/fa/ - Fashion

[Anonymous No.6019643]

If something is un-/fa/ do you automatically avoid it, reject it etc?
If you answered yes, you are un-/fa/.

[Anonymous No.6019648]

>contrast pocket tees

[Anonymous No.6020092]

>>6019648
wut

[Anonymous No.6020099]

>>6019648
So tryhard.
Tryhards are worse than plebs.

[uuuuhhhh No.6020144]

>>6020099
tryhard is a meaningless buzzword

[Anonymous No.6020152]

>>6020144
>"tryhard is a meaningless buzzword"

[Anonymous No.6020161]

>>6020152
"Tryhard" is a Thought-Terminating Cliche.

[Anonymous No.6020255]

>>6020161
"Dadcore" is a Thought-Terminating Cliche.

[Anonymous No.6020259]

>>6020161
>>6020255
Putting names to any sort of style is a thought-terminating cliche.

[Anonymous No.6020343]

uuuuhhhh do you ever not shitpost

[Anonymous No.6020341]

>>6020255
It is, I agree.
It's a neat little buzzword intended to bring an abrupt halt to all further analysis.

[Anonymous No.6020377]

does that mean I automatically avoid myself? ;-;

[Anonymous No.6020408]

>>6020099
How exactly are you trying hard by wearing contrast pocket tees? You just buy them and put them on like you would with a normal tee. You don't even have to try. It's easy as fuck. The only difference is that it has a fucking pocket on it, which you can like or dislike.

[Anonymous No.6020446]

>>6019643
Does that mean you have to do un-/fa/ things to be /fa/?

[Anonymous No.6020542]

>>6019643
Being /fa/ and being fashion-forward aren't the same.
You can be /fa/ while simply doing what others do, if you pay close attention. Being /fa/ is (as far as I know) doing things right, all the time. The more correct your fit, the more /fa/ will approve.
I don't feel like getting into more detail right now, but I hope you get my point.

[Anonymous No.6022640]

>>6020542
...I don't think I want to be /fa/. Not by this definition.

[Anonymous No.6022993]

>>6022640
No, you don't.
I'm here to observe the madness, to improve my basic failures and to absorb as much style as possible so I can build my own.
Criticism here is shit btw, with little golden nuggets hidden inside. Good news it's not literal shit, you're hands won't get dirty trying to sift through it.

[Anonymous No.6023235]

>>6020161
Thought-Terminating Cliche is a Thought-Terminating Cliche.

[Anonymous No.6023311]

>>6023235
No it isn't. It's identifying a type of behavior used to squelch critical analysis with minimal effort. Attempting to squash a discourse by dismissing something as 'Tryhard', 'Dadcore' or 'Autistic' when there is still a vast wealth of analytical or theoretical potential at hand to discuss will always result in a net loss.

Combating thought terminating cliche and encouraging exploratory dialogue is a victory for higher thought. Identifying TTC as such is one to combat this cheap tactic.

These dismissive cliches require little effort to spit out. They're easy to memorize, they're easy to regurgitate and they often serve to replace clear-headed conversation with frustration, anger and a conversational dead end.
To be completely honest, dismissing the entire notion of TTC as a cliche in and of itself... well, that's pretty thought terminating.

[Anonymous No.6023332]

>>6023311
poet stawp

[Anonymous No.6023418]

>>6023332
I apologize. I just really want to take the barb out of all these weak, dismissive, one-word answers I keep seeing.

[Anonymous No.6023442]

>>6023311
by the definition you posted "thought terminating cliche" could be a thought terminating cliche when used to dismiss another thought terminating cliche

kind of hard to word that

it comes down to the decision of whether the criticism actually has any substance behind it

[Anonymous No.6023600]

>>6023442
Good point. I see how this entire thing can become an endless hall of mirrors.

I guess in the end, we have to decide what is and isn't valid on a case by case basis. Thanks for flipping the script on me!