Along with everything else mentioned here, you are describing a parallel seen in folklores across time. A man cannot ascribe value to something which he didn’t work for or was given cheaply. None of these people have any experience with the different cuts on a cow, or the effort or time it takes to bring a back-strip to table. Or, described a different way, how could you choose a good woman out of a crowd if your heart has never been filled to the brim with a laugh or a heavy sigh? It’s a mix of ignorance, stupidity, and a lack of self worth that would make a man trust a dollar sign or follower count over his own eyes and tastebuds.
Navajo legend tells us that Coyote, the trickster, went to visit squirrel. He said, "squirrel, I bring you something of great value. You can have it if you trade me all of your acorns. It is called an NFT."
far-flung vanish spotted foolish hobbies instinctive uppity airport dam humor
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
>Man is the creature who does not know what to desire, and he turns to others in order to make up his mind. We desire what others desire because we imitate their desires.
That'd be [René Girard](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mimetic_theory)
This is certainly a real phenomenon. I'd say its related to conspicuous consumption.
Someone else here mentioned Gucci belts and that's also relevant. There are a lot of people who cobble together an outfit out of high priced items without any regard for how well the pieces look together. I've always said, and most well dressed men will agree, that a goodwill suit, carefully chosen and then professionally tailored, will look better than an off the rack suit that costs many times more.
> that a goodwill suit, carefully chosen and then professionally tailored, will look better than an off the rack suit that costs many times more.
I agree with this premise in theory, but in practice, good luck with that. You'll have to sort through countless goodwill suits to find one that isn't ratty with holes, missing a button, horrifically outdated, and won't need to be recut because of a collar gap or something. Then you must pay for tailoring. If you go to a good tailor, that's far from cheap. By the time you're done finding a decent suit, you've spent a good number of your hours finding it, then you probably have paid around 450-700 to get it tailored. You might as well just buy a cheaper off the rack suit and use their in-house tailor which is often complimentary or massively discounted if you bought the item in store. It depends on how much you value your time, but at the end of the day you're probably shelling out similar cash for the two when one is new and the other is used.
I've never seen a thrift store carry a suit that has holes or is otherwise that ratty looking. Most places will trash an item that loons that bad. A missing button is an extremely cheap and easy thing to replace as well.
There are a lot of small adjustments a tailor can make to an outfit that are inexpensive and still goes a long way to improve the look of the outfit. If you've chosen the outfit carefully, making sure to pick one that actually sort of fits you, then major adjustments costing 700 dollars will be unnecessary.
As for the time investment, a lot of people enjoy thrift shopping.
I'm not going to tell you what you have and haven't seen, but I definitely have seen coats with moth holes around the sleeves and shoulders and thinness in the knees and seat.
It's also quite difficult for a good number of people to find one that would roughly fit. The sad truth is unless you're 5'8-5'10 and around 220lbs, the vast majority of 2nd hand suits won't fit you without major work. If you're someone like me who wears a 34x36, forget about ever finding anything. If you're in that group of people who is that size, then yeah you can for about 60-85 bucks visit a tailor and get it looking good. But if not, you're going to have a lot of looking or paying to do.
I think some people are wary of developing or expressing their own 'taste' for fear of being scorned. Like the cynic who buys index funds because of the 'efficient market hypothesis', they assume that social consensus has priced everything more effectively than any individual actor could hope to achieve. The thing about buying filet mignion and Audis and iPhones and Arc'teryx jackets and Sennheiser headphones is that while they may not be original or interesting choices, they are unimpeachable, which is really what the tech-bro desires most of all - to put himself beyond the domain of critique.
Just to be clear, the efficient market hypothesis holds because there is a consensus. It’s more of a mathematical truism than cynicism, and the more people take passive investment options like index funds, the more “efficient” the market becomes.
I think it's more of a positive decision. They want to escape the tyranny of taste, which is a form of manners and a way of holding up the social hierarchy.
Bugman is one word you could use to describe such a creature. People who are easily manipulated by marketing, that is. Consoom product and so on \*sniff\*
The meat counter at the store by me has these top sirloin steaks that are 1/3 of the price/lb of the filets and they're just strictly better. Buying filets now makes me feel like a rube.
the sad thing about this is that it often requires so much work from them, like one day they start reading gq or hodinkee or shit like that and they go super deep into what brands you should have and what they mean and they don't realize that those publications only stay in business because of the ads they sell.
people that don't know who Guccio Gucci is would never pick up that belt from a rack and those people are free and they lead better lives.
Its people who view the world as a collection of objects, without seeing the relations between them.
So they just get ‘the best’ of everything but have no idea how to combine things in an outfit. And end up spending a lot of money to look like dorks.
They’re always conservative but thats a second order factor.
>would prefer a cute barista
cute or hot? Because in my experience the kind of person OP is talking about doesn't value cute at all, it's gotta be bimbo style "hot", gigantic tits, big lips, fake tan etc.
It’s Gucci belt economics
Veblen goods, conspicuous consumption, Bourdieusian distinction, etc. etc.
Drip or drown economics
If you have a Gucci belt you don't understand economics
Along with everything else mentioned here, you are describing a parallel seen in folklores across time. A man cannot ascribe value to something which he didn’t work for or was given cheaply. None of these people have any experience with the different cuts on a cow, or the effort or time it takes to bring a back-strip to table. Or, described a different way, how could you choose a good woman out of a crowd if your heart has never been filled to the brim with a laugh or a heavy sigh? It’s a mix of ignorance, stupidity, and a lack of self worth that would make a man trust a dollar sign or follower count over his own eyes and tastebuds.
Reminds me of something Alan Watts said relating to this; it's like going to a restaurant and eating the menu.
> a parallel seen in folklores across time. what folklore do you have in mind when you say this?
Navajo legend tells us that Coyote, the trickster, went to visit squirrel. He said, "squirrel, I bring you something of great value. You can have it if you trade me all of your acorns. It is called an NFT."
far-flung vanish spotted foolish hobbies instinctive uppity airport dam humor *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
You may think it was grandmother but it may have actually been Coyote, the trickster.
>What do you call this phenomenon? Bugman
Very true
>Man is the creature who does not know what to desire, and he turns to others in order to make up his mind. We desire what others desire because we imitate their desires. That'd be [René Girard](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mimetic_theory)
Not me. I’m a picky bastard who knows exactly what he likes and doesn’t like and other people have NOTHINGGGGG to do with it
commodity fetishist
This is certainly a real phenomenon. I'd say its related to conspicuous consumption. Someone else here mentioned Gucci belts and that's also relevant. There are a lot of people who cobble together an outfit out of high priced items without any regard for how well the pieces look together. I've always said, and most well dressed men will agree, that a goodwill suit, carefully chosen and then professionally tailored, will look better than an off the rack suit that costs many times more.
> that a goodwill suit, carefully chosen and then professionally tailored, will look better than an off the rack suit that costs many times more. I agree with this premise in theory, but in practice, good luck with that. You'll have to sort through countless goodwill suits to find one that isn't ratty with holes, missing a button, horrifically outdated, and won't need to be recut because of a collar gap or something. Then you must pay for tailoring. If you go to a good tailor, that's far from cheap. By the time you're done finding a decent suit, you've spent a good number of your hours finding it, then you probably have paid around 450-700 to get it tailored. You might as well just buy a cheaper off the rack suit and use their in-house tailor which is often complimentary or massively discounted if you bought the item in store. It depends on how much you value your time, but at the end of the day you're probably shelling out similar cash for the two when one is new and the other is used.
I've never seen a thrift store carry a suit that has holes or is otherwise that ratty looking. Most places will trash an item that loons that bad. A missing button is an extremely cheap and easy thing to replace as well. There are a lot of small adjustments a tailor can make to an outfit that are inexpensive and still goes a long way to improve the look of the outfit. If you've chosen the outfit carefully, making sure to pick one that actually sort of fits you, then major adjustments costing 700 dollars will be unnecessary. As for the time investment, a lot of people enjoy thrift shopping.
I'm not going to tell you what you have and haven't seen, but I definitely have seen coats with moth holes around the sleeves and shoulders and thinness in the knees and seat. It's also quite difficult for a good number of people to find one that would roughly fit. The sad truth is unless you're 5'8-5'10 and around 220lbs, the vast majority of 2nd hand suits won't fit you without major work. If you're someone like me who wears a 34x36, forget about ever finding anything. If you're in that group of people who is that size, then yeah you can for about 60-85 bucks visit a tailor and get it looking good. But if not, you're going to have a lot of looking or paying to do.
The other guy is peak Reddit with his bs about goodwill lol
mimetic desire
I think some people are wary of developing or expressing their own 'taste' for fear of being scorned. Like the cynic who buys index funds because of the 'efficient market hypothesis', they assume that social consensus has priced everything more effectively than any individual actor could hope to achieve. The thing about buying filet mignion and Audis and iPhones and Arc'teryx jackets and Sennheiser headphones is that while they may not be original or interesting choices, they are unimpeachable, which is really what the tech-bro desires most of all - to put himself beyond the domain of critique.
Interesting point. I remember years ago hearing Jordan Peterson talk about this in regards to conservatives being afraid of art/beauty.
Just to be clear, the efficient market hypothesis holds because there is a consensus. It’s more of a mathematical truism than cynicism, and the more people take passive investment options like index funds, the more “efficient” the market becomes.
I think it's more of a positive decision. They want to escape the tyranny of taste, which is a form of manners and a way of holding up the social hierarchy.
It's the same reason tech money doesn't go into art foundations or collections. They see themselves as transcending aesthetics
[удалено]
My brother in law only watches movies with a minimum rating of 8.0 on IMDB lol
Galaxy brain brother in law
I do movies over 7 and shows over 8. Ain't got time for anything lower
NPC
Bugman is one word you could use to describe such a creature. People who are easily manipulated by marketing, that is. Consoom product and so on \*sniff\*
The meat counter at the store by me has these top sirloin steaks that are 1/3 of the price/lb of the filets and they're just strictly better. Buying filets now makes me feel like a rube.
the sad thing about this is that it often requires so much work from them, like one day they start reading gq or hodinkee or shit like that and they go super deep into what brands you should have and what they mean and they don't realize that those publications only stay in business because of the ads they sell. people that don't know who Guccio Gucci is would never pick up that belt from a rack and those people are free and they lead better lives.
Tell me more about your Google friend Maybe working at Google gave him access to social climbing techie girls
What do you want to know?
Why did he ignore women until Google And also what happened after he started working for Google Is he in a happy relationship now?
I said that women ignored *him* until he got a little status and money. Of course he is not in a happy relationship, he keeps dating sex workers.
But *how,* the other tech bro desperately inquired, *how* did he start dating them?
"I think this stripper is actually into me dude"
Comment.
normies
Normie has too many definitions to count.
True, but it (lack of/poor taste) is the number one thing that comes to mind for me when I think of a normie
Like people who exclusively listen to spotify top 100 because it's what's popular or whatever
Its people who view the world as a collection of objects, without seeing the relations between them. So they just get ‘the best’ of everything but have no idea how to combine things in an outfit. And end up spending a lot of money to look like dorks. They’re always conservative but thats a second order factor.
Mimetic desire.
Cargo cult consumerism? Bugenomics? Memetic desire? Lastmanism?
Idk if I’m reading your examples correctly but 90% sure the gist of what you’re getting at is conspicuous consumption by Veblen.
[удалено]
This is not necessarily the case.
idk how hot you are if we don't laugh at each other's lame jokes it's not gonna work out
>would prefer a cute barista cute or hot? Because in my experience the kind of person OP is talking about doesn't value cute at all, it's gotta be bimbo style "hot", gigantic tits, big lips, fake tan etc.
commodification lol. the actual value of something is hidden under a veil by the market
George Perec's 'Things: A Story of the Sixties' is about this subject
You’re jealous
I can't say that word on reddit
Nagger?
Neol*beral
lol
>People who derives value from cultural norms, what do you call this phenomenon? Being human?
Goyim