4 ms·

> I, for one, enjoy having options for what I wear that let me look how I want rather than dressing in standardized, homogeneous garments. Not considering that

> I, for one, enjoy having options for what I wear that let me look how I want rather than dressing in standardized, homogeneous garments. Not considering that environment would like to have a word about that, it's undeniable that what I personally enjoy "contributes nothing to humanity". Anyway it's a false dichotomy: you can have choices without the fashion industry. My grand-grand-grandfather was a tailor, my grand-grandfather was a tailor, my grandfather was a tailor, they all made mostly the same kind of dresses (mostly men suits, they were specialized in that), because the society needed durable, robust and standardized garments and despised frivolousness. The way you dressed projected who you were in society. The choice was very large though, you could customize the "standard" in a lot of different ways: you could wear a pocket watch, a monocle, a hat (one could write a series of books on the different kinds of hats), cufflinks, a pochette or a tie in a very bold color, a combination of them, or not. the reason why the "classic style" survived is because it rewards people that have an eye for a unique style, without punishing those that do not have it or do not have enough money to afford it. In a suit you will look good, anyway. "Express yourself" (by dressing cheap rags) was invented by the ad industry that fueled the fashion industry (that simply attached a premium price to the same rags) to sell more of the same to more people in waves - the 60s are back! no! the 70s are back! are you kidding? 2001 is back! - and so on. It would be exhilarating if it wasn't tragic. > Ad tech is "an industry based off manipulating human psychology" but nobody would say all of the tech industry Of course not, because the industry is Advertising. Everybody would say that all the ad industry is represented by that

Gud 4y ago
This eco-authoritarianism needs to be stopped. When the day comes when people aren’t allowed to dress beautifully I know at least I will revolt. Today men and women have the ability to dress(and to look and feel good) more or less anyway they want(more freedom to dress how you like seems to correlate strongly with societies that are liveable… go figure). I’d rather let the world burn than live in it without beauty and beautiful people. We’re not robots to run the machines for rich people. God bless those “cheap rags” I say.
- peoplefromibiza 4y ago
  > This eco-authoritarianism needs to be stopped. Just a little reminder that authoritarian is an insult, a couple little facts that might counter your fashion-authoritarianism I strongly believe the UN are kinda reliable as a source. https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/story/environmental-costs-fast-fashion https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/story/environmental-co... > I’d rather let the world burn than live in it without beauty and beautiful people. Have you got a subscription to "false dichotomy magazine"? You seems to reason only in two ways: your way or everybody else is stupid and has no taste whatsoever. I come from one of the most beautiful countries in the World, I am surrounded by beauty, a beauty that don't need to burn fossil fuels to keep being beautiful. > When the day comes when people aren’t allowed to dress beautifully That's exactly what nobody said. You're the only one saying that the only way to dress beautifully is by burning a planet (????) > I know at least I will revolt Yeah, about that, you won't. We all know that. Just, please, stop it. Being flamboyant is a form of art, you think you're Vivienne Westwood (which I actually met) but you're only a little insignificant imitator (edit: wrote hater, it wasn't the word I was looking for). > God bless those “cheap rags” I say. Lucky us God does not exist, cheap rags are a by-product of the ad industry. Thank them. EDIT: Now that I think about it, I wrote "not considering the environment". Isn't this the place where the rules advice us to Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith I, in good faith, didn't want to talk about the environmental damages, because they are so vast and undeniable, that it would have made the entire discussion pointless. We need to ban fast fashion because we need to, you would set the World on fire before that, I would put you on fire before having to take some more drastic measures so that you could dress in rags. And because it's immoral, unethical, and based on slavery. Besides, a lot of garments have already been produced, it's not like we are living in an era where there's a shortage of clothes and we need to constantly make something new or your wardrobe will be empty as will your soul! You can buy all my beautiful rags from the 70s-80s-90s for a luxury price, they are the real deal, do you want them or you just like rags that imitate the past, but are produced with new, cheaper, weaker, less durable materials? Let me know.
  - Gud 4y ago
bastawhiz 4y ago
> The choice was very large though, you could customize the "standard" in a lot of different ways: you could wear a pocket watch, a monocle, a hat (one could write a series of books on the different kinds of hats), cufflinks, a pochette or a tie in a very bold color, a combination of them, or not. Surprise! This is literally fashion. They were literally part of the fashion industry, whether you like it or not.
- peoplefromibiza 4y ago
  > Surprise! This is literally fashion. They were literally part of the fashion industry, whether you like it or not. Surprise, history cannot be rewritten. They were literally part of no industry. It was an artisanal kind of job. They at most had a small laboratory and very few machines (are this kind of sewing machines considered industrial machinery? [1] I don't think so.). You know why none of my grandfather children became tailors? Because it had became an industry and there was very little money in it and very little value could be added by expert hands. It was already immigrants (at the time it was mostly internal migrations) in sweat shops, paid nothing, for long hours, with no rights, usually operated illegally. The fashion industry is "the multibillion-dollar global enterprise devoted to the business of making and selling clothes". AKA modern slavery - if the environment is not an argument for you. Ask someone from Bangladesh, if you don't believe me. You're welcome. [1] https://mestierincorso.it/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/Come-restaurare-una-macchina-da-cucire.jpg https://mestierincorso.it/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/Come-re...
  - bastawhiz 4y ago
    So if I bootstrap a SaaS business, I'm not in the tech industry because I don't work at FAANG? What you're saying makes no sense.
    - peoplefromibiza 4y ago
      > So if I bootstrap a SaaS business, I'm not in the tech industry because I don't work at FAANG? What you're saying makes no sense. Yes, exactly, if you boostrap a CRT TV repair shop you're not in the same business of Samsung. If you have a small carpentry shop, you're not in the same business of IKEA. If you plant your own tomatoes to make some sandwich for the local bar in a small village in Southern Italy, you're not competing with McDonalds. etc. etc. That's basically the difference between "artisanal" and "industrial". Might be lost knowledge by now, but I'm quite sure the distinction is still valid. EDIT: grammar

Gud 4y ago

This eco-authoritarianism needs to be stopped. When the day comes when people aren’t allowed to dress beautifully I know at least I will revolt. Today men and women have the ability to dress(and to look and feel good) more or less anyway they want(more freedom to dress how you like seems to correlate strongly with societies that are liveable… go figure). I’d rather let the world burn than live in it without beauty and beautiful people. We’re not robots to run the machines for rich people. God bless those “cheap rags” I say.

peoplefromibiza 4y ago
> This eco-authoritarianism needs to be stopped. Just a little reminder that authoritarian is an insult, a couple little facts that might counter your fashion-authoritarianism I strongly believe the UN are kinda reliable as a source. https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/story/environmental-costs-fast-fashion https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/story/environmental-co... > I’d rather let the world burn than live in it without beauty and beautiful people. Have you got a subscription to "false dichotomy magazine"? You seems to reason only in two ways: your way or everybody else is stupid and has no taste whatsoever. I come from one of the most beautiful countries in the World, I am surrounded by beauty, a beauty that don't need to burn fossil fuels to keep being beautiful. > When the day comes when people aren’t allowed to dress beautifully That's exactly what nobody said. You're the only one saying that the only way to dress beautifully is by burning a planet (????) > I know at least I will revolt Yeah, about that, you won't. We all know that. Just, please, stop it. Being flamboyant is a form of art, you think you're Vivienne Westwood (which I actually met) but you're only a little insignificant imitator (edit: wrote hater, it wasn't the word I was looking for). > God bless those “cheap rags” I say. Lucky us God does not exist, cheap rags are a by-product of the ad industry. Thank them. EDIT: Now that I think about it, I wrote "not considering the environment". Isn't this the place where the rules advice us to Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith I, in good faith, didn't want to talk about the environmental damages, because they are so vast and undeniable, that it would have made the entire discussion pointless. We need to ban fast fashion because we need to, you would set the World on fire before that, I would put you on fire before having to take some more drastic measures so that you could dress in rags. And because it's immoral, unethical, and based on slavery. Besides, a lot of garments have already been produced, it's not like we are living in an era where there's a shortage of clothes and we need to constantly make something new or your wardrobe will be empty as will your soul! You can buy all my beautiful rags from the 70s-80s-90s for a luxury price, they are the real deal, do you want them or you just like rags that imitate the past, but are produced with new, cheaper, weaker, less durable materials? Let me know.
- Gud 4y ago

bastawhiz 4y ago

> The choice was very large though, you could customize the "standard" in a lot of different ways: you could wear a pocket watch, a monocle, a hat (one could write a series of books on the different kinds of hats), cufflinks, a pochette or a tie in a very bold color, a combination of them, or not. Surprise! This is literally fashion. They were literally part of the fashion industry, whether you like it or not.

peoplefromibiza 4y ago
> Surprise! This is literally fashion. They were literally part of the fashion industry, whether you like it or not. Surprise, history cannot be rewritten. They were literally part of no industry. It was an artisanal kind of job. They at most had a small laboratory and very few machines (are this kind of sewing machines considered industrial machinery? [1] I don't think so.). You know why none of my grandfather children became tailors? Because it had became an industry and there was very little money in it and very little value could be added by expert hands. It was already immigrants (at the time it was mostly internal migrations) in sweat shops, paid nothing, for long hours, with no rights, usually operated illegally. The fashion industry is "the multibillion-dollar global enterprise devoted to the business of making and selling clothes". AKA modern slavery - if the environment is not an argument for you. Ask someone from Bangladesh, if you don't believe me. You're welcome. [1] https://mestierincorso.it/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/Come-restaurare-una-macchina-da-cucire.jpg https://mestierincorso.it/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/Come-re...
- bastawhiz 4y ago
  So if I bootstrap a SaaS business, I'm not in the tech industry because I don't work at FAANG? What you're saying makes no sense.
  - peoplefromibiza 4y ago
    > So if I bootstrap a SaaS business, I'm not in the tech industry because I don't work at FAANG? What you're saying makes no sense. Yes, exactly, if you boostrap a CRT TV repair shop you're not in the same business of Samsung. If you have a small carpentry shop, you're not in the same business of IKEA. If you plant your own tomatoes to make some sandwich for the local bar in a small village in Southern Italy, you're not competing with McDonalds. etc. etc. That's basically the difference between "artisanal" and "industrial". Might be lost knowledge by now, but I'm quite sure the distinction is still valid. EDIT: grammar