should have prefaced with this

I was pointing out the paradoxical irony inherent in linking the price of clothing to the look it exudes. Unfortunately market price determines how much certain looks cost. If you didn't take such a reactionary stance and understood unique value systems (yes, not everyone will agree with your appraisal that those brands are worth the cost), then there is nothing to argue about. I buy ro/dvn etc. but what we're arguing about is the validity of clothing choices... and I don't really see how you can invalidate any purchase/aesthetic or brand. Especially considering the fringe market that this forum is already catering to. So much for self-reflexiveness though right?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
linkinwayne 

Vaguely describing labels in a single belittling phrase isn't the same as what you quoted at all. That was a question of paying money to look poor. What you did was stereotype in a negative light. Look, I can do it too: pay $2k to look like a schoolboy (boo) pay $2k to look like a lumberjack amidoinitrite?
I'm not really sure why you took offence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Makeshift_Robot 
You're right, that isn't art. It's common sense.
Totally.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Makeshift_Robot 
Real talk though is the only 'valid' expensive clothing in your world made of croc skin and silk and crushed velvet and so forth?
Functionalism, so.. no I suppose. But you could argue that the functional purpose each aesthetic serves justifies its cost.