Nanohedron wrote:Do I wear the jacket expressly to assert my individuality? No. I like the look because it sits well with my age, but in truth I actually need pockets for all my stuff, and the jacket serves the purpose perfectly. And there you have it. Of course I know it sets me apart, but I live with that because I have my beloved pockets.
I wear cargo pants and shorts for that reason. I was told by my orthopedist not to wear my wallet in my back pocket, so I had to get cargo pockets. I hear cargo pants are bad fashion. Meh.
I used to wear sports jackets, but that was when I was in the frozen north. They felt better against my skin than sweaters. So it was a t-shirt and sport jacket or flannel shirt.
Charlie Whorfin Woods
"Our work puts heavy metal where it belongs -- as a music genre and not a pollutant in drinking water." -- Prof Ali Miserez.
s1m0n wrote:It's hard to get more golden age than the Garden of Eden.
Big Bang, dude.
chas wrote:I wear cargo pants and shorts for that [pockets] reason. ... I hear cargo pants are bad fashion. Meh.
Only to the self-appointed fashion mavens on the likes of MSN (yeah, that inspires confidence, all right) who mistake their personal country-club tastes as worthy of being gospel for all. I'm afraid an invitation for me to lunch with them is SO not happening. Sigh.
You'd almost think cargo pants/shorts were practically the Minnesota State Uniform or something. It depends on the weather for me. If it's above 73F, then it's cargo pants and T shirt. Lower than that, and it's the jacket and jeans. I'll tell you what's bad fashion: a sport jacket AND cargo pants. Even I know that.
"If you take music out of this world, you will have nothing but a ball of fire." - Balochi musician
Fashions change but human nature doesn't. There are exactly as many rebels as there ever were; that's hard-wired. What differs is the style; that is to say, surface. The substance is a constant. You might not recognize the present day's rebels, but they're just as present as they ever were.
The today's rebels do it online. They have less need of overt fashion-cues to identify each other than the teddy boys, beatniks, hippies & punx all did. Tho I suppose that folks 30 years younger than we middle-aged fogies can identify features of dress signifying tribal allegiance that are way too subtle for the likes of us to pick up.
And now there was no doubt that the trees were really moving - moving in and out through one another as if in a complicated country dance. ('And I suppose,' thought Lucy, 'when trees dance, it must be a very, very country dance indeed.')
My take is that most "rebellion" is youth trying to separate themselves from their parents. They are non-conforming to their parents dress/music/drugs-of-choice/language but conforming to their own. There's a real human need to belong to a community but there's also a human need for each generation to assert its independence from the generation before. This asserting of independence is simply part of growing up and becoming one's own person. All of which is ultimately conforming to human nature.
Cargo pants. Love 'em! My closet is full of them, both long and short. I wear them all year in all temperatures. Every decade, I'm hip for a few years then I'm totally and epically square for a few more. As Huey Lewis and the News pointed out, I've discovered that "it's hip to be square."
There's an indelible sense of style that results when an individual is true to his own nature and passions. If his nature and passions lead to evil, we brand him an outlaw but we still admire his style. If his nature and passions tend to the odd but harmless, we label him a loveable eccentric. If his nature and passions pulse with the times and do great things, we hail him a hero.
The Walrus
What would a wild walrus whistle if a walrus could whistle wild?
The second mouse may get the cheese but the presentation leaves a lot to be desired.
walrii wrote:My take is that most "rebellion" is youth trying to separate themselves from their parents.
Because, clearly, we live in a perfect society and nothing of substance needs to change, now or ever.
And now there was no doubt that the trees were really moving - moving in and out through one another as if in a complicated country dance. ('And I suppose,' thought Lucy, 'when trees dance, it must be a very, very country dance indeed.')
Sometimes, rebellion is about injustice, not adolescence.
And now there was no doubt that the trees were really moving - moving in and out through one another as if in a complicated country dance. ('And I suppose,' thought Lucy, 'when trees dance, it must be a very, very country dance indeed.')
s1m0n wrote:Sometimes, rebellion is about injustice, not adolescence.
I agree. Sometimes rebellion is about injustice. But only sometimes or maybe occasionally or even every now and then. One can argue that what progress we've made in quality of life owes as much to technology as to to rebellion against injustice. We in the first world are better off than our ancestors but is anyone else?
The Walrus
What would a wild walrus whistle if a walrus could whistle wild?
The second mouse may get the cheese but the presentation leaves a lot to be desired.
Adolescents are biologically programmed to notice and object to the flaws in their parents' society. It's the principal engine of progress in human society, and without it, we'd all be living in caves. And yes, the flaws can be anything - impiety, injustice, a lack of technology, you name it. But just because it's programmed to happen at this age isn't a good reason to dismiss it. Neither is it a reason to validate it. As I observed, the young men marching with the tiki torches in Charlottesville thought they were rebelling against an injustice. Causes have to be judged good or bad based on their merits, not on the age of their proponents.
And now there was no doubt that the trees were really moving - moving in and out through one another as if in a complicated country dance. ('And I suppose,' thought Lucy, 'when trees dance, it must be a very, very country dance indeed.')
s1m0n wrote:Sometimes, rebellion is about injustice, not adolescence.
Ah. I had the impression that, without knowing his mind, you suggested that walrii was dismissing this fact out of hand, which I personally suspect would not have been the case. There is no reason that the two motivations cannot operate in tandem, which to my mind is no invalidation whatsoever of the fight for justice.
"If you take music out of this world, you will have nothing but a ball of fire." - Balochi musician
s1m0n wrote:Adolescents are biologically programmed to notice and object to the flaws in their parents' society. It's the principal engine of progress in human society, and without it, we'd all be living in caves.
I think that view neglects the benefits of genetic diversity. Some adolescents are 'programmed' to absorb the wisdom of their grandparents. That is also an engine of progress in human society. Most adolescents do some of each in varying proportions.
david_h wrote: I think that view neglects the benefits of genetic diversity.
Sure. Like every other sweeping generalization, it's true on average, not universally true.
But it's truest when you compare adolescents not to every one else, but to themselves at other ages. A 16 year old is more likely to be focused on society's flaws* than they were at 8, or will be at 50.
*Whether that's the hideousness of dad jeans, or social injustice.
And now there was no doubt that the trees were really moving - moving in and out through one another as if in a complicated country dance. ('And I suppose,' thought Lucy, 'when trees dance, it must be a very, very country dance indeed.')
Tell us something.: I'm a fiddler and, latterly, a fluter. I love the flute. I wish I'd always played it. I love the whistle as well. I'm blessed in having really lovely instruments for all of my musical interests.
Location: Unimportant island off the great mainland of Europe
david_h wrote: I think that view neglects the benefits of genetic diversity.
Sure. Like every other sweeping generalization, it's true on average, not universally true.
But it's truest when you compare adolescents not to every one else, but to themselves at other ages. A 16 year old is more likely to be focused on society's flaws* than they were at 8, or will be at 50.
*Whether that's the hideousness of dad jeans, or social injustice.
I wonder if that's actually true? I mean, it may be, but have there been studies? Anecdotally, most of my friends, who tend to be in their 40s at least (with some notable exceptions) are very focussed on society's flaws - much more so than the vast majority of youngsters here in the UK at the moment, who seem a bit too tractable - and even apathetic - if you ask me. Why on earth are they allowing certain parts of my generation to wreck their future? (Actually, thinking about it, the same seems to apply at the moment in the States, from how all the news comes across.)
s1m0n wrote:A 16 year old is more likely to be focused on society's flaws* than they were at 8, or will be at 50.
Thinking back to when I was 16, I find it's the opposite. I'm way more aware of, and indignated by, society's flaw now than when I was a teenager. And that's what I see with my friends as well (broadly speaking. There are exceptions, but they are in the minority). A good part of my current friends and associates are people I have known since first grade, so I feel I can do a valid judgement of their development.
On the other hand, most of the more 'rebellious' 16 years old from back then didn't look at the local society at all, it was more about pie-in-the-sky political ideas and looking at a narrow part of other countries. None of it real, as it later turned out.