Random Fashion Thoughts (Part 3: Style farmer strikes back) - our general discussion thread

[Fuuma]

Look, the people who started/will start these services probably had their brains replaced by an ever looping Tedtalk. They and their investors won't be content with merely having you use their services without employing attention economy techniques or whatever startuppers call this **** nowadays to speed up the way in which you consume, albeit without owning, clothing. Maybe that won't be the case at first but they'll get beyond the point of being environmentally harmful compared to older models pretty quickly because this is what they do, they speed things up and destroy things. Soon we'll be reading that their server farm where they mine bitcoin on the side or whatever have consumed more energy than Italy and literally no one will be surprised.

 

[Nyarlathotep]

Look, the people who started/will start these services probably had their brains replaced by an ever looping Tedtalk.

It's funny because it's true!

 

[dieworkwear]

Look, the people who started/will start these services probably had their brains replaced by an ever looping Tedtalk. They and their investors won't be content with merely having you use their services without employing attention economy techniques or whatever startuppers call this **** nowadays to speed up the way in which you consume, albeit without owning, clothing. Maybe that won't be the case at first but they'll get beyond the point of being environmentally harmful compared to older models pretty quickly because this is what they do, they speed things up and destroy things. Soon we'll be reading that their server farm where they mine bitcoin on the side or whatever have consumed more energy than Italy and literally no one will be surprised.

Incredible to see industrialism now heralded as a more benevolent form of capitalism.

 

[Fuuma]

Incredible to see industrialism now heralded as a more benevolent form of capitalism.

Area man intentionally fails to get the point when arguing with other area man who doesn't share his worldview.

 

[dieworkwear]

Area man intentionally fails to get the point when arguing with other area man who doesn't share his worldview.

Is it greener to pay for Spotify or buy CDs for every album you want to hear?

Is it greener to pay for Uber services (assuming they ever pay drivers what they deserve) or for everyone to own a car?

Is it greener to pay for Adobe services online or to drive to a store and purchase the boxed installation disks?

None of these is perfectly analogous to clothes because clothing occupies a different space. But it's weird to hear someone rant about the evils of capitalism while, at the same time, saying that people should buy physical goods instead of sharing them. Or convert the industrial economy into a services economy.

 

[MythReindeer]

Incredible to see industrialism now heralded as a more benevolent form of capitalism.

I think often about how basically nothing we do now, in the way we do it, can really continue if we mean to have any real environmental impact. Like, we probably can't be constantly shipping around a bunch of clothes whether they are purchased new or rented--we have to change the entire model of how society works (i.e. end capitalism). Our individual consumer choices aren't going to fix much, so we have to go back to how things run at a basic level. I honestly have no idea how that actually plays out because I have trouble envisioning a post-capitalist world. But I think cynicism about both industrialism and clothes-as-a-service is warranted. One may be better or worse for the moment and that's worth investigating, but neither can be good in the long run because they are both capitalist enterprises.

 

[dieworkwear]

I think often about how basically nothing we do now, in the way we do it, can really continue if we mean to have any real environmental impact. Like, we probably can't be constantly shipping around a bunch of clothes whether they are purchased new or rented--we have to change the entire model of how society works (i.e. end capitalism). Our individual consumer choices aren't going to fix much, so we have to go back to how things run at a basic level. I honestly have no idea how that actually plays out because I have trouble envisioning a post-capitalist world. But I think cynicism about both industrialism and clothes-as-a-service is warranted. One may be better or worse for the moment and that's worth investigating, but neither can be good in the long run because they are both capitalist enterprises.

I agree with the comment above that lasting, meaningful change will come from government regulation. Not individual consumer choices or even company choices. But it may still be worthwhile for people to think about these things, even if it only makes them vote for better policies.

Personally think this "too cool for school" cynicism is corrosive and bad for progressive change (progressive meaning "change for the better," not the political stance. Whatever your politics, this cynicism pervades everything is terrible and tiring).

 

[Fuuma]

Is it greener to pay for Spotify or buy CDs for every album you want to hear?

Is it greener to pay for Uber services (assuming they ever pay drivers what they deserve) or for everyone to own a car?

Is it greener to pay for Adobe services online or to drive to a store and purchase the boxed installation disks?

None of these is perfectly analogous to clothes because clothing occupies a different space. But it's weird to hear someone rant about the evils of capitalism while, at the same time, saying that people should buy physical goods instead of sharing them. Or convert the industrial economy into a services economy.

You fail to see that it isn't because those services (vs ownership) tend to use the internutz and come from the same subset of rent seeking assholes that one has to be physical and the other one virtual (i.e. you can download and own or stream or whatever). These are historically interlinked but separate questions. Beyond that we need to strongly revise our naive mindset of seeing "virtual/online" stuff as having no physical components. I know we understand this at a rational level but it tend to be forgotten when thinking of these domains of activity.

You'll also note that clothes (i.e. what we're discussing) are ******* physical objects even if sold as a service, totally invalidating the point you were trying to make. Now you'll excuse me if I think that true cynicism lies in thinking like a Brooking institution report on the green economy and not being strongly opposed to the absolute slop we tend to present as solutions to our numerous problems (inequality, environmental destruction etc).

 

[erictheobscure]

this corner of SF is amusing because commodity fetishists go haywire when anyone questions the benevolence of their centrist-liberal-bourgeois lifestyle politics

and by amusing I mean disgusting but in a slightly different way than the rest of SF

 

[Fuuma]

this corner of SF is amusing because commodity fetishists go haywire when anyone questions the benevolence of their centrist-liberal-bourgeois lifestyle politics

and by amusing I mean disgusting but in a slightly different way than the rest of SF

Radical centrism will lead us all to hell on what will be left of earth with a positive attitude, a respect for all individuals no matter their creed, origin and sexuality and a market-based solution to the oceans burning.

Mediocracy: The Politics of the Extreme Centre

There was no Reichstag fire. No storming of the Bastill…

www.goodreads.com

 

[nahneun]

this corner of SF is amusing because commodity fetishists go haywire when anyone questions the benevolence of their centrist-liberal-bourgeois lifestyle politics

and by amusing I mean disgusting but in a slightly different way than the rest of SF

bro but you don't like korean food when you're korean

WHOMST ARE YOU TO JUDGE

 

[whorishconsumer]

Motion to change thread title to Random Fashion Yelling is now on the table.

 

[jaaz16]

I agree with the comment above that lasting, meaningful change will come from government regulation. Not individual consumer choices or even company choices. But it may still be worthwhile for people to think about these things, even if it only makes them vote for better policies.

Personally think this "too cool for school" cynicism is corrosive and bad for progressive change (progressive meaning "change for the better," not the political stance. Whatever your politics, this cynicism pervades everything is terrible and tiring).

I take your point about excessive cynicism, and yes, guilty as charged. What's your theory of how this works though--the downstream effect on voting behavior? Or put differently, what's a theory of how this would work? I find the evidence on public opinion frankly damning on this point: the relationship between opinion and policy is tenuous, even incidental. "Democracy by coincidence," if you know the reference. I'm also very skeptical of the political psych findings on nudges and the like, and don't think there's much there to support the hypothesis either. I'm trying to think of a parallel to having a gay canvasser come to your door --> making you more supportive of LGBT issues, but am coming up blank. If government regulation over production is going to happen, I think it's going to happen despite of interest groups and regardless of public opinion. Movements + advocacy + institutions, not consumer innovations + public opinion change.

That's not to say I am as cynical/nihilist as fuuma. I do agree that it's better to do things as individuals that are more environmentally friendly rather than wasteful. Still, I'm reminded of a joke from the Throwing Fits guys: If you are shopping vintage to be environmentally friendly because you're reusing clothes rather than disposing/buying new, it's a bit contradictory to be doing "thrift hauls" on social media. So maybe it's healthy skepticism rather than too-cool-for-school cynicism.

Finally, I think your Uber comparison above is the wrong one to make, but ironically supports the point I want to make. People flocked to Uber because of cost, not environmentalism...but that cost was kept artificially low by VC capital making up for huge losses while Uber tried to destroy public transit and change laws to allow their drivers to be classified as contractors instead of employees...in order to keep prices low. In this case, more Uber may not exactly be "better" than more cars, especially once the true costs are borne. And even if it is better, it's worse than better public transit. (I'm pretty sure you agree with this).

 

[double00]

That's not to say I am as cynical/nihilist as fuuma. I do agree that it's better to do things as individuals that are more environmentally friendly rather than wasteful. Still, I'm reminded of a joke from the Throwing Fits guys: If you are shopping vintage to be environmentally friendly because you're reusing clothes rather than disposing/buying new, it's a bit contradictory to be doing "thrift hauls" on social media. So maybe it's healthy skepticism rather than too-cool-for-school cynicism.

wait how is this contradictory? poasting doesn't negate the material reality

 

[cb200]

I'd be super curious about the kinds of behavioral info that places like rent the runway have. I know I read something that said new subscribers tend to try a whole bunch of new designers and brands when they first sign up. That was pitched as good for brands as they were getting people to experiment beyond what they might normally be comfortable with price wise or knowledge wise. The kind of behavior that gets incentivized and the styles of consumption does seem to matter.