or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › Australian Members - Part II - if you read the first post, you'll get what this is all about.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Australian Members - Part II - if you read the first post, you'll get what this is all about. - Page 150

post #2236 of 3524
Sadly the 24/7 news cycle, the decline in standards of the Fairfax press, the decimation of the ABC have coincided with the rise of opinionated idiots whose main function in life is to be shrill foghorns for the ignorant silent majority. Basically the main reason these idiots exist is to sell more soap powder and they don't care who they offend to achieve it.
post #2237 of 3524
If anyone wants a charcoal canali suit in 48 from the mr porter sale at cost let me know asap before i return it
post #2238 of 3524
Free entry to see Australian fashion photography from Henry Talbot this Saturday at the NGV Melb from 11am.
post #2239 of 3524

I didn't think I'd see the day but my photos made it onto the Kamakura site! I'm feeling pretty proud right now!

 

http://kamakurashirts.com/your-comments02/?gh160713

post #2240 of 3524
Quote:
Originally Posted by meister View Post


whenis it on?

 

The Night Of starts on Showcase/HBO this Sunday, 17 July. I think it's fast tracked from the US, if you're looking at release dates on 'alternate sources'.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by DartagnanRed View Post
 

That's ok, the treehouse is already full with me, Oli and JimmyHoffa.

 

But I would be interested in a response to the crux of my argument, immature profanity aside (I was a little high on codral whilst writing it).

 

 

I'm working on a response, too.

 

The crux is this: you're right about contexts; you're right about tempered responses from the public. 

 

But, it is not just responses that should be tempered. Statements proffered should be, too. It ought to be reasonably expected from anyone who is reasonably educated. It is also civil.

 

You're also right about the changing dynamics of communication today: words, how they are used, for example.

 

But if we are to accept that premise, then you also have to accept that how words are received today has also changed. Both are, for better or worse, inextricably linked.

 

I'm not suggesting that viewpoints cannot be extreme, or polarising, or radical. I'd just prefer the conversation to be civilised. 

 

 

***

 

Actually, that's the sum of my response. I won't be working on a longer version because I doubt I can add anything more of significance to this dialogue - but I am happy to keep the door on this conversation open.

 

It is very likely that we probably shall hardly convince one another, nor is it necessary that we should, so I'm equally receptive to talk of something else.

post #2241 of 3524
Quote:
Originally Posted by nabilmust View Post
 

 

The Night Of starts on Showcase/HBO this Sunday, 17 July. I think it's fast tracked from the US, if you're looking at release dates on 'alternate sources'.

 

 

 

 

I'm working on a response, too.

 

The crux is this: you're right about contexts; you're right about tempered responses from the public. 

 

But, it is not just responses that should be tempered. Statements proffered should be, too. It ought to be reasonably expected from anyone who is reasonably educated. It is also civil.

 

You're also right about the changing dynamics of communication today: words, how they are used, for example.

 

But if we are to accept that premise, then you also have to accept that how words are received today has also changed. Both are, for better or worse, inextricably linked.

 

I'm not suggesting that viewpoints cannot be extreme, or polarising, or radical. I'd just prefer the conversation to be civilised. 

 

 

***

 

Actually, that's the sum of my response. I won't be working on a longer version because I doubt I can add anything more of significance to this dialogue - but I am happy to keep the door on this conversation open.

 

It is very likely that we probably shall hardly convince one another, nor is it necessary that we should, so I'm equally receptive to talk of something else.

I absolutely agree with your points on civility, but this is just manners or effectiveness, it doesn't have any real bearing on whether something or someone is right or wrong. It's like using a knife or fork at a dinner table, it's not required or objectively better than using hands or chopsticks, it's just something you kind of do. In the same way, I agree it wasn't the right time for Steve Price to say anything about McGuire, he should have just put up and shut up. But he was lumped by association by both the questioner and Van Badham with Mcguire and his idiot friends. And he didn't "make the conversation" about he and Mcguire, the questioner did! He was also accused of mansplaining and talking over her, when the question was directed to him!

 

I do agree with what you say that the way words are received has changed, but I don't accept that this is important. Given that language is just a bunch of sounds that we make with our throats, it is the listener's responsibility to interpret the context and intent of language from the speaker, it is not effective or correct to assume the listener's interpretation is correct. Even if I do grant that to some extent the speaker should keep the potential consequences of using certain words in mind, it is a step too far to allow the listener to accuse the speaker of being racist/sexist/politically incorrect because that is their interpretation of the word.

 

With all this in mind, I really don't give a shit about Steve Price or McGuire and I don't think they should have said what they said, only as you say because of civility. But I refuse to side with this popular bullshit where not only is language "uncivil", but it is objectively violent or hurtful and deserves a media witchhunt.


Edited by DartagnanRed - 7/13/16 at 8:44pm
post #2242 of 3524

Just bought 3 Hawes & Curtis shirts from their UK website for GBP 50 (67.50 with shipping). They suggested I go to their Australian website instead which has cheaper shipping and free returns... and where the same shirts are listed at $69.90 each, shipping not included.

 

My first ever H&C order. I'm not happy with the increasing prices at H&H, and the few Lewin shirts I tried died after around 10 washes. Not taking much risk at $40 a shirt - that's on par with Uniqlo sales...

post #2243 of 3524
Quote:
Originally Posted by crdb View Post
 

Just bought 3 Hawes & Curtis shirts from their UK website for GBP 50 (67.50 with shipping). They suggested I go to their Australian website instead which has cheaper shipping and free returns... and where the same shirts are listed at $69.90 each, shipping not included.

 

My first ever H&C order. I'm not happy with the increasing prices at H&H, and the few Lewin shirts I tried died after around 10 washes. Not taking much risk at $40 a shirt - that's on par with Uniqlo sales...

 

I've only got one of their shirts and this was from a few years ago. I'd put them on par with charles tyrwhitt which is at the lowest entry point.

 

With shirts, the trick is to have a lot of them in your rotation - they will last a lot longer as you will wear and wash the individual shirt less often. You can take preventative measures such as using aluminium free deodarants and using alcohol wipes on your neck before you wear them (i rub some isocol on a cotton ball and wipe down my neck then moisturise with a colour free moisturiser) before wearing shirts. 

post #2244 of 3524
Quote:
Originally Posted by sliq View Post
 

 

I've only got one of their shirts and this was from a few years ago. I'd put them on par with charles tyrwhitt which is at the lowest entry point.

 

With shirts, the trick is to have a lot of them in your rotation - they will last a lot longer as you will wear and wash the individual shirt less often. You can take preventative measures such as using aluminium free deodarants and using alcohol wipes on your neck before you wear them (i rub some isocol on a cotton ball and wipe down my neck then moisturise with a colour free moisturiser) before wearing shirts. 

Actually, one of my best old shirts is a CT super 180s (don't think they make them anymore) which has held up for years, the collar and cuffs are frayed but the rest of the shirt is as new. Top notch fabric. Unfortunately my tailor refuses to take some of the ample shirt fabric under the waist to redo the collar, so until I find an alterations person both skilled and willing enough to do it, the shirt's in the cupboard. I also have some CTs from the early 2000s which have held up relatively well, the herringbones especially. TM Lewin on the other hand...

 

But these are beater shirts. Worn a few times a year when I'm in Sydney to save me some weight on the carry-on. So, I wasn't seeking quality. 

post #2245 of 3524
The SMH has followed up from Mondays Q&A with an interview with The Brownman http://www.dailylife.com.au/news-and-views/news-features/i-think-i-am-young-enough-to-see-change-tarang-chawla-is-positive-despite-steve-price-comments-on-qa-20160712-gq4g0h.html
post #2246 of 3524
Quote:
Originally Posted by DartagnanRed View Post
 

1. I absolutely agree with your points on civility, but this is just manners or effectiveness, it doesn't have any real bearing on whether something or someone is right or wrong.  

 

2. I do agree with what you say that the way words are received has changed, but I don't accept that this is important.

 

3. Given that language is just a bunch of sounds that we make with our throats, it is the listener's responsibility to interpret the context and intent of language from the speaker, it is not effective or correct to assume the listener's interpretation is correct.

 

4. Even if I do grant that to some extent the speaker should keep the potential consequences of using certain words in mind, it is a step too far to allow the listener to accuse the speaker of being racist/sexist/politically incorrect because that is their interpretation of the word.

 

5. But I refuse to side with this popular bullshit where not only is language "uncivil", but it is objectively violent or hurtful and deserves a media witchhunt.

 

1. Word choice does, though, have massive implications into how something is received, and gives key insight into a speaker/writer's intentions, which are a huge part of whether someone will believe someone as right or wrong. Very little is objective, and without appropriate word choice objectivity won't be accepted as such.

 

2. How could it not be important? A speaker is only half of the conversation (or in this case even less) - if how words are received is changing, that means at least 50% of communication is changing. How is that unimportant?

 

3. That assumes that a speaker/writer is actually skilled at saying what they mean, or communicating something effectively, which is hardly ever true. Think about how much explanation we require to talk about most basic points - you can't seriously posit that the listener is solely responsible for interpreting the words of the speaker. Sloppy speaking will, largely, lead to sloppy interpretations, garbage in, garbage out.

 

4. Why? If someone says something I think is racist, it's unethical for me to not confront that view. If someone says something that I believe will cause harm, or, unchecked, contributes to a toxic culture of domestic abuse it's completely unethical of me, as a listener, not to confront that view. If I, as a teacher, hear my male students routinely sexualise, objectify, peer pressure and harass their female peers it's beyond the pale for me not to intervene based on my interpretation of their words, their meaning and their morals. No, parents, I didn't tell the boys off for saying they'd like to gangbang your daughter till she screamed their name because it's not appropriate for a listener to assert their views. Seriously, mate, are you thinking about what you're saying?

 

5. Language can definitely be all these things - we know they way we talk, discuss, read, write and think about different things vastly shapes our beliefs and actions around them - that's hardly new, radical or unfounded. I think the hardest fight we (as a society or as a language) have in front of us is changing the parts of our language that cognitively, and therefore structurally and routinely, damage society.

 

At worst political correctness and an emphasis on civil speech is a clumsy attempt at a kinder world. It attracts a lot of disgruntled, usually obnoxious, people who progress is leaving behind, complaining that their outdated/racist/sexist/rude/mean/bullying views are criticised - which sounds A-OK in my book. 

 

So yeah - if people over-reacted to Price's comments (and I'm not sure they have, because I think ingrained and mean views require a lot more emphasis then they have been given) - that's better than the alternative: that Price said things that accept and encourage sexism and violence.

post #2247 of 3524
Casual day at the office.
post #2248 of 3524
Quote:
Originally Posted by LonerMatt View Post
 

 

1. Word choice does, though, have massive implications into how something is received, and gives key insight into a speaker/writer's intentions, which are a huge part of whether someone will believe someone as right or wrong. Very little is objective, and without appropriate word choice objectivity won't be accepted as such.

 

2. How could it not be important? A speaker is only half of the conversation (or in this case even less) - if how words are received is changing, that means at least 50% of communication is changing. How is that unimportant?

 

3. That assumes that a speaker/writer is actually skilled at saying what they mean, or communicating something effectively, which is hardly ever true. Think about how much explanation we require to talk about most basic points - you can't seriously posit that the listener is solely responsible for interpreting the words of the speaker. Sloppy speaking will, largely, lead to sloppy interpretations, garbage in, garbage out.

 

4. Why? If someone says something I think is racist, it's unethical for me to not confront that view. If someone says something that I believe will cause harm, or, unchecked, contributes to a toxic culture of domestic abuse it's completely unethical of me, as a listener, not to confront that view. If I, as a teacher, hear my male students routinely sexualise, objectify, peer pressure and harass their female peers it's beyond the pale for me not to intervene based on my interpretation of their words, their meaning and their morals. No, parents, I didn't tell the boys off for saying they'd like to gangbang your daughter till she screamed their name because it's not appropriate for a listener to assert their views. Seriously, mate, are you thinking about what you're saying?

 

5. Language can definitely be all these things - we know they way we talk, discuss, read, write and think about different things vastly shapes our beliefs and actions around them - that's hardly new, radical or unfounded. I think the hardest fight we (as a society or as a language) have in front of us is changing the parts of our language that cognitively, and therefore structurally and routinely, damage society.

 

At worst political correctness and an emphasis on civil speech is a clumsy attempt at a kinder world. It attracts a lot of disgruntled, usually obnoxious, people who progress is leaving behind, complaining that their outdated/racist/sexist/rude/mean/bullying views are criticised - which sounds A-OK in my book. 

 

So yeah - if people over-reacted to Price's comments (and I'm not sure they have, because I think ingrained and mean views require a lot more emphasis then they have been given) - that's better than the alternative: that Price said things that accept and encourage sexism and violence.

1) It is precisely because nothing is objective that it is the listener's responsibility to interpret the intent of the speaker when listening to their words. When Abbott says "no one is the suppository of all wisdom" he may look foolish, but you still know what he was trying to say because you know his intent.

 

2) This isn't how language works. When Obama gets up and speaks at a crowd, his intent isn't "worth" 1/20,000. I'm not suggesting that the speaker's view is correct, merely that their intent is necessary to interpret in order to understand their point, indeed in order to assess whether it is correct.

 

3) No, I don't assume the speaker is good at speaking. Again, it is precisely because some people, indeed most, are not skilled in saying what they mean that interpreting intent and context is so important. Often people say things that make little sense or are poorly worded, and yet you know what they are intending to say and can continue to have a conversation. Imagine the converse, where you stopped every conversation to pick someone up on how they could have better said something or used the wrong word.

 

4) You're missing the point entirely. I am not legitimising hate speech. I am positing that if the speaker does not intend to be racist/sexist (lets assume they are correct in this), then it is unproductive to accuse them of being racist/sexist because of the listener's interpretation of a word. I am not even close to implying that it is not ok for a listener to assert their views, that misses my point entirely. The boys in your crude example are clearly intending to be vulgar and the listener should reply as such. My point is that in most cases where teenagers say shit like that, it would be incorrect to assume that they intend to actually follow through on their threat of a gangbang, because that is likely not the intent of what they are saying. As an aside, in relation to this sentence: "No, parents, I didn't tell the boys off for saying they'd like to gangbang your daughter till she screamed their name because it's not appropriate for a listener to assert their views..." I know not to interpret this as you literally not telling boys off and explaining it to parents, because I have interpreted it relative to your intent. I could of course choose or fail to appreciate the sarcasm, in which case this would derail the argument and make conversation impossible. This is my point, not that the listener's viewpoint is irrelevant. Rather that it is only relevant if made in response to the correct interpretation of the speaker's intent. I appreciate this is very hard, sometimes impossible. But attempting to do so is necessary in order to be able to converse.

 

5) "Language can definitely be all these things - we know they way we talk, discuss, read, write and think about different things vastly shapes our beliefs and actions around them - that's hardly new, radical or unfounded." - 100% agree. "I think the hardest fight we (as a society or as a language) have in front of us is changing the parts of our language that cognitively, and therefore structurally and routinely, damage society." - 100% disagree. You are assuming that language has an objective meaning at all times. It simply doesn't, even dictionary definitions normally have many different meanings and never fully reflect the true range of words. This is why groups can "reclaim" words like fag, gay, nigger etc. Take the intent out of words and they can't be offensive. When the KKK member calls someone a nigger, it is intended to de-humanise them. When the rapper calls someone a nigger, clearly he isn't. If what you say is true, it is not possible for this situation to exist and you should probably explain to black people why it they shouldn't use the word nigger due to the structural/historical connotations associated with it...

 

I have nothing wrong with striving for a world with less or no sexism/racism/homophobia etc, I am only making and argument about language and words. Many/most people who complain about political correctness (and I didn't actually use that term) are bigoted fools. But there are some who aren't, and for obvious reasons I'd like to count myself in that column, who see it as dumbing down society, language and thought. Orwell thought this in 1984 and Bradbury thought this in Farenheit 451, neither could be considered bigots.

 

Orwell on newspeak: "the purpose of Newspeak was not only to provide a medium of expression for the world-view and mental habits proper to the devotees of IngSoc, but to make all other modes of thought impossible. Its vocabulary was so constructed as to give exact and often very subtle expression to every meaning that a Party member could properly wish to express, while excluding all other meaning and also the possibility of arriving at them by indirect methods. This was done partly by the invention of new words, but chiefly by eliminating undesirable words and stripping such words as remained of unorthodox meanings, and so far as possible of all secondary meaning whatever."

post #2249 of 3524
Received this Aspesi today. Exceeded my expectations - in terms of fabric quality, dye , stitching , fit and feel.
post #2250 of 3524
Quote:
Originally Posted by md2010 View Post

Received this Aspesi today. Exceeded my expectations - in terms of fabric quality, dye , stitching , fit and feel.

This forum is for pseudo-intellectual conversations about linguistics and political correctness, please post your clothing related pictures and posts elsewhere.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Classic Menswear
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › Australian Members - Part II - if you read the first post, you'll get what this is all about.