to YOUR norms they're somehow being disrespectful, when YOU are the one lacking the base decency to see other humans as worthy of respect.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

goostavos 4y ago

Holy crackers. When I see a person wearing PJs in public, I think -- actually, I guess I don't really think about it beyond "huh.. PJs in public." You're out there stewing on it, writing about it on the internet, and literally thinking that people wearing things you don't like is stemming from a mindset that's at the root of society's problems. This casual insight into madness is what keeps the internet exciting.

shigawire 4y ago
This line of reasoning is very popular with the "west in decline due to anything I personally dislike crowd".
shrimp_emoji 4y ago
This is why I come to Hacker News.
- seanp2k2 4y ago
  This whole thread of folks arguing about PJs in public is reinforcing OP’s point IMO :)
  - Dudeman112 4y ago
    Pretty sure it's just a matter of having drawn the line of "proper behaviour" in a different place instead of not actually caring about enforcing proper behaviour

profmonocle 4y ago

I went to Home Depot last weekend wearing lounge pants with cartoon foxes on them, because that's what I was wearing at home and I didn't want to change. The benefits to me (saved time, comfortable) greatly outweighed the negative impacts to anyone else. (None.) I'm not going to worry about what I wear to a freaking department store because it might offend some busybodies.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

herbst 4y ago

Do you really have an issue with people wearing what they want? Where do you draw the line? And who decides when things are turning socially acceptable? Are young people ment to wear the same attire as their parents because that is what I'd already socially acceptable? I wear stupid things in public because I barely care for anything than comfort. I never thought that could bother someone

robocat 4y ago

I really like places where people wear whatever they find comfortable (PJs, bare feet, togs, dirty work clothes). Happens near me a particular supermarket, and a shopping mall. Seeing someone in their relaxed clothes has an intimicy, like walking into their home. They tend to be friendlier, more open, smilier. Uptight suburbs where everyone is wearing "nice" clothes and more strictly following social conventions can feel unfriendly, sad and closed. I can play along with the mores, but I prefer places with more relaxed codes.

throwaway675309 4y ago

For Christ sake, if you seriously can't tell the difference between an exhaust system that physically assault one's ears bordering on tinnitus versus a goofy eccentric pair of Cookie Monster pajamas, I just don't know what to say. What does "a society which takes itself seriously" even mean? To me this just sounds like mindless conformity.