When did this site become so interested in being the fashion police? First everyone defends China banning femboys, then everyone's hand-wringing over campy outfits at the MET, and now everyone's trying to put me in a business suit of all things, like goddamn. Y'all nerds can pry my blue hair from my cold, dead follicles.
"Everyone in power walks around with a big sign that says, "I love capitalism," maybe the thing that's holding back anti-capitalism is that we're not wearing big signs that say that."
I remember you for also having a terrible take on the femboy ban. Not surprised you're being a tool here as well.
Do what you want, but realise that a movement of people that look and dress like you isn’t going to attract people who don’t already look and dress like you.
At the Amazon warehouse I used to work at about a third of the workers had abnormally colored hair. I guess in your mind the biggest an organization could ever get there is 2/3 of that because you can only ever appeal to people who present the same way as you. But wait! There were also people of different races and different genders there! Since it's impossible to appeal to people who look different than you, I guess we've got to bring that number down to like, 1/10. What absolute nonsense.
Hey here's a crazy idea: what if let people dress however they like to demonstrate that we want to accept everyone, regardless of what you look like? Nah, better to be weirdly exclusionary in order to best appeal to straight white men.
Again, the point isn’t the specifics of the aesthetic here or its meaning or who it should appeal to, just that aesthetic is something that should be conciously managed rather than left to the whims of individuals.
Nonsense. The specific aesthetic is what's relevant. If you can show that a particular aesthetic is worth adopting for an org, then of course I will not object to an org mandating it for it's members. I agree with you example with the Black Panthers, but the fact that they adopted an aesthetic that rejected colonial norms is not some trivial detail that can be dismissed, to make a broader point about how orgs controlling how people dress is an inherent good. It's the entire point. Do you think it would've been just as good of a policy if they'd mandated business suits?
I'm not saying "Aesthetics aren't important," what I'm saying is that "a ragtag bunch of misfits" is a better aesthetic than a bunch of business suits.
The specific aesthetic is what’s relevant. If you can show that a particular aesthetic is worth adopting, then of course I will not object to an org mandating it for it’s members.
The aesthetic: when representing the organization, dress and groom like a responsible and capable adult that can be taken seriously in mainstream society
Not like a Renaissance fair reenactor, not like a New Age witch, not like a hippie, not like a D&D nerd
It’s the entire point.
The entire point in the American situation is that leftism is viewed as a complete and utter joke. All experienced organization has been gutted by the FBI and McCarthyism and establishment politcians. Thanks to that, its popular perception is whatever conservatives say it is: the make-believe of Hollywood and SJWs and bitter people on welfare and illegal immigrants or whatever they come up with next
So yeah, when it comes time you're in a courtroom fighting a legal battle or at a press conference, comb your blue hair all nice, re-dye it for max color vibrancy, and put on the suit (that matches well with the hair, obviously), because presentation matters
what I’m saying is that “a ragtag bunch of misfits” is a better aesthetic than a bunch of business suits.
You're not wearing a suit 24/7, Jesus Christ, you're wearing it when social norms demand it of you, and as much as you want to say "fuck social norms," if the entire population is beholden to those norms, you aren't going to get anywhere. You're in the imperial core, you aren't playing on even ground, you're playing at complete disadvantage
Let me give you an example: you're a public defender, you're defending a young black man who's wrongfully accused but you know the jury's primed to dislike him. Do you say, "wear a t-shirt and sweatpants" or do you say "wear a suit?"
Gorman doesn’t only worry about her own personal appearance ― she also wants to make sure her clients are prepared for court. Gorman and her colleagues ask their clients to wear a suit; sometimes family members provide them, but not everyone can afford a suit. To help their clients, Gorman’s office has a closet full of shoes, shirts, jackets, ties and other clothes in a mix of sizes and styles. Public defenders want to avoid having their client appear in court wearing their prison uniform or nonprofessional attire that may impact how the jury hears the case.
Holy shit lmao chill. Obviously if I were a public defender I'd wear a suit. Jfc. I'd also wear a big sign saying, "I love capitalism" if that was the norm and that's what it took. Obviously.
But I'm not just going to go around wearing that shit by choice, which is what you're suggesting.
The question this thread is asking is whether or not aesthetic should be utilised at all, not what the specific aesthetic should be.
I'm not just reacting to the OP, but also to what I saw in the comments, which is why I referred to "everybody."
The point I'm trying to make is that suits suck. If we're going to start having orgs require suits we might as well go all the way and require powdered wigs.
"The aesthetics should be tailored to the specific conditions," while true, also needlessly sidelines discussions of how they should be tailored to the current conditions, which would need to be resolved for this to matter. It doesn't do us any good if we all agree that the aesthetics should be tailored to the conditions if we disagree wildly on what they should be and who they should be appealing to and so on.
When did this site become so interested in being the fashion police? First everyone defends China banning femboys, then everyone's hand-wringing over campy outfits at the MET, and now everyone's trying to put me in a business suit of all things, like goddamn. Y'all nerds can pry my blue hair from my cold, dead follicles.
"Everyone in power walks around with a big sign that says, "I love capitalism," maybe the thing that's holding back anti-capitalism is that we're not wearing big signs that say that."
deleted by creator
I remember you for also having a terrible take on the femboy ban. Not surprised you're being a tool here as well.
At the Amazon warehouse I used to work at about a third of the workers had abnormally colored hair. I guess in your mind the biggest an organization could ever get there is 2/3 of that because you can only ever appeal to people who present the same way as you. But wait! There were also people of different races and different genders there! Since it's impossible to appeal to people who look different than you, I guess we've got to bring that number down to like, 1/10. What absolute nonsense.
Hey here's a crazy idea: what if let people dress however they like to demonstrate that we want to accept everyone, regardless of what you look like? Nah, better to be weirdly exclusionary in order to best appeal to straight white men.
deleted by creator
Nonsense. The specific aesthetic is what's relevant. If you can show that a particular aesthetic is worth adopting for an org, then of course I will not object to an org mandating it for it's members. I agree with you example with the Black Panthers, but the fact that they adopted an aesthetic that rejected colonial norms is not some trivial detail that can be dismissed, to make a broader point about how orgs controlling how people dress is an inherent good. It's the entire point. Do you think it would've been just as good of a policy if they'd mandated business suits?
I'm not saying "Aesthetics aren't important," what I'm saying is that "a ragtag bunch of misfits" is a better aesthetic than a bunch of business suits.
The aesthetic: when representing the organization, dress and groom like a responsible and capable adult that can be taken seriously in mainstream society
Not like a Renaissance fair reenactor, not like a New Age witch, not like a hippie, not like a D&D nerd
The entire point in the American situation is that leftism is viewed as a complete and utter joke. All experienced organization has been gutted by the FBI and McCarthyism and establishment politcians. Thanks to that, its popular perception is whatever conservatives say it is: the make-believe of Hollywood and SJWs and bitter people on welfare and illegal immigrants or whatever they come up with next
So yeah, when it comes time you're in a courtroom fighting a legal battle or at a press conference, comb your blue hair all nice, re-dye it for max color vibrancy, and put on the suit (that matches well with the hair, obviously), because presentation matters
You're not wearing a suit 24/7, Jesus Christ, you're wearing it when social norms demand it of you, and as much as you want to say "fuck social norms," if the entire population is beholden to those norms, you aren't going to get anywhere. You're in the imperial core, you aren't playing on even ground, you're playing at complete disadvantage
Let me give you an example: you're a public defender, you're defending a young black man who's wrongfully accused but you know the jury's primed to dislike him. Do you say, "wear a t-shirt and sweatpants" or do you say "wear a suit?"
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/public-defender-what-i-wear-to-work_l_5e2f56f6c5b6ce51a4ea5232
You wear the suit. The entire United States is the jury. Your "VOLCEL POLICE" t-shirt won't help you.
Holy shit lmao chill. Obviously if I were a public defender I'd wear a suit. Jfc. I'd also wear a big sign saying, "I love capitalism" if that was the norm and that's what it took. Obviously.
But I'm not just going to go around wearing that shit by choice, which is what you're suggesting.
deleted by creator
I'm not just reacting to the OP, but also to what I saw in the comments, which is why I referred to "everybody."
The point I'm trying to make is that suits suck. If we're going to start having orgs require suits we might as well go all the way and require powdered wigs.
"The aesthetics should be tailored to the specific conditions," while true, also needlessly sidelines discussions of how they should be tailored to the current conditions, which would need to be resolved for this to matter. It doesn't do us any good if we all agree that the aesthetics should be tailored to the conditions if we disagree wildly on what they should be and who they should be appealing to and so on.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator