[michaelchisari]

The first point is solid. The loss of craftsmanship means that the labor cost of those who remain has skyrocketed. That's an irony of devaluing labor is that those who hold on to their craft end up in very high demand.

That said, you overestimate how much "colonizer" discourse informs the average suburban home or modern office environment. That discourse isn't even particularly dominant amongst the left (often clowned as "third-worldist", reductionist or class denialism).

The average leftists apartment or home has more in common with your great-grandfather's house than stark, modern minimalism.

[ericmay]

The "colonizer" rhetoric is just part of it, but it's more so as a piece of the puzzle that shows of an overall change in how we perceive ourselves and how we report on things in the public sphere.

It's unquestionable that ostentatious displays of wealth are met with revulsion and derision, therefore we don't show those displays. The downstream impact is that the masses have nothing to aspire to or look up to in this specific context of craftsmanship. Again, when was the last time "you" wore a suit? Was it tailored? Do you only wear it at weddings? Do you buy your clothing from Costco/Kirkland? Do you find yourself in the fast food line at Chik-fil-a or driving across town to Buc-ee's in your Jeep? These kinds of consumerist behaviors are good and accepted. If you tell someone you only eat at tasting menus or high end restaurants or something instead of those being celebrated as good you'll be met with incredulity or even be made fun of "you're so fancy" "ugh if only I could afford that", and then it devolves into mass-market "experiences" and so forth. (As you read the rest of this post remember that I'm critiquing capitalism here as well).

Because Wimbledon is ongoing and the ladies championship was today, how many complain about the players being required to wear all-white? How many have complained once the champion's dance was re-established? Do you think it's silly or stupid? You're part of the problem! It's considered classism - but without it, you get sterilization. Reduction to the lowest common denominator.

In general, leftist ideologies, so think communism and other sympathies, result in minimalist architecture and decor and art, because grand displays of wealth or even the concept of "rank" with respect to members of society evoke royalty, "white European male", and "let them eat cake". To flaunt your wealth or aspire to be part of a country club or to invent new social organizations and elite activities is to be on the receiving end of the social hammer. You can't have nice stuff because that goes against the doctrine. I'm painting in broad strokes here, but I think this is accurate. It's no accident that all of the best buildings were built under royalist regimes, monarchies, and more.

And because of the disgust and vitriol and crabs pulling other crabs down as they try to escape the bucket, now we are just left with wealthy losers who have forgotten their noblesse oblige.

> That discourse isn't even particularly dominant amongst the left (often clowned as "third-worldist", reductionist or class denialism).

I think this is just flatly false. You've probably just seen it so much and it has become so common to you that you've become less sensitive to it. Leftists in particular are very in-tune with class warfare. I saw a bumper sticker the other day that said, and I'm paraphrasing, culture wars are a distraction from the real war, class war. I see stuff like this all the time: https://www.amazon.com/American-Magnet-War-Class-Text/dp/B09... .

[watwut]

The masses wear colorful t-shirts with selections of cool pictures and variety of decorated cloth.

If anything, suit is boring minimalist choice, every man looks exactly like the man next to him.

The leftist ideology in women leads to colorful hair styles, even more variety of clothing cause they integrate in unusual styles.

[ericmay]

> If anything, suit is boring minimalist choice, every man looks exactly like the man next to him.

It's less about the suit itself - I don't mean to imply everyone should wear the same thing. It's about the perception around it and the moaning one does when it comes to trying to present yourself in society. There's a "I don't need to impress anyone" attitude, which I'm certainly sympathetic to, but I think it is heading in the wrong direction.

It's like when you talk to a pickleball player and you ask them if they play tennis. The typical answer is "no" "that's so hard" "too much running" - it's the undercurrent of not trying and not having high standards that I take issue with. (Nothing against pickleball, truly)

[watwut]

People wear stuff to impress others without wearing suits. Suits are not even impressive looking as everyone looks the same. People feel uncomfortable and out of place in them for a host of reasons, but "I don't want to be impressive" is a rare one.

I really do not associate suits with anything you wrote here - they dont make you impressive, they dont show personalization or care about how you look like, they are just a thing you put on in rare social situation and then you feel hot. An average metal guy with a big hairstyle is putting a lot more effort into looking impressive then someone who just wears the suit.

> It's like when you talk to a pickleball player and you ask them if they play tennis. The typical answer is "no" "that's so hard" "too much running" - it's the undercurrent of not trying and not having high standards that I take issue with. (Nothing against pickleball, truly)

Is that an actual thing pickleball players and fans say or something you projected on them, because they don't play the proper tennis? Why the need to turn casual sport and exercise into a test of will and standards?

I just dont get this example either. Why is it wrong to pick a sport you can play with friends right away, have fun and then stick to it?

[ericmay]

> Suits are not even impressive looking as everyone looks the same.

You're focusing too much on the suit itself and that's causing you to miss the point.

The suit is just traditional western social attire born from military uniforms. If our traditional attire was the metal guy with big hairstyle, I'd just use that here instead. The point is trying (which of course as a death metal lover I would think the metal guy with the big hairstyle is cool) and that's what so many seem to have given up on. Wearing PJs to Wal-Mart is the decline, not the cool metal haircut.

> Is that an actual thing pickleball players and fans say or something you projected on them, because they don't play the proper tennis? Why the need to turn casual sport and exercise into a test of will and standards?

Yes, it is actual things I hear from pickleball players and my friends who play. Again though you missed the point. I think it's great that folks have fun playing pickleball or any other sport. It's not any worse or better than tennis or any other sport. The problem is the mentality from folks I've talked to. "Tennis is too hard" "Too much running". It's self-limiting, and it's an aversion to doing hard things.

That's a civilizational and social challenge we must root out.

[mghackerlady]

The "leftist ideology" in women leads to colorful hair because not only is it cool looking, but it keeps away the kind of men who are repulsed by things like womens rights

[ericmay]

That doesn't make a lot of sense to me. In communist and other leftist authoritarian ideologies and there are of course different degrees and expressions of this, but you typically have to engage in mass conformity, whereas democracies with free markets and free expression of ideas and allow for folks to style themselves outside of the norm.

It's one of those things that unfortunately popular culture has become confused about. Free markets, property rights, and free expression (as examples), which are not leftist, are the cultural mechanism which allows and encourages individuality. In societies where those things are not valued, free expression for example in communist societies, women are more oppressed and that's arguably by definition. Even at the economic level, capitalist economies and free market economies permit worker-owned collectives, whereas communism destroys and disallows private ownership of the means of production (and typically property rights in general). Free markets are more permissive and more, well, free. Leftist economic systems aren't because they are unnatural and require forced cooperation.