thewho13 you seem like a smart and nice guy but you need to drop the academic english major schtick. it makes reading your thoughtful posts unbearable - the mark of a gifted writer (and a gifted intellectual) is the ability to convey ideas simply though easy to understand language, not the ability to get lost within the convolutions of your own jargon and endless qualifications.
also if you're really torn up about subjectivity you need to read some Nietzsche. while clothing is subjective in an absolute sense, it's not subjective within the confines of this website -- we, as a community, have come together to create a standard aesthetic and, through our acceptance and rejection of different outfits and posters, perpetuate this aesthetic.
I'm really tired of reading complaints like this. I understand that you're not trying to antagonize me—and I'm aware that this is an effort to "help" me, or something; but I think you're projecting a significant amount onto the tone of my posts. Neither reeks of jargon or technical diction. Anything that might even happen to fall into those categories (or anything that might even obliquely signal "academic" writing) was spoiler'd. No one has to read that. No one's hand is forced to put up with it if they don't want to.
But as far as subjectivity goes, it's unclear to me why you think I'm so torn up about it. (To be honest, that comment just left me really confused.) In any case, I'm not the guy who just told someone on the internet to better understand subjectivity by reading Nietzsche. If you ask me, that is some pretentious, academic bs. You don't know if I've read Nietzsche (full disclosure: I haven't); and you don't know if I've read other shit that is not Nietzsche, yet happens to deal similarly with subjectivity (I have). But quit making assumptions about me, especially as they pertain to how you can "help" me. Every time you've tried to do so has been extremely condescending.
I'm aware this reads as pretty agitated and maybe even aggressive (I feel a little guilty about that), but you really need to stop telling me over and over again how to write posts on a silly message board on the internet. Posts like these read as if you're speaking down to me because essentially you are. If you don't like how I write, then simply choose to not read what I write. Edited by thewho13 - 12/2/12 at 1:46am
I think the types of aesthetic considerations that prevail in any different "space" (I prefer "space" to "community")-be it SF, SZ, reddit's MFA, tumblr #menswear etc--is also highly influenced by the structure of those spaces itself.
#menswear culture of reblogs is highly influenced by a small group of tastemakers who have a high degree of control over the aesthetic particularities of the space, which I suspect is a rather brilliant move by the more "traditional" tastemakers (GQ, Esquire, etc.) to shore up their influence in a more democratic age. After all, you can throw shit into the tumblrsphere but if it doesn't meet the criteria of the tastemakers then you're not going to get much reach.
I'd imagine SZ works in a similar way, with admins such as Faust wielding authority of aesthetic judgement, but I haven't spent much time there.
In contrast, reddit's MFA has a highly permeable membrane, so it reduces its aesthetic considerations to the lowest possible denominator for that demographic (young, affluent but still budget conscious males with bland personalities). Very little is pushed in the way of boundaries, as people there neither demand new and interesting forms nor could they--as a community--come to a consensus and recognize one if it bit them on the ass.
Styleforum and SuFu's structures encourage boundary pushing within the aesthetic space it has defined for itself, but allows for a higher multiplicity of voices. The fact that most of the members here are loyal and check the site multiple times daily creates a demand for content that is "new" and "interesting". However, the strong emphasis on "who is who" means that "tastemakers" still wield influence, but it allows less for a "barrier to entry" effect but rather a way for people to define and refine aesthetic considerations in multiple directions. There is a higher level of respect for others in spaces like these, so experimentation is encouraged and group aesthetics need not be defined as stringently. Hence, we can have dudes like Synthese, Snowman, bows1, the shah who are fairly experimental and avant garde (all in different ways), but still dudes like NYR and Teger, who are less so.
"So in simpler english, you say we have rules here so you should follow them. I reply, your rules are just your rules because you want to insist they are, which doesn't make then any more right because there are more than one of you insisting on its value as true/objective." - That would be the reasoning along which why saying community would not really deal with thewhos objection.
Wordier nietzsche referencing answer below
Warning: Spoiler!(Click to show)
Nietzsche is read pretty subjectively. I doubt if thewho will find anything in there that will really change his perspective. You could argue that the communal creation of ethical norms is the nature of standard formation and so within that community you are bound to it and it has some sort of proscriptive value. Or that Nietzsche's analysis is actually just descriptive and that while there is no real metaphysical force to the ethical norm the community acts that way. The community, much like anything/one else that calls upon metaphysical justifications, is without any ground to stand on but has its methods to create some sort of illusion of justification (force or some absolute like God)
And this is without speaking to the idea that "community" is a weak philosophical concept. I dont like to reference nozick but he has a point. There is no community monster that holds a collective consensus, just individuals who at time (and not unanimously) agree to certain things
your post is just saying what my post was implying (although I'm replacing god with fashion)