I am not making this post as an opportunity to start a flame war... I am looking for input from multiple users.

My style consists of blue jeans, a t-shirt and tennis shoes/flip flops, at all times, unless I have to dress formal for some reason.

The only accessory I wear is a Nike watch I bought, and the only reason I bought it was to use as a stop watch for when I work out. I just wear it now because half my classes don't have a clock.

I wear no hats, and I like to keep my hair short because I don't like it in my eyes when I play soccer or run.

I know you will say this is a boring style, but it is all I need, I don't need anything less than functional, nothing just for looks.

Edit:

Oh yeah, no beard/mustache either. I don't like the way it feels, and my girlfriend also doesn't like it. So, I have no reason to grow it.

Why do people care about sports or politics or art? You don't have to be an athlete, politician or artist to have interests in these areas.

As long as something is a part of our society, I think people will have an interest in it.
<3

Why do people care about sports or politics or art? You don't have to be an athlete, politician or artist to have interests in these areas.

As long as something is a part of our society, I think people will have an interest in it.
<3

Haha, you take my whole point and roll it up into one simple answer :D

The reason I think so much about it though is because I live right off my college campus, and I spend all day on campus. Because of this, I see a lot of superficial people who care only about the clothes they wear and the clothes x person is wearing.

Also, there is a guy in my class right now who has insanely expensive shit every day and it drives me crazy. I have seen him wear at least 5 different watches that I would estimate the cost to be a grand or more. Also, he has multiple pairs of sunglasses that are easily 100+

Oh yeah, my girlfriend is Japanese and the fucking Japanese are crazy about fashion.... Luckily she only likes buying shoes (typical woman) haha...

One reason people care is that looking good can boost your self esteem...It's a good feeling knowing that you look good.

I care about fashion because...

- I feel much better about myself when I'm dressed for the day and lookin' spiffy

- Members of the opposite sex are attracted to well dressed people

- Clothes are a way to express what kind of a person you are to multiple people in the space of a second

- Looking scrubby and not really caring about your outward appearance shows other people you don't care about yourself, therefore lowering their projected sense of value they have of you, therefore lowering the value you subconsciously think you have based upon other people's value of you

__________________________________________________ _____

Three main components of the looking-glass self

There are three main components of the looking-glass self (Yeung, et al. 2003).

1.We imagine how we must appear to others.
2.We imagine the judgment of that appearance.
3.We develop our self through the judgments of others.

In the looking-glass self, a person views himself or herself through others' perceptions in society and in turn gains identity. Identity, or self, is the result of the concept in which we learn to see ourselves as others do (Yeung & Martin 2003). The looking-glass self begins at an early age and continues throughout the entirety of a person’s life as one will never stop modifying their self unless all social interactions are ceased. Some sociologists believe that the concept wanes over time because only a few studies have been conducted with a large number of subjects in natural settings.

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Looking_glass_self)

/thread.

... I was going to say something, but everyone else has pretty much said everything. Why be passionate about anything? Whats the difference between people who love music, for instance, and people who love fashion?

Like Fosskers said, you feel better about yourself :cool:

Fashion = High price = social class.


People use it to define themselves as economically superior. Either that or they're homosexuals.

Its clearly because we are the goon squad and were coming to town. Beep-beep

The reason I think so much about it though is because I live right off my college campus, and I spend all day on campus. Because of this, I see a lot of superficial people who care only about the clothes they wear and the clothes x person is wearing.

yes, if you care how you look, you are automaticly a shallow and empty meat sack.

Only people that walk around in tshirts and with tennissocks stuck in there flipflops have a soul.

i blame it on the media, ever since we're born we're bombarded with advertisements saying if you dont wear this you're not cool.

yes, if you care how you look, you are automaticly a shallow and empty meat sack.

Only people that walk around in tshirts and with tennissocks stuck in there flipflops have a soul.

Obviously...

^^
i hope you are not that stupid

^^
i hope you are not that stupid

Clearly, you need to get your sarcasm detector fixed, I think it may be broken...

If my parents gave me money left and right, more money than I knew what to do with, then you're damn right I'd be dressing nice as fuck.

I'd also have really expensive drug habits.

^ you don't even need shitloads of money to dress nice. I don't have a job or that much money but I sure as hell find a way to not dress like a tramp, and manage to dress pretty good just fine.
Fashion isn't just about expensive clothes and labels on everything (far from it IMO), it's just finding what looks good, taking an interest in it and that's that.

^ you don't even need shitloads of money to dress nice. I don't have a job or that much money but I sure as hell find a way to not dress like a tramp, and manage to dress pretty good just fine.
Fashion isn't just about expensive clothes and labels on everything (far from it IMO), it's just finding what looks good, taking an interest in it and that's that.

Yeah I know, it's just about finding good deals and shit... but it would be a lot easier to dress nice if you had a huge budget, no? It's still possible either way.

A huge part of it is keeping your clothes clean and in shape (i.e. not in a pile in the corner of your room).

^^ Not really, having a huge budget just means you can buy more expensive clothes, which doesn't necessarily mean nicer ones. Mine aren't uber cheap and by no means expensive, I have a low budget and still find nice stuff.
Agreed about keeping them in good condition, though fair play my clothes tend to get crammed into the wardrobe not v. carefully at all or flung on the floor most time haha.

As long as something is a part of our society, I think people will have an interest in it.
This is the dumbest thing I have ever read.

Its simple,

for acceptance and the appearance of attractiveness within the sphere of the social circle. Not only does being more fashionable, thus attractive, usually help our animal selves achieve social cohesion, it also sets up a hierarchy within the social circle and begets the alienation of those different and the reverence of those who are different that are strong/attractive enough to become "trendsetters". Thus, this facilitates evolution on a societal and somewhat cultural scale.

Someone said something about the media. The media is simply a psychological tool of those in power, the high place-holders in the societal hierarchy. It reinforces the values, expectations, and wishes of such by use of the psychological tools of operant conditioning, classical conditioning, and reinforcement (all of which are consequential in terms of the effects of television and the media).

What we should be doing? Breaking free.

^^
/thread.

Clearly, you need to get your sarcasm detector fixed, I think it may be broken...

you fail at sarcasm.

To answer the OP's question:

Its simple,

for acceptance and the appearance of attractiveness within the sphere of the social circle. Not only does being more fashionable, thus attractive, usually help our animal selves achieve social cohesion, it also sets up a hierarchy within the social circle and begets the alienation of those different and the reverence of those who are different that are strong/attractive enough to become "trendsetters". Thus, this facilitates evolution on a societal and somewhat cultural scale. Someone said something about the media. The media is simply a psychological tool of those in power, the high place-holders in the societal hierarchy. It reinforces the values, expectations, and wishes of such by use of the psychological tools of operant conditioning, classical conditioning, and reinforcement (all of which are consequential in terms of the effects of television and the media).

What we should be doing? Breaking free.

Specifically, breaking free from the exploitative system that is Capitalist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism) society.

Class struggle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Class_struggle) underlies all the social processes which occur in the Capitalist society. So economic materialism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_materialism), or fashion obsession in this distinct case, obstructs the majority's view from the Capitalist's acquisition of wealth by exploiting the working class.

For example, my school peers are most likely unaware that their 150$+ Nike (http://www.organicconsumers.org/clothes/nike041505.cfm) brand shoes were made for much cheaper, while the worker profited very little but the Capitalist who simply collected wealth profited much more in comparison. That is one of the most relevant facts, but keep in mind that in a Capitalist society all products we buy are a product of exploitation.

For example, my school peers are most likely unaware that their 150$+ Nike (http://www.organicconsumers.org/clothes/nike041505.cfm) brand shoes were made for much cheaper, while the worker profited very little but the Capitalist who simply collected wealth profited much more in comparison. That is one of the most relevant facts, but keep in mind that in a Capitalist society all products we buy are a product of exploitation.


They probably don't give a shit either.

I know I certainly don't

To answer the OP's question:



Specifically, breaking free from the exploitative system that is Capitalist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism) society.

Class struggle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Class_struggle) underlies all the social processes which occur in the Capitalist society. So economic materialism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_materialism), or fashion obsession in this distinct case, obstructs the majority's view from the Capitalist's acquisition of wealth by exploiting the working class.

For example, my school peers are most likely unaware that their 150$+ Nike (http://www.organicconsumers.org/clothes/nike041505.cfm) brand shoes were made for much cheaper, while the worker profited very little but the Capitalist who simply collected wealth profited much more in comparison. That is one of the most relevant facts, but keep in mind that in a Capitalist society all products we buy are a product of exploitation.

http://i72.photobucket.com/albums/i197/wakkosmakka/FacepalmPicard.jpg
Great, a kid who picked up marx and suddenly thinks he's unveiled the truth. Like I havent seen any of those before. Dude, exploitation will occur in any system where power and thus, the lack of power exists. The reason capitalism is the only desirable system of economics is because it is the only system that allows for the full respect of human value and human worth by putting the powers in the hands of the people.

Marxists believe in a psuedo-injustice, that of the lack of wealth, which to me is an incredible irony, is automatically wrong or makes people different. Why? Because communists think they are "for the people" when truly they are for "a nonsensical and magical ideal" wherein they place the value of monetary power over human power, and financial ingenuity above human ingenuity.

Capitalism allows for both people and economies to have the freedom to evolve. This freedom cannot be oppressed and will come about eventually no matter what tyrannical system that nullifies rights you might wish to impose. Communist dictatorships are such systems.

Of course, this is not to say that minimalism is the right choice, but a free market that is controlled enough to dismantle monopolies and hardlines illegal market practices? That is absolutely the only desirable course.

Those kids in sweatshops being used by Nike and being paid those disgusting, paltry wages? That is an act of immorality, not a call to the dismantling of a businesses ability (the right) to make a product wherever they choose. They should be punished. Tariffs should be imposed. Those countries should be helped by aid organizations.

Human choice, not institutions or governments, are what will bring human happiness and end human suffering. Nothing more. And its a damn shame you would bring an irrelevant economic fart of an idea into a discussion concerning humanity, sociology, anthropology, and culture.

Dude, exploitation will occur in any system where power and thus, the lack of power exists.


That's quite wrong. Parents exercise power over their children, but in most cases, parents do not exploit their children.


The reason capitalism is the only desirable system of economics is because it is the only system that allows for the full respect of human value and human worth by putting the powers in the hands of the people.


Wrong, on two things. First, Capitalism doesn't allow "full respect of human value", but in fact turns people into wage-slaves (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wage_slavery), and secondly, Capitalism allows the existence of a high concentration of power in an autocratic elite (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_class_in_the_United_States).

That is definitely not a respect of "human value and human worth".



Marxists believe in a psuedo-injustice, that of the lack of wealth, which to me is an incredible irony, is automatically wrong or makes people different. Why? Because communists think they are "for the people" when truly they are for "a nonsensical and magical ideal" wherein they place the value of monetary power over human power, and financial ingenuity above human ingenuity.

That is a horrible, sophomoric, straw man argument. I find the exploitation of workers, and indeed, the illegitimate exercise of power over anyone, immoral. That is far from what you accuse Marxists of, and the claims that you raise are in reality very wrong, when one realizes that the majority of the people is composed of workers and people who are daily coerced by illegitimate power.


Capitalism allows for both people and economies to have the freedom to evolve.

Wrong. The strong concentration of private power in an autocratic elite allowed by capitalism, makes capitalism essentially tantamount to any totalitarian system. That is because the majority of people in capitalist societies do not have a say in economic and political matters that immediately affect their lifes.


This freedom cannot be oppressed and will come about eventually no matter what tyrannical system that nullifies rights you might wish to impose.

That's quite redundant. Natural pressures for selection will always exist, hence people will always evolve.

And I have not yet advocated any system, be it 'tyrannical' or otherwise. Leave your preconceived notions at the door next time.


Communist dictatorships are such systems.

Leave your preconceived notions at the door next time.


Of course, this is not to say that minimalism is the right choice, but a free market that is controlled enough to dismantle monopolies and hardlines illegal market practices? That is absolutely the only desirable course.

Free markets (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Market) are not 'controlled' by definition, so your desirable course is not consistent with reality.


Those kids in sweatshops being used by Nike and being paid those disgusting, paltry wages? That is an act of immorality, not a call to the dismantling of a businesses ability (the right) to make a product wherever they choose. They should be punished. Tariffs should be imposed. Those countries should be helped by aid organizations.

The ability to exercise power over someone illegitimately hardly seems moral in any case, let alone a right.


Human choice, not institutions or governments, are what will bring human happiness and end human suffering.


I agree, however not with the means you advocate. A libertarian-socialist society is a more desirable course, because there, illegitimate power, whether a private or state power, does not exist.


Nothing more. And its a damn shame you would bring an irrelevant economic fart of an idea into a discussion concerning humanity, sociology, anthropology, and culture.

Marxism is very relevant to those ideas you list.

I see its fashionable to have half baked political ideals these days.

I see its fashionable to have half baked political ideals these days.

In addition to labeling political ideals 'half baked' instead of arguing against them.

That's quite wrong. Parents exercise power over their children, but in most cases, parents do not exploit their children.



Wrong, on two things. First, Capitalism doesn't allow "full respect of human value", but in fact turns people into wage-slaves (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wage_slavery), and secondly, Capitalism allows the existence of a high concentration of power in an autocratic elite (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_class_in_the_United_States).

That is definitely not a respect of "human value and human worth".



That is a horrible, sophomoric, straw man argument. I find the exploitation of workers, and indeed, the illegitimate exercise of power over anyone, immoral. That is far from what you accuse Marxists of, and the claims that you raise are in reality very wrong, when one realizes that the majority of the people is composed of workers and people who are daily coerced by illegitimate power.


Wrong. The strong concentration of private power in an autocratic elite allowed by capitalism, makes capitalism essentially tantamount to any totalitarian system. That is because the majority of people in capitalist societies do not have a say in economic and political matters that immediately affect their lifes.


That's quite redundant. Natural pressures for selection will always exist, hence people will always evolve.

And I have not yet advocated any system, be it 'tyrannical' or otherwise. Leave your preconceived notions at the door next time.


Leave your preconceived notions at the door next time.


Free markets (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Market) are not 'controlled' by definition, so your desirable course is not consistent with reality.


The ability to exercise power over someone illegitimately hardly seems moral in any case, let alone a right.



I agree, however not with the means you advocate. A libertarian-socialist society is a more desirable course, because there, illegitimate power, whether a private or state power, does not exist.


Marxism is very relevant to those ideas you list.

---Quite wrong? Did you forget your word choice there? Parents can, have, and most likely will exploit their children, practically inevitably, through a multitudinous array of means. Whether it be for selfish self aggrandizement/ego (I make my son go to the same university I went to) or sexual abuse or any of the possibilities in between. You cant pretend that your parents, those who had power over you, never exploited you, ever, in any way. Unless you had the parental equivalent of buddha.

---Wage slaves is a RIDICULOUS notion in a world where your freedom is to be grasped with the blood warm hands of your passion and in the real sense such as can be seen in the late 19th century the problem was abated by what? The realization of workers rights through unions and mediation. An autocratic elite is inevitable in ANY system, be it socialist or democratic. To think otherwise is to fool yourself. There will always be someone with more power and always be one grasping for more power. Its pretty inevitable. In a capitalist society it is a given that any man can, and any man should be able, to become part of the so-called elite.


---Hah! The illegitimate use of power over anyone is immoral? I question your definition of legitimacy. But the fact is one is not coerced, one is compelled (via the media, government, economic pressures) and to be compelled is not to be constrained. The essential element your missing here is freedom. Everyone has it, and no one should give it up. You don't have to follow the 9-5'er bud. You are limited only by your individual definition of your life.

---Again, all too silly. I am not suggesting an absolute free market with no government interference. A great man called Teddy Roosevelt saw the danger in that and took action against the monopolies of the time. Now in America no one company can control our economy. We are long past the times of Standard Oil Co. Sorry, but totalitarianism is QUITE a far cry away from nearly every example of capitalist governments that have existed (but not communist ones...hmm...) and to even suggest that that is implicit within a modern capitalist standpoint is beyond ludicrous.
Additionally, you try to say that the small man is impotent in a capitalist society. Quite a few supreme court cases, pieces of legislation, strikes, and petitions would speak differently, but hey I don't expect to see much beyond the silly spcialist brouhaha thrown around here. If a capitalist economy has a democratic government the little man will always have a say.

---Redundant? Allow me to make myself plainer. When a group (such as the Bolsheviks) seeks to suppress human rights in the name of a misguided ideal...this will inevitably fail. Only the respect and glorification of virtue, humanist principles, and natural rights allow humanity to thrive...something that communism and largely socialism sidesteps.

---Excuse me, I meant to say a truly mixed economy that leans toward free market principles as much as is feasible.

---Trade of labor for capital is not wrong. Exploitation is. The difference, and the key to demonstrating the inanity of communism, is in the ethical treatment of the individual based on the situation.

---Libertarianism is beautiful because of its basis in reality. Libertarian Socialism is laughable, due to the lack of such. Power is an inevitable and indestructible facet of existence. As is the right to property. As is the right to choose what to do with your property and capital. To attempt to take that away from someone would be equivalent to taking out an eye, a sick evisceration of part of their human form. I, frankly, do not have the audacity to suggest one should give up their rights. However, I do have the audacity to suggest that one should give up their selfishness, their ego, their flaws, their pains, and their guilt. No system will ever do this for humanity. It begins and ends with every individual and the choices they can make due to the freedom they possess. And I'll be damned if I would suggest taking away that freedom.

---Marxism is nothing in comparison to such disciplines. Actually, its just about nothing.

In addition to labeling political ideals 'half baked' instead of arguing against them.

I prefer to work within my own system rather than complain about others.

I prefer to work within my own system rather than complain about others.

Lol, pwn.

People care about fashion because it's not a problem to try and look nice, even on a shoe string budget. Hell, it's easier with more money though.

Its clearly because we are the goon squad and were coming to town. Beep-beep


I hope I wasn't the only one who got this. :-/

I hope I wasn't the only one who got this. :-/

Thank fuck, I was getting worried.

I prefer to work within my own system rather than complain about others.

It's difficult not to complain when you're essentially forced to pull yourself up by your bootstraps.

It's difficult not to complain when you're essentially forced to pull yourself up by your bootstraps.

Stop crawling, start walking.