[rndmze]

ok, let's rewind.

First, gp comment just give a basic example (chinos or tshirts, or lots of other clothes would have been admissible too) showing that your assertion is pretty weak.

But let's not focus on that one.

Let's see what the thesis is :

- there are new trends (dictated by celebrities and designers)

- these trends only sow insecurities and environmental destruction.

Let's disregard the first one, even though as shown above it could be debated.

but focus on the second part. You assert that fashion work only sow insecurities and environmental destruction but provide nothing to prove that point. You can repeat as many as you want that an art form brings nothing, you will be no closer to have an actual argument.

I am really not a fan of fast fashion and its environmental practices but if anything it is more of a parasitism of the work of fashion designers. By a large margin, the bulk of what fast fashion companies produces does not come from well known designers and for good reason : there is a lot of work on materials, techniques and fitting that get into such pieces. This is just not doable at any scale.

If anything, a better argument would be that late stage capitalism or lack environmental taxation allow companies to produce lots of goods without any regard for the environment.

"these trends only sow insecurities" is a very sad statement. Clothing choices is way of self expression for many people. The world would not be a better place if we all worn black pants and grey tshirts, only a less interesting one.

[mthoms]

Basics such as chinos and t-shirts do not show that "my assertion is pretty weak" at all, because they aren't "fast fashion". They are staples that remain in style for a long, long time. I'd argue that they serve to support my argument rather than contradict it. I didn't say all clothing is "fast fashion".

As for the second part. My quote was actually 'New "trends" dictated by celebrities and designers every year do nothing but sow personal insecurities and environmental destruction.'

Obviously the phrase "do nothing but" is an absolutism that I should not have used, since it makes it easy for someone to provide a single counter-example to disprove it. I don't deny that self-expression and "art" are positive things. The question is whether those positive effects are worthwhile considering the negative ones. My opinion is that it's not even close. Not by a long shot.

>late stage capitalism or lack environmental taxation allow companies to produce lots of goods without any regard for the environment.

Agreed. But, I think the fashion industry itself is largely morally bankrupt. It preys on peoples insecurities, and environmental externalities more so than (almost) any other.

[on_and_off]

> My opinion is that it's not even close. Not by a long shot.

at last we agree. That's your opinion and nothing else. you also seem to confuse/conflate fashion with fast fashion. It seems just as fair and interestined as conflating movie making with the worst money grabbing by the numbers movie ever made.

[rndmze]

well if you remove the "do nothing but", the argument does only get weaker since it becomes "for some people fashion fuels insecurities, so it should be destroyed".

Marvel movies always have that one shot of the protagonist impossible pecs and abs. It fuels insecurities for sure for some men. It is not a reason to stop making movies.