Caustic Man
Stylish Dinosaur
- Joined
- Apr 17, 2012
- Messages
- 10,575
- Reaction score
- 10,456
It seems the man-bat has lost interest. In like a lion, out like a lamb.
UNIFORM LA Japanese BDU Camo Cargo Pants Drop, going on right now.
Uniform LA's Japanese BDU Camo Cargo Pants are now live. These cargos are based off vintage US Army BDU (Battle Dress Uniform) cargos. They're made of a premium 13.5-ounce Japanese twill that has been sulfur dyed for a vintage look. Every detail has been carried over from the inspiration and elevated. Available in two colorways, tundra and woodland. Please find them here
Good luck!.
STYLE. COMMUNITY. GREAT CLOTHING.
Bored of counting likes on social networks? At Styleforum, you’ll find rousing discussions that go beyond strings of emojis.
Click Here to join Styleforum's thousands of style enthusiasts today!
Styleforum is supported in part by commission earning affiliate links sitewide. Please support us by using them. You may learn more here.
It seems the man-bat has lost interest. In like a lion, out like a lamb.
@Mojo1990 Your reactions to other people are, to a large degree, a product of the cultural acclimatization to which you have been subjected. Further, just because you are aware of the root of your reactions does not mean that you will necessarily be able to control them. I think that it's important to remove your personal experiences as much as possible in any analysis. It's practically impossible to eliminate bias from any analysis, but certainly, you should not take your personal reactions as the starting point of any analysis. I dunno. Pretend that you are Spock or something. Or just very bored with everything.
naught to do with threak but this is an arresting thought.
do you really mean you try to remove your personal experiences (or "bias") from fit crit? i feel like i'm missing something here...
I can't remove personal bias from my analysis, but I can and do try to be extremely self-critical and see whether my opinions, especially negative ones, are founded on sound principles within the realm of fashion, design, etc...
I think that a healthy approach is to assume that you are wrong, and proceed from there. Put up all of the strongest arguments against your position, and see if the arguments in favor of your position hold, or fall under assault. If they do, re-examine your position. Assume that your moral framework is flawed. That will allow you to examine your premises and value judgements critically. This goes for all political positions (assuming for a moment that all positions are inherently political.)This is the correct way to go about things, IMO. Much has been said about bias in academics, for instance. Especially in the humanities. Post modernism did much damage to the notion of objectivity, however, I believe that even if we know we can't be perfectly objective it is still worth while to be as objective as possible. A healthy recognition of our limits in this regard also goes a long way.
Right?Lucky for me I guess that my instinctual first impressions just always happen to reflect the fundamental nature of reality?
This is one area in which I think that we are sorely missing old debate styles, in which each team or individual is GIVEN an argument to defend. They may personally agree with that position, or it may run counter to everything they hold dear. The point is to develop critical thinking skills and the ability to articulate a position without resorting to any emotional appeal.You make several points that I think are key. The one I want to focus on is the one that I believe most of the general public has the hardest time with. Which is to say, questioning the held beliefs of what is, or what you perceive to be, the moral majority. When I saw moral majority I don't mean christian conservatives, but rather the moral ideologies of whatever in-group you might identify with. This is one of the consistent problems that undergraduates have difficulty with. As an example, there was a grad/undergrad class on the Old South that I had. When the subject of the slaveholders themselves came up the undergrads, and many of the gradate students as well, recoiled at the thought of even considering the historical situation for their point of view. The institution of slavery, and the slave-owners themselves, were immediately discounted as evil, backward, and not worthy of examination. Most of us, myself included, wouldn't hesitate to classify slavery as a great evil. However (and this is the challenge of history) a person can still assume that mantel temporarily if only they have the courage to. Imagine what it might be like to think that blacks are inferior, imagine what it might be like to think that you are doing them good by enslaving them. And then you can come out of it, come back to your world, and be better from having examined something horrible from the perspective of someone who thinks it good. This was the challenge that was issued in this class, although it was hardly met at all. Through this exercise it becomes clear how tenuous our seemingly rock solid moral assumptions are, and that no doubt the people of the future will hold moral beliefs very different from our own.
This is one area in which I think that we are sorely missing old debate styles, in which each team or individual is GIVEN an argument to defend. They may personally agree with that position, or it may run counter to everything they hold dear. The point is to develop critical thinking skills and the ability to articulate a position without resorting to any emotional appeal.
OP's conservative stance on the plastic arts died in the 60's with Herbert Read. His position is actually the untenable one. I'm not unopen to it but he'd have to describe what the universal standards of beauty are, and how it has to do with the Sartorialist picture that was posted.
The topic is timely, and has come up often given Vetement's rise. I think it's safe to say we all judge clothes/fits to an extent apart from fashion politics/labels/gender/subcultures, in that some colors go better with others, and some cuts go better on certain bodytypes.
My presumption is an objective one, in that "normal" human beings (considering evolutionary biology) when left to their own devices, void of cultural influences, would primarily desire sexual relationships with that of the opposite sex.
This is objective, true, but it is also meaningless. It's impossible to prove or to draw conclusions from it because you'd never be able to take away cultural influences, even the most minor ones. Because of that you couldn't say one way or the other what the sexual repercussion of having no culture would look like, even if you could begin to define what having no cultural influences even means.
That's easy
Just pick any beautiful well regarded celebrity and you will have most human beings nodding their collective heads. The body ratio and symmetry is key to a particular accessible beauty.
you can even go with toddlers to exclude cultural bias
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn6355-babies-prefer-to-gaze-upon-beautiful-faces/
or men blind from birth
http://www.psypost.org/2010/07/men-blind-prefer-low-waist-to-hip-ratio-women-1092