What are some things in classic menswear that annoy you?

[Encathol Epistemia]

Manchester now, a city of barbarism:

View attachment 1250474

Given how much of what's show in that image is surrendered to parking, they should probably just bomb it again.

 

[nreid2946]

This is about as ahistorical as it gets.

For the record, regarding barbarism, in this context it refers to cultural homogeneity within a given tribe.

Given that I was, during the quoted paragraph, talking about today, it is not possible for it to be ahistorical.

There is some debate, to what degree the decline in social cohesion in the West is due to culturally transformative levels of immigration or the increase in income inequality. I tend to err on the side of "a bit of both".

But I suppose that relying on studies is also, somehow, also ahistorical. Or, I don't know racist? Despite intent to specifically say that we do look at the past through rose tinted glasses.

Regardless, clearly I wasn't referring to the obliteration of Manchester when referring to WWII. But rather the romance of the young boy going off to fight for his family. That was pretty obvious.

 

[nreid2946]

Race is an obvious flaw that shows the "simple times" never existed. But even setting aside race, what time period is @nreid2946 referring to? As you showed, clearly not World War II.

I think when you're an adult, it's important to ask yourself, "simple times for whom?" I grew up in the 1990s and feel that I had the privilege of a "classic American childhood" where I could walk to elementary school without any fear. But while the 90s may have been simple times for me, they weren't for my parents, and they weren't simple times for other people my age who weren't as fortunate as I was.

Well of course there is also the whole idea of 'Yes well the 1920's weren't good for African Americans'. This is absolutely true.

But that's not to say that you can't appreciate certain things from these time periods.

I find French history interesting. But I wouldn't like to have experienced it myself.

 

[beargonefishing]

For the record, regarding barbarism, in this context it refers to cultural homogeneity within a given tribe.

Given that I was, during the quoted paragraph, talking about today, it is not possible for it to be ahistorical.

There is some debate, to what degree the decline in social cohesion in the West is due to culturally transformative levels of immigration or the increase in income inequality. I tend to err on the side of "a bit of both".

But I suppose that relying on studies is also, somehow, also ahistorical. Or, I don't know racist? Despite intent to specifically say that we do look at the past through rose tinted glasses.

Regardless, clearly I wasn't referring to the obliteration of Manchester when referring to WWII. But rather the romance of the young boy going off to fight for his family. That was pretty obvious.

It doesn't seem like we have a disagreement, you agree your analysis is ahoristical.

 

[classicalthunde]

For the record, regarding barbarism, in this context it refers to cultural homogeneity within a given tribe.

This reminds me of the time that my Freshman year history professor dressed me down for trying to cram too many SAT words into my paper to bolster a bad argument.

Regardless, clearly I wasn't referring to the obliteration of Manchester when referring to WWII. But rather the romance of the young boy going off to fight for his family. That was pretty obvious.

Also, I hate to be dismissive, but this reeks of someone with a lack of worldly experience

 

[nreid2946]

This reminds me of the time that my Freshman year history professor dressed me down for trying to cram too many SAT words into my paper to bolster a bad argument.



Also, I hate to be dismissive, but this reeks of someone with a lack of worldly experience

You are entitled to your own opinion.

I don't suppose anything I can say would change your mind.

Thus the only thing I can say is that I respectfully disagree.

 

[Blake Stitched Blues]

@nreid2946 Classicalthunde makes a valid point. It might just be youthful naïveté but there's more than a whiff of the Jordan Peterson brigade about you. A privileged white kid ranting about immigration resulting in the decline of social cohesiveness is - and I'm putting this mildly - not a good look. All of the classical menswear and finery in the world can't plaster over that ugliness.

 

[smittycl]

@nreid2946 Classicalthunde makes a valid point. It might just be youthful naïveté but there's more than a whiff of the Jordan Peterson brigade about you. A privileged white kid ranting about immigration resulting in the decline of social cohesiveness is - and I'm putting this mildly - not a good look. All of the classical menswear and finery in the world can't plaster over that ugliness.

I have to agree. Maybe tone it down and think a bit? Online comms can be difficult.

 

[beargonefishing]

His point is bullshit. Cultural homogeneity doesn't exist and never existed (with the possible exception of **** Sapiens 50,000-100,000 years ago). When did this exist and who does it apply to? Those two simple questions highlight the lunacy of his position.

He can use a crayon to draw as many arbitrary lines of demarcation as he wants, but that doesn't change the fact that the "problem" he identifies is complete bullshit.

 

[dieworkwear]

At the risk of tipping this convo into CE, I think it's true that Western societies have gotten more diverse, even if they weren't as monolithic as they've been characterized in the past. And that multi-cultural immigration lowers social capital. Robert Putnam wrote about this in his book Bowling Alone.

I think it's also true that we have issues of social cohesion and alienation, but then, I think, you have to pit it against all the other things you value. Such as the benefits of a multi-cultural society (if you think there are any). Or values of fairness, equality, and/ or broader liberal values (liberal in the old sense of the word). This is the old liberalism vs. communitarian debate, which has been raging since forever (and most prominently since Rawls vs Sandel, et al).

I personally don't value social cohesion or even safety as much as I value other things. I think a stimulating city is one that's bustling and even, at times, dangerous. And, if someone prefers to live in a more monolithic society, the world is your oyster. Most places, especially the suburbs, are relatively monolithic. I find them terribly soul-sucking and boring, but if you find value in that idea of a 1950s society, there are places where that landscape still exists (I just don't think it brings the kind of benefits people assume. A lot of what people assume to be peace and tranquility is just pent up emotions and glossed over violence).

Anyway, David Foster Wallace wrote a bit about alienation and postmodernism, which touches on this topic. If you value the benefits of a more thoughtful, diverse society, but don't like the alienation, your cure is to go out and actually make friends. You can't depend on labels such as Christian or male for your community, you have to go out and form a real, blood-and-bones community with actual people. Like, by saying "Matt is my friend" and "Jane is my friend." It's hard to make those connections in a more diverse, postmodern world, but certainly possible. For one, it helps to have actual hobbies and interests. See how people come together on this board over clothes. You also have to put in the time and effort of hanging out with people.

Another Putnam find: while immigration and diversity lower social capital (here social cohesion), conscription increases it. If you fight in a war with someone who looks very different from you, believes in a different God, you're more likely to look upon those people as friendly neighbors when you go back to your hometown. Functional, multi-cultural societies exist. New York City, for example, is an amazing place. Oddly, the anti-multi-culturalists are people who don't even live in diverse societies, they just like to complain about it from afar.

 

[dieworkwear]

Also, a line from my soc teacher when I was learning about liberalism vs communitarianism in grad school. Something I heard in a class while, at the time, leaning towards communitarianism and being a liberal skeptic (my views have somewhat evolved since).

Anyway, while talking about this stuff, the professor, after a bit of a lull in the conversion, said: "communitarians are always the type of people you don't want to be in a community with."

She was super middle-of-the-road about everything. But that comment stuck with me and I've found it amusingly accurate as I've gotten older. (No offense to any communitarians reading this!).