The WAYWT Discussion Thread

[Mr. Moo]



whatever i can do avoid my thesis. WHATEVER I CAN DO.

I think you a word.

 

[wootx]

Can we all grow up now?

 

[Severisth]

For the sake of posting something, alternate take of my previous fit (I wish I walked more places just so I can wear this like a backpack and look like an idiot)

 

[in stitches]



Probably because he's in his 20's, has his whole life ahead of him, feels like he hasn't devoted nearly enough time to himself yet, has no desire to drop everything and devote himself to raising a tiny human being when he barely feels like an adult, has no real career, because babies are expensive, because blindly creating life isn't a good reason to do it, because he likes his beagle, because he would prefer to minimize stress rather than increase it, because he knows how hard life is sometimes and it's tough to wish that on something you're creating, because feeling a bit at sea is no reason to drop everything and make a child, because because because

but what do i know

this as well as ..

I didn't have the best childhood so I don't know if I'm emotionally equipped to be a parent

I have some health problems with genetic indicators and I would feel guilty fathering I child that potentially would have these same health problems

These are all good reasons but if that was the case the original post should have read, "I do not want to have a child right now I would rather have a pet as it is more fitting with where my life is currently at. Maybe things will change maybe things won't." That would've gone over a lot better than a blanket statement of puppies are greater than children. Not that it really matters to me who has kids and who doesn't, that's a personal decision. It was about the statement, not tegers personal life choices.

Synth - Thanks for the detailed feedback, I will reply to that later. I don't want you to think that I ignored it.

 

[dfagdfsh]



Can we all grow up now?

Loewenstein views Spain’s prospects in a similar light. Like Germany, during the 1920s Spain “failed to build up a strong middle-class party holding the balance between right and left,” leading to an ill-timed revolt by the leftist parties against the state and military. With little prospects of succeeding, this revolt will serve as a pretext for the Spanish right to further entrench themselves in power, using the “menace of dictatorship of the proletariat... for the organization of a ruthless white terror preparing the way for the establishment of fascist or authoritarian rule.” In this prediction, Loewenstein sees a similarity to the destruction of the Weimar state, wherein the tension (and open conflict) between the left and the right has provided enough “hatred to bid for a ferocious application of the fascist suppression.”

Second, by using military language to describe the European political situation, and exaggerating the threat to the European democracies – only two years earlier England was described as immune to fascism – Loewenstein is using fascisms’ own appeal to drum up support for militant democracy. As he has discussed repeatedly, fascism is grounded in emotion, and fascist parties make great use of the emergency situation, frequently using expediency as a justification for a quick transition to a fascist government. Loewenstein is in essence doing the same thing. To him the threat to democracy is so dire, and so apparent, that actions must immediately be taken – democracy “must live up to the demands of the hour.” Such an appeal is the essence of emotionalism: just as the fascists use the threat of economic depression to mobilize a population, Loewenstein is attempting to use fascism to mobilize a government. To him, there is no time to think, only to act, and democratic governments must immediately follow the course laid out by him or risk destruction. There is something fundamentally different from simply proscribing the means by which a democratic government can protect itself from fascism, and casting the conflict between democracy and fascism as an apocalyptic and historic clash of worldviews. The fact that Loewenstein is doing the latter is significant, and has up until this point been glossed over by scholars working with his theories. Further, the stark differences between “Militant Democracy I” and “Autocracy Versus Democracy” are obvious, and show his increasingly pessimistic worldview, his growing personal involvement in the defense of democracy, his mounting hysteria, and his transition from academic to advocate.

 

[rennavate]



Don't redact, dude!

Breakdown: 1/4 zip is bad. It is always bad. Benesyed has absolutely no idea what he's talking about, so don't let him bolster your ego. They speak to everything that's wrong with menswear. More importantly, however:

The color - I find it tacky, gaudy. It's too bright for such a staid item, and gives you a "dressed by your mother" look.

The hemline - the ribbing is not doing you any favors. Combined with the trousers (which appear to have a heavy tape - lovely color on those, and the shoes, by the way), it's really emphasizing your midsection. Now, I'm not into body-shaming or anything like that, but this isn't a good look. Those chunky fisherman knits look best (IMO) when they're sort of slouchy and oversized, not pulled tight across your front. The quarter zip doesn't help - it's just emphasizing the bottom of the V, where your midsection begins. The heavy taper from armhole to cuff also makes it worse - like you're a flailing disco eggplant.

I would suggest an unribbed sweater - I'm sure you've seen pictures of the SNS Herning Stark floating around on the forum, and I think that a navy one would really look great with this fit.

I want to see the fit that this critique is for, but you took down the photo, stitches. RE-UP!

 

[Benesyed]

I have already. But as a whole no one here likes prep n.east style. Swd has an aesthetic lens it looks through. Its great for developing my yohji and leatherfits. Useless for other stuff.

Like thilf is a big yawn here even though his runway is fantastic example of that style.

Also, what's up tw? I feel like you don't like me or something bro. What's with the passive aggressive shots.

 

[g transistor]

Sev looks great. Buy a leather jacket :foo:

WAYWT:

Ervell fairisle beanie
SS author
ourlegacy shirt
g flight pants
w+h boots
glacial shroud

 

[Mr. Moo]



Loewenstein views Spain’s prospects in a similar light. Like Germany, during the 1920s Spain “failed to build up a strong middle-class party holding the balance between right and left,” leading to an ill-timed revolt by the leftist parties against the state and military. With little prospects of succeeding, this revolt will serve as a pretext for the Spanish right to further entrench themselves in power, using the “menace of dictatorship of the proletariat... for the organization of a ruthless white terror preparing the way for the establishment of fascist or authoritarian rule.” In this prediction, Loewenstein sees a similarity to the destruction of the Weimar state, wherein the tension (and open conflict) between the left and the right has provided enough “hatred to bid for a ferocious application of the fascist suppression.”

Second, by using military language to describe the European political situation, and exaggerating the threat to the European democracies – only two years earlier England was described as immune to fascism – Loewenstein is using fascisms’ own appeal to drum up support for militant democracy. As he has discussed repeatedly, fascism is grounded in emotion, and fascist parties make great use of the emergency situation, frequently using expediency as a justification for a quick transition to a fascist government. Loewenstein is in essence doing the same thing. To him the threat to democracy is so dire, and so apparent, that actions must immediately be taken – democracy “must live up to the demands of the hour.” Such an appeal is the essence of emotionalism: just as the fascists use the threat of economic depression to mobilize a population, Loewenstein is attempting to use fascism to mobilize a government. To him, there is no time to think, only to act, and democratic governments must immediately follow the course laid out by him or risk destruction. There is something fundamentally different from simply proscribing the means by which a democratic government can protect itself from fascism, and casting the conflict between democracy and fascism as an apocalyptic and historic clash of worldviews. The fact that Loewenstein is doing the latter is significant, and has up until this point been glossed over by scholars working with his theories. Further, the stark differences between “Militant Democracy I” and “Autocracy Versus Democracy” are obvious, and show his increasingly pessimistic worldview, his growing personal involvement in the defense of democracy, his mounting hysteria, and his transition from academic to advocate.

Obviously.

 

[Severisth]



Sev looks great. Buy my leather jacket :foo:

FTFY (and I know, need someone to buy this BLESS)

 

[dfagdfsh]

just passed 10,000 words woo woo woo. will finish my first chapter this week bitches.

 

[kindofyoung]

FTFY (and I know, need someone to buy this BLESS)

I know (need to get a job)

 

[dfagdfsh]

even though nobody reads this, this is probably the coolest thing i've found so far in my research:

The thirteenth type of law is perhaps the most controversial and proactive measure a democratic state can undertake, and involves the creation of a police forced devoted solely to the “discovery, repression, supervision, and control of anti-democratic and anti-constitutional activities and movements.” While Loewenstein believes a force along these lines should be “established in any democratic state at war against fascism” – therefore all democratic states –
by 1937 only Switzerland and the Scandinavian states have pursued this strategy, and only along limited lines. Loewenstein believes it is imperative for democratic nations to follow “the example of the dictatorial and authoritarian states,” including “making it an offense [for all citizens] not to report to the competent authorities information concerning unlawful and subversive activities.”
What Loewenstein is proposing here is nothing short of the creation of a full-fledged police state in line with those already in place among the fascist countries. The idea that democracy can only be protected by the recruitment and training of a democratic Gestapo is significant, and further demonstrates the hysterical way in which Loewenstein views the fight against fascism. The contradiction present in his argument is obvious, and his apparent belief that fascist repressive tactics are justified when used to protect democracy only emphasizes his growing personal advocacy for the defense of democracy, as well as his apparent belief that, where democracy is concerned, the ends absolutely justified the means. In light of such statement, it is difficult to determine the difference between fascism, and a militant democratic state as envisioned by Loewenstein. Further, Loewenstein’s own list of the legal measures already taken against fascism contradicts the severity with which he treats the fascist threat. If such a large number of laws have already been passed to protect democracy, why is it so essential that the final step – the suspension of free speech and the creation of a police state – must be taken? Loewenstein’s failure to resolve this contradiction, or present any evidence that the existing legislative measures are insufficient, or that the threat of fascism is mounting, further emphasizes his mounting hysteria where fascism is concerned.

 

[Benesyed]

Seriously that's very interesting. The only stuff I've read about the creation of fascist states its some Agamben

 

[noob in 89]

Way OT, but that looks really good for a first draft. (0)