Celcio wrote:
Do you have a little midwestern in the woodpile?
Want some?
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Fashionism?
Fashionism?Follow
Do you have any English in you?
Want some?
"I started out with nothin' and I still got most of it left" - Seasick Steve
Smasharoo wrote:
I could wear sun god robes and a pope hat and no one would consider for second not retaining me
Do you ever dream that you're standing in sort of sun god robes and a thousand naked women are screaming and throwing little pickles at you?
Nobby wrote:
Celcio wrote:
Do you have a little midwestern in the woodpile?
Want some?
DF would mute me. And while a ball gag might be removed, that? Probably not so much.
Celcio wrote:
Smasharoo wrote:
I could wear sun god robes and a pope hat and no one would consider for second not retaining me
Do you ever dream that you're standing in sort of sun god robes and a thousand naked women are screaming and throwing little pickles at you?
Oh, like sweet gherkins? I love that dream.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
Quote:
Seriously. Be a cultural rebel on your own time and your own dime.
Still hung up on the idea that this discussion is about me.
Quote:
That's one way to duck out, I suppose.
Well, I can only deal with so many ******** responses that don't actually address my question. It seemed preferable to honoring more replies that follow the trend of <insert tangent: call name>.
Quote:
BTW I find your post incredibly amusing - anyone who's been around here for any length of time knows there are no "masses". People here disagree with each other as much as they agree - on many things!
And there are many discussions where there is a clear majority viewpoint, which often result in getting
Quote:
called no end of juvenile names
Honestly, I don't care how many of you agree or what kinds of clever jabs you come up with if you can't make a valid point, and that's all I was asking for: one person with one valid ethical justification for discriminating based on fashion.
Forget it, I accept your apology.
Quote:
"People react badly when I spit on their shoes by way of greeting. It's not WRONG. It doesn't HURT them. It's just me being myself! Why can't they ACCEPT that?"
I hope I don't have to explain why that's not a valid analogy.
Quote:
Still hung up on the idea that this discussion is about me.
It's the advice I'd give anyone who set forth similar arguments. You're the one saying this stuff here, today; so I say it to you.
Conversations are funky like that.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
Indefinite you then, fair enough.
Kachi wrote:
Honestly, I don't care how many of you agree or what kinds of clever jabs you come up with if you can't make a valid point, and that's all I was asking for: one person with one valid ethical justification for discriminating based on fashion.
Forget it, I accept your apology.
Forget it, I accept your apology.
I'd say I accept yours for a flimsy argument but really? No, not so much. Perhaps OOT?
Crap which law is the "I really don't care but I'm going to keep posting" law?
Kachi wrote:
Quote:
"People react badly when I spit on their shoes by way of greeting. It's not WRONG. It doesn't HURT them. It's just me being myself! Why can't they ACCEPT that?"
I hope I don't have to explain why that's not a valid analogy.
Oh, by all means please do.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
If I wanted to be abusive I would have called you a thick f'ucking c'unt and have been done with it. Did I belittle your intelligence? Perhaps but can you fault a man for calling a spade a spade? Perhaps part of the problem is trying to communicate between a fundamental paradigm difference. What culture means to you, and what culture means to me as an anthro student are completely different.
Yes, I find your comparisons to stereotypes and ingrained racism to cultural expectations of dress in certain situations laughable, that is because it is. The two are so far removed that your ham fisted attempts at trying to draw a comparison is almost embarrassing. It only illustrates your ignorance on the subject.
But if you are so wrong and I am I so right then why can't I sway you, the professed neutral party only seeking the truth. Because you are lying to yourself when you say you are unconvinced, it is one of those little things we say to ourselves in order to feel warm and fuzzy. But the fact that you might hold a position on the subject is not the problem, in fact if you were honest enough with yourself to state what you believed we would have a hope of getting somewhere. No, the problem is that you are entirely incapable of the objectivity that you espouse. It is ok though, I understand that a persons words and actions can be contradictory.
I understand that the biggest gap in the argument is your own ignorance and that you are incapable of a)recognizing and b) curing it. I understand that you will turtle up in a self affirming ball and assuage your ego. It is never easy being confronted with ones own ignorance.
/shrug
Yes, I find your comparisons to stereotypes and ingrained racism to cultural expectations of dress in certain situations laughable, that is because it is. The two are so far removed that your ham fisted attempts at trying to draw a comparison is almost embarrassing. It only illustrates your ignorance on the subject.
But if you are so wrong and I am I so right then why can't I sway you, the professed neutral party only seeking the truth. Because you are lying to yourself when you say you are unconvinced, it is one of those little things we say to ourselves in order to feel warm and fuzzy. But the fact that you might hold a position on the subject is not the problem, in fact if you were honest enough with yourself to state what you believed we would have a hope of getting somewhere. No, the problem is that you are entirely incapable of the objectivity that you espouse. It is ok though, I understand that a persons words and actions can be contradictory.
I understand that the biggest gap in the argument is your own ignorance and that you are incapable of a)recognizing and b) curing it. I understand that you will turtle up in a self affirming ball and assuage your ego. It is never easy being confronted with ones own ignorance.
/shrug
Bode - 100 Holy Paladin - Lightbringer
Samira wrote:
Smasharoo wrote:
It's just a social convention like shaking hands. You might as well be ******** that people don't like it when you **** yourself and cup their balls to say hello.
"People react badly when I spit on their shoes by way of greeting. It's not WRONG. It doesn't HURT them. It's just me being myself! Why can't they ACCEPT that?"
Kachi - you really should have just skulked away here.
Kachi wrote:
Well, I can only deal with so many bullsh*t responses that don't actually address my question.
Quote:
one person with one valid ethical justification for discriminating based on fashion.
Edited, Apr 30th 2007 3:35pm by Jophiel
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Kachi wrote:
Well, I can only deal with so many bullsh*t responses that don't actually address my question.
Everyone (including you) seems to accept that most societies and organizations have expectations about how people should look.
Everyone but you seems to accept that that's just the way it is.
You can choose how to dress and thereby subvert any judgemental attitudes.
Most others pointed out that while the same prejudices apply to race, gender, ethnicity and faith, they (we) cannot change such things.
You failed to acknowledge the difference and made yourself look like a dribbling spastic wearing a tutu applying to join the Green Berets.
We all Pwned you.
Jophiel made you dance like a stoned chimpanzee.
Samira and Celcio said stuff but they're gurls so we didn't listen.
Smash made us all laugh at you even louder.
I think that's about the size of it.
"I started out with nothin' and I still got most of it left" - Seasick Steve
Nobby wrote:
Samira and Celcio said stuff but they're gurls so we didn't listen.
Godammmit last month when you all thought I had a penis I MATTERED! I changed my mind I'm siding with the r-tard! Fight the powa!
Celcio wrote:
Godammmit last month when you all thought I had a penis I MATTERED!
We now know.
"I started out with nothin' and I still got most of it left" - Seasick Steve
Quote:
Crap which law is the "I really don't care but I'm going to keep posting" law?
I feel it only fair to warn you that I don't abide by that law.
Quote:
But the fact that you might hold a position on the subject is not the problem, in fact if you were honest enough with yourself to state what you believed we would have a hope of getting somewhere. No, the problem is that you are entirely incapable of the objectivity that you espouse.
afaik, I'm entitled to have an interim position while still being objective.
Quote:
It has been addressed. Multiple times. You just don't like the answer and figure if you keep saying "nuh uh!" enough times, we'll change it.
And what was it again?
Ethical justification for discrimination based on fashion, please.
Preferably something not along the lines of "that's the way it is," or, "it's just necessary," or, "can't be helped," or, "your to dum." Something with a little substance.
I know how it goes already, now explain to me why it's right.
Quote:
"People react badly when I spit on their shoes by way of greeting. It's not WRONG. It doesn't HURT them. It's just me being myself! Why can't they ACCEPT that?"
Spitting on someone's shoes transfers germs and creates a mess that they have to clean up. It's a violation on their property. Wearing sweatpants instead of a suit isn't in any way intrusive to the people you work with.
You seriously tried to suggest that spitting on someone's shoes was as harmless as their personal clothing choice? Maybe if they wear nothing but assless chaps.
So should I take that as you don't mind if people spit on your shoes as long as it's casual Friday?
I see. So if I only spit AT their shoes, it's completely different.
You are being deliberately obtuse. I imagine you're having fun with it, so go you.
You are being deliberately obtuse. I imagine you're having fun with it, so go you.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
Quote:
Given that it's the norm, it would seem that it's your task to prove that it's unethical. So far your ham-handed attempts to link it to racist have failed. Have another tack?
I suppose that's fine. It's just that it justifies oppression over any arbitrary thing as long as it's a matter of choice. You eat ham? No raise for you. You drive a Mercedes? We'll have to take you in for questioning. That guy's wearing black? Don't buy from him, buy from the guy in green. Hardly in the spirit of diversity, but it will abide as a condition of a social contract/freedom.
I've always thought personally that if you can't prove that something is harmful, it's unethical to restrict it. I suppose that could include not restricting the restriction of a person's dress. Still seems far from ideal, but I guess that's how you justify it.
Really though, that does seem to say that if we banned people from wearing green, it would be on me to prove why that's not ethical. I guess I just wasn't aware that people believed so strongly in the freedom to restrict arbitrary would-be/could-be freedoms.
Quote:
I see. So if I only spit AT their shoes, it's completely different.
Uh, you're still spreading your germs about and making a mess. I guess as long as you take the responsibility to have it cleaned, that's fine. Again, wierd =! wrong.
Are you sure I'M the one being obtuse?
Edit: I'm going home. Don't you worry, I'll be back tomorrow.
Edited, Apr 30th 2007 4:03pm by Kachi
Yes, I'm quite sure. Apology accepted.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
Quote:
Ethical justification for discrimination based on fashion, please.
I'm going to give this a shot, don't eat me.
Quote:
It has nothing to do with being capable of fulfilling the role, but rather being accepted in that role.
This is part of the answer, but it's incomplete. That's because in most jobs, being accepted in your role directly affects your ability to fulfill that role. Customers in a store expect a clerk to wear a uniform, and high-powered business execs expect the people they make deals with to wear suits. To dress otherwise lowers their opinion of the organization, and hurts business. That's all the ethical justification an employer needs to set a dress code.
And as for those customers/executives going around judging people by their clothes? Well of course it isn't "right." But neither is judging people by their face, their smell, the way they talk, or a hundred other things we instinctually do. Everyone should be scrambling over each other to dance with the ugly girl with the heart of gold, but they don't. There are some things about humanity and culture that you just have to accept.
Kachi wrote:
It's just that it justifies oppression over any arbitrary thing as long as it's a matter of choice.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
I stayed out of this topic since it seemed so stupidly straight-forward, but...
Let me hold your hand through this mine-field of a problem.
Because we are social animals. Which means our actions, decisions, thought-processes are based on internal as well as external considerations. Meaning that when we make a decision, we try to think of the way it will affect others. Both directly, and indirectly, or in psychological terms, consciously and subconsciously.
When you are in a professional situation, you will judge, assess, observe, people around you, adn they will do the same for you. If you decide to come to work wearing a Batman costume, people will question your decision-making process, and will probably come to the conlcusion that if you are too stupid to realise the consequences of wearing a superhero costume at work, then you might not be the right person for the job.
Yes.
Because it's a choice, and we, as individuals, are - wait for it - defined by the choices we make. You are what you do. It's existentialist, for sure, but that's what most people consciously, and subconsciously believe. Free will, and all that.
If you could choose your gender, were asked to be in a commercial for women's deodorant, and turned up as a guy, then people would think you're a freaking idiot, and rightly so.
It's the same for clothes.
It's not "giving in", it's "showing that you are aware of the world around you", an ability which is useful in most professions. If you are unable, or unwilling to realise how the world works *in a professional environment*, then you're likely unable, or unwilling, to succeed professionally.
How you dress is just another "test".
In a professional context, they are completely and radically different.
And yes, it is all because of *choice*.
Now, things are different in your free time. If you want to dress like a Smurf when you do your weekly food shopping, go right ahead. I agree that in your spare time, you should dress however the fUck you like.
In a professional environment, where someone pays you to perform, the way you dress is another indicator of your decision-making process.
Hence, *choice* is not only relevant, but completely crucial.
Quote:
It's generally accepted that it's wrong to oppress someone based on race, gender, etc... wherein clothing is concerned, why a difference?
Let me hold your hand through this mine-field of a problem.
Because we are social animals. Which means our actions, decisions, thought-processes are based on internal as well as external considerations. Meaning that when we make a decision, we try to think of the way it will affect others. Both directly, and indirectly, or in psychological terms, consciously and subconsciously.
When you are in a professional situation, you will judge, assess, observe, people around you, adn they will do the same for you. If you decide to come to work wearing a Batman costume, people will question your decision-making process, and will probably come to the conlcusion that if you are too stupid to realise the consequences of wearing a superhero costume at work, then you might not be the right person for the job.
Quote:
Simply because it's a choice? I don't see how that's the issue. If race or gender were a choice, would it then be acceptable to oppress based on what choice people made?
Yes.
Because it's a choice, and we, as individuals, are - wait for it - defined by the choices we make. You are what you do. It's existentialist, for sure, but that's what most people consciously, and subconsciously believe. Free will, and all that.
If you could choose your gender, were asked to be in a commercial for women's deodorant, and turned up as a guy, then people would think you're a freaking idiot, and rightly so.
It's the same for clothes.
Quote:
As for dressing to impress, isn't that simply "giving in" to the oppressor? It's kind of the same as if black people could become white, and they didbecause that's what their employers wanted. Would that be ok? It seems just as unreasonable to me, just less of a heated issue because people find it easier to change their outfit that stand up to senseless "oppression".
It's not "giving in", it's "showing that you are aware of the world around you", an ability which is useful in most professions. If you are unable, or unwilling to realise how the world works *in a professional environment*, then you're likely unable, or unwilling, to succeed professionally.
How you dress is just another "test".
Quote:
It's not as if I'm in any way suggesting that the two are comparable societal problems in terms of scale. I'm only suggesting that they're comparable by the nature of the problem, obvious exception being that one is a choice, but as I've pointed out, I don't see how that's really relevant.
In a professional context, they are completely and radically different.
And yes, it is all because of *choice*.
Now, things are different in your free time. If you want to dress like a Smurf when you do your weekly food shopping, go right ahead. I agree that in your spare time, you should dress however the fUck you like.
In a professional environment, where someone pays you to perform, the way you dress is another indicator of your decision-making process.
Hence, *choice* is not only relevant, but completely crucial.
Quote:
It's just that it justifies oppression over any arbitrary thing as long as it's a matter of choice.
It's not "oppression". Please. Use the right words. Any idea what oppression really is?
Quote:
You eat ham? No raise for you.
If you work for a charity that campaigns against eating animals, I think that would be fair.
Quote:
You drive a Mercedes? We'll have to take you in for questioning.
If you're a BMW salesman, and drive a Merc to work, while parking it in front of the show-room, then yes. It's a stupid professional mistake.
Quote:
Hardly in the spirit of diversity, but it will abide as a condition of a social contract/freedom
It's because people are not talking about "diversity in society", but about professional engagements.
It's really not that complicated. Dress like a smurf in your own time, and dress like someone who has an ounce of social intelligence at work.
It's not oppression, it's not racism.
It's just another test. I don't know how old you are, but you better get used to them...
Recent Visitors: 262
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (262)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Fashionism?
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC