145
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 15 Jan 2024
145 points (90.1% liked)
Green - An environmentalist community
5234 readers
7 users here now
This is the place to discuss environmentalism, preservation, direct action and anything related to it!
RULES:
1- Remember the human
2- Link posts should come from a reputable source
3- All opinions are allowed but discussion must be in good faith
Related communities:
- /c/collapse
- /c/antreefa
- /c/gardening
- /c/eco_socialism@lemmygrad.ml
- /c/biology
- /c/criseciv
- /c/eco
- /c/environment@beehaw.org
- SLRPNK
Unofficial Chat rooms:
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
That's not necessarily true though when it comes to single material fabrics these days believe it or not! You can buy 100% cotton at a lower price point than lots of synthetics. Pick a store really. For example Old Navy is pretty cheap - they sell 100% cotton shirts, denim, shorts, etc. they also sell synthetic blends, and the pricing is more a function of style than anything. Jump to a higher tier like JCrew - same is true. Nordstrom. Bloomingdale's. Designer boutique. Hell look at jeans. You can get full denim 501s and wrangler on the same shelf as synthetic, same brand and price point. You can get incredibly well made Flanels that are cotton/tencel blends from brands like Patagonia, kuhl, or Fjallraven, or you can get a 60/40 poly/cotton blend from faherty for more money. And in all these cases, what holds true is they'll last you longer, no matter what price point you picked.
It also swings the other way where you can buy much more expensive 100% cotton items at a huge markup over synthetics. Look at reigning champ as a good example - same cotton everyone else uses, huge markup for reasons that their customer base feels are fair enough to keep paying for their stuff. You can also buy synthetics at a huge mark up way over those already marked up cottons. Many designer brands want you to wrap yourself in a 35% polyester, 30% spandex sweatshirt for $400.
One caveat is that in general, finding single material fabrics is all around more difficult for women than men, mainly as a function of style trends. But even that's swinging the other way currently.
I don’t believe it. In part because it was not my experience when I was financially destitute and also because it’s not what I see now.
There may be some options at places like Old Navy that are inexpensive but fast fashion is just trading one devil for another.
Personally I think everyone should thrift as much as they can and avoid buying new when/where possible.
You not believing it doesn't make it untrue. Where do you shop? What do you buy? Find me a reputable store that doesn't carry non-blend fabrics, and I'll find you one around the same price point that does. Nobody suggested you had to go to Old Navy, in fact I used it to demonstrate that even cheap places (Old Navy is all about cheap) have non synthetic options. They're a baseline that holds true as you advance to just about every price point.
It does not, we’re both sharing anecdotal information.
I don’t buy a lot of clothes now, most of my clothing is several years old at least. I buy what feels comfortable, that I like the look/design of and that seems to be well made.
I never said d stores don’t carry non-blend fabric clothing, simply that disadvantaged portions of the population often don’t have the luxury of choice others do and that they are stuck in a system designed to keep it that way.
You did not, and I never said you did. I pointed out that the cheap example you used was fast fashion, which many cheap stores are. Which was an ironic choice on your part because fast fashion could be a poster child for the boots theory.
Yeah, I saw your other examples of places like Patagonia which, again, is ironic because that could be the other side of the boots theory representing what “rich” people would buy.
It’s like you didn’t even read what I posted originally. I think you should check your privilege.
We are not, yours in anecdotal, mine can be verified and duplicated.
And I pointed out that every price point has these options, and offered to demonstrate it. Again not anecdotal. Unless you cannot buy clothes at all, this is not an honest assessment. You "don't believe it", but it is true. If you cannot afford to buy clothing at all, this entire thread doesn't apply to you.
That is not what irony means. Saying that a brand where the average price of a new item is $20, and a brand where the average price is over $100 both have single fabric options is not ironic. It's data validation.
You're complaining to complain and/or arguing to argue.
No, I was engaging you comment to point out your singular perspective and privilege and now you’re upset about it.
I’m done now though. You’re either a corporate shill who’s literally doing what the original commenter stated or someone who just has this need to feel superior. Either way I’ve spent enough of my time on you.
Oh so you came in to argue an incorrect point on fabrics being attainable at any price point, specifically to privilege shame? And your definition of privileged is anyone that can buy clothes, regardless of frugality, and asserting that buying lo get lasting clothes is a good thing (which I did) just re-emphasizes how overtly privileged I am?
Cool, so you're just an asshole. Got it.
Like the joke about the airplane their point was clearly over your head. ✈️🤣
There are no points on a circle my friend.
Wow, you like being wrong huh? A circle is defined in mathematics as a type of line which is composed of infinite number of points that are equidistant from a given point.
Omg not semantics, anything but semantics
Pedantics, actually. Much like this comment. Semantics would be applicable if you weren’t trying to be superior by dropping a single ambiguous sentence.
Since you left the meaning of your comment ambiguous I interpreted it as your lack of understanding what the mathematical definition of a circle is.
Based on the comment thread it seems like you need all the help you can get. I hope you find it!
You applied a mathematical definition to a common lingual term, which was used in the exact same fashion in the response as your original use. That's using semantics, as you're arguing about the lingual definition as it applies to a phrase.
The pedantic part is you using a semantic argument just to be a cunty little shit head on the internet.
Profanity is the effort of a feeble brain to express itself forcibly.