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!
Discussion in 'Streetwear and Denim' started by thekunk07, Aug 1, 2009.
worked on this all night: StyleForum, putting the SF in NSFW since NYR
Stain looks like a dolphin, it's worth it.
Ok, new years eve. Wtf do I wear? jeans, tucked ocbd, tweed sports jacket and a harris tweed tie? No tie and brown cord jacket? Tie and navy blue cotton sports coat? Forest green moleskin pants? Urgent!
NYE calls for a bit of glam. no tweed or brown cord. Maybe the forest green pants with a navy jacket?
Haha yeah I feel that way talking with my philosophy geek friend.
Everything ends up being a 2-4 hr+ argument on semantics. Or my position gets dismissed as: "Oh that's very similar to X school of thought which is no longer in vogue or has been obsoleted by Y." There's just no way to have a legitimate discussion with him without being having similar training. And the guy is clearly an intelligent guy and it's gotten to the point where I question whether or not his ideas/philosophies/concepts can be dumbed down or watered down into any sort of laymen-friendly version and if they really are only useful when in philosophy-geek duels with other phds.
In more mechanically/mathematically applicable disciplines I am more forgiving since the esoteric crazy stuff which can't be explained to me in 2-4 hrs of short words at least can result in like a teleporter or other crazy futuretech. Or in this guy's case, digital analog converters modifications that result in impressive ear-evident and testable improvements which involve some pretty obscure audio engineering techniques which he actually CAN relate to me without the crazy semantic/shared-experience requirement.
Anyway, at this point I really do wonder if the academic pursuit of philosophy has any sort of real relevance to the wider world or is just some dudes circle jerking it while adding barriers of entry to mask their irrelevance and inflate their own sense of value?
Then again this is probably just my tech industry biases acting up. Or my friend just sucks at communicating when it comes to philosophy.
It's all three - circle jerk, your biases, and that your friend sucks at communicating with laymen - a common fault in many, many academics.
This is it, you figured it out. Philosophy is a giant scam, they all secretly know they've been irrelevant since Hume.
Actually I forgot to add a 4. I'm just a retard when it comes to philosophy or debate. I'd say that it isn't purely a laymen-communicatory issue because he can communicate insanely ultra-geeky dac chip/opamp/audio circuit talk very well.
Ohwell I hate singular conclusions unless they absolutely can't be refuted/denied. Or a 1 reason for anything. Much better to be surrounded by a cloud of maybe-reasons with the ingrained belief that any one of them might be right or some combination of them or something else entirely.
It does suck to not have certainty, but I guess that's what my indefensibly over-redundant collection of CCP leathers is for. To anchor my incoherent soul to something. Just need to recoop some funds to score some sloppy thirds Harnden to get my double-anchor on!
It's the dirty hipster aesthetic. If you think the Ace Hotel is uber hip, then you should love this stuff too.
do hipsters have x ray vision
I've put my somewhat long winded response to the gender/sexuality discussion below, so if you don't care, feel free to skip.
I think a lot of the heterosexism in men's magazines is fairly "benign." In a sense that it reassure straight men that caring in x or y way will still read as straight. Gay men have, by an large, freed themselves from the restrictive notions of masculinity that plagues straight men, and so, they already inhabit the cultural territory of being in awesome shape and dressing well. (These being the logical aesthetic directions for a "free" man to go in). As such, straight men fear (and rightfully so) that they will be perceived as gay, which does come with real drawbacks, given the fact that not all straight women (or men) will have such open minded views of presentations of masculinity.
As for the pocket square as a desexualized object, I think that misunderstands the idea of male status, in the sense that, for straight men, sexual viability is often measured in notions of wealth (a holdover of earlier days, to be sure, but one no less true now). Pocket squares, tweed, and fine Italian tailoring signifies economic status, and is no more desexualized than a sports car (a classic symbol of wealth and potency).
As for the homoeroticism present in men's health, abercrombie etc. I think that the writer is missing the point: men aren't trained to see themselves in competition with other men in the same way women are, and so, rippling abs and gorging pectorals are going to be a cypher for the viewer to imagine himself as that individual, not as an objectified body designed for consumption (as is the case with women in these magazines) or an individual designed to highlight their flaws.
Afl, etc, i'd caution against applying current schemes of gender theory to straight constructions of masculinity. They have evolved to explain very specific cultural phenomena (the oppression of women, queers) and often miss the point when talking about straight men.
what guy? When those shaving commercials come on television with some ripped guy in his the bathroom with a freshly clean shaven face and some model bitch touching all over his face! They are creating a image that the consumer wants to match.
otherwise I agree.
i'm almost sorry for reducing it to this, but why not be a fucking man and just do your thing
same goes for the girls
isn't that pretty much universally rewarding, and even attractive if that's your main or only objective? and it's easy too.
saw this on tumblr today
i like how the creator of the images conveniently left out overhead and profit margins for the manufacturer and retailers
that's obviously not meant to be informative, it's meant to be an advertisement for a company that sells their product direct to consumer. I can't imagine it being interpreted by anyone as anything but that? The $15 is the price they sell their shirts for, it's not a coincidence.
They don't have an interest in going into details on overhead or staffing or marketing at the retailer level
Separate names with a comma.