How long did it take you to grow out of goth ninja /fa/?

File: 75 KB, 680x684, 1368136308713.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Sat Aug 10 02:59:19 2013 No.6664348 [Reply] [Original]

How long did it take you to grow out of goth ninja /fa/?

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 03:04:48 2013 No.6664370 i was never into it. its on the same level as fedoracore

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 03:05:17 2013 No.6664381 there is no such thing as gothninja

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 03:07:17 2013 No.6664391 I first learned about it on /fa/, and still laugh at it as much as I did when I first discovered it a year or so ago. It really is the bastard child of fashion and 4chan's autism.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 03:10:48 2013 No.6664399 >>6664391 It's the equivalent of Death Grips fans on /mu/

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 03:11:48 2013 No.6664403 i used to think it was stupid but now i think its pretty dope.

Anonymous Sat Aug 10 03:13:17 2013 No.6664408

I've never dressed "gothninja", but I always appreciated the concept. It's pretty impractical for most people, but given the right context it's a very interesting approach to clothing. A lot more thought put into it than most other styles, short of only maybe techwear.

To each their own, but I think it's interesting, and a toned-down version of it can find it's place within a wardrobe, even only as a mild influence.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 03:14:47 2013 No.6664413 tbh it's really mindblowing how much /fa/ is into gothninja. you can tell it's just autist kids into goth shit. i've never seen a real (not a copy) goth ninja fit on /fa/ that has actually worked.

Anonymous Sat Aug 10 09:42:11 2013 No.6665527

>>6664413
you guys obviously all have the most pleb of friends. every person i know since highschool has been fashionably aware,slowly by slowly they started changing their attire to a more suiting fashion style

for example in highschool girls and guys i hung out with liked american apparel and urban outfitters which is pleb shit but compared to hollister wearing faggots and walmart print t shirt they looked more patrician.

first year of college all these girls and guys i chill with now wear all saints ,ted baker, and starting to buy entry level fashion designers.

now at senior year of college most girls and guys i know have pieces from anne d , rick owens, some wear apc, acne etc

if i wear anything fashionable or any "goof"ninja shit its actually acceptable in my social group and if you are not atleast dressed similar to all saints you will be shunned pretty harshly .

fashion really depends in the environment you are living in or socialize in .

if all your friends are pleb bros then ofcourse it would be impossible to pull off rick owens in front of all your hollister wearing friends while they play beer pong....

same goes if you are a nerd if you have no social acceptable patrician friends everyone will just point and laugh..

it all depends on who you hang out with if you are in the correct scene wearing this type of fashion should be normal and acceptable

if your friends are plebs try to make new friends
good luck

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 09:49:41 2013 No.6665545 File: 17 KB, 460x276, Wayne-LaPierre-reaction-008.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6665527 >most girls and guys i know have pieces from anne d , rick owens, some wear apc, acne etc

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 09:52:42 2013 No.6665554 >>6665545 i live in a suburb where the average household income is 150k while the highest earners are between 5-10 million a year. i'm sorry if you live in Detroit my friend

Anonymous Sat Aug 10 10:36:41 2013 No.6665719

>>6664348
All saints is nearly as pleb as gstar. I made the mistake of buying a parka on sale for about 30% of the original price and it turned out to be almost nothing like advertised, and only fits on my 6'1 Ethiopian friend who has Ethiopian narrow shoulders. I literally cant give it away.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 10:52:42 2013 No.6665765 It looks good, but I would never wear it. Compare it to paintings. Some paintings do look good at the wall in the museum, but don't look good in your living room.

Anonymous Sat Aug 10 11:10:41 2013 No.6665828

I'm not really goth ninja as in wearing full on drapes, but I do usually dress in black. I like having a top heavy silhouette with a nice flow to it.

Some Rick Owens pieces fit the bill but having a fucking dress on is ridiculous.

I'd like to think my style is like a modified heroin chic with a bit more drape.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 11:13:41 2013 No.6665843 I never grew into it. It's funny imagining these 17 years olds dropping shitloads on Rick Owens and getting to 25 and realising how much money they wasted on a silly trend.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 11:14:11 2013 No.6665851 File: 9 KB, 100x127, images.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6665554 >>6665527

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 11:21:27 2013 No.6665883 gothninja doesn't exist

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 11:21:57 2013 No.6665887 >>6665527 > It all depends on who you hang out with if you are in the correct scene wearing this type of fashion should be normal and acceptable This is true.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 11:22:57 2013 No.6665893 >>6664370 >>6664391 >>6664399 >>6664403 >>6664408 >>6664413 >>6665527 >>6665554 >>6665719 >>6665765 >>6665828 >>6665843 >>6665843 see >>6665883 >>6664381

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 11:23:57 2013 No.6665898 About 1 year: after that I switched to avant-garde artisanal clothing like L'Maltieri, LUC and CCP.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 11:24:27 2013 No.6665903 >>6665893 >being this new lurk moar

>>	banana Sat Aug 10 11:25:27 2013 No.6665908 File: 18 KB, 300x250, banana borglur.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6665903 he's right :)

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 11:25:57 2013 No.6665909 >>6665903 >being THIS new

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 11:27:27 2013 No.6665913 >>6665909 Your autism level has reached its peak, congratulations.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 11:29:27 2013 No.6665921 >>6665913 ok dude. whatever you say :) make sure to ask the sa at barney's what new gothninja stuff they've got in!

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 11:47:28 2013 No.6665995 >>6665893 Gothninja clearly does exist though, it's just a nickname for a specific type of clothing. Just like Dadcore.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 11:47:58 2013 No.6665992 >>6664348 I'm still a goofynigga

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 12:05:58 2013 No.6666055 >>6665921 Why would I use internet slang at retail shop? Gothninja is a slang term used at specific websites to define specific style in clothing. A person not familiar with these sites or this slang won't be able to understand me so I won't use it.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 12:14:27 2013 No.6666085 >>6666055 >A person not familiar with these sites or this slang won't be able to understand me so I won't use it. exactly, because its fictional. ie doesnt exist.

Anonymous Sat Aug 10 12:16:58 2013 No.6666098

>>6666085
It's not fictional. It's an alias used for style. As long as it's used (and it's used, at least 4chan uses it) it exists, just like a meme in another parts of 4chan I am not well familiar with.
If you are stupid enough to use memes in real life, consider not everyone is as stupid as you are.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 12:20:58 2013 No.6666117 >>6666098 sure the alias does, no ones debating that. it just doesnt refer to anything

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 12:20:58 2013 No.6666118 i was never into it, shit looks dumb af

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 12:23:29 2013 No.6666141 >>6666117 or more like it refers to lots of things.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 12:25:28 2013 No.6666161 File: 726 KB, 768x1280, baizilla.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Gothninja is so autistic. Some of it's art and you can appreciate it, but it's not like I'm not going to get the Mona Lisa tattoo'd onto my forehead.

Anonymous Sat Aug 10 12:29:58 2013 No.6666186

>>6666141

im sure it does, but the point is that its so nebulous its not worth using.

for example: at what point is a particular outfit considered gothninja? if they wear a red cap is it still gothninja? what if they cuff their pants? what if they have a jansport backpack? If they wear yellow converse shoes? or if they wear a coat with toggles?

basically since it is so vague, and can be used to describe anything vaguely black/drapy, it doesnt really serve any purpose descriptively and isnt really worth using in the context of fashion (the topic of this board)

>>	yung lelders B.H.A !!Ckr8T299qdM Sat Aug 10 12:30:58 2013 No.6666190 >>6666161 wow i thought that was my room for a sec

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 12:30:58 2013 No.6666191 >>6666161 thats not gothninja. its avant garde, hes not wearing sneakers.

>>	yung lelders B.H.A !!Ckr8T299qdM Sat Aug 10 12:31:28 2013 No.6666197 >>6666161 he dresses good now tho lol thats some #rare pic from when he dressed liek a video game character for reals

Anonymous Sat Aug 10 12:32:58 2013 No.6666204

I really want a pair of geobaskets, but I'd probably just wear them with pale blue fitted jeans and a tie-dye oversized t-shirt.

would this look silly?

I really like the geobasket design, and maybe some of the oversized hoodies, but I don't think I could ever go full goof.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 12:34:28 2013 No.6666212 >>6666204 >would this look silly? you wont know until you try it. buy a pair and find out.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 12:35:58 2013 No.6666217 >>6666212 might purchase a pair of fakes just to try out the look. pls don't hate me /fa/. beat up geos just look so fucking good.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 12:36:59 2013 No.6666228 >>6666217 go for it, its your money

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 12:38:58 2013 No.6666239 >>6666186 That's like saying no terms are worth using then, like streetwear dadcore etc. If you want to be all "huhuh thought terminating cliche" like Poet, fine, play that game, but nobody else will.

Anonymous Sat Aug 10 12:40:58 2013 No.6666246

>>6666239

>That's like saying no terms are worth using then, like streetwear dadcore etc.

no, just use terms that actually have descriptive value, otherwise you might as well just be typing random letters on the keyboard.

i mean its fine, it just makes your level of knowledge very obvious to people who read your posts.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 12:43:58 2013 No.6666254 >>6666246 >i mean its fine, it just makes your level of knowledge very obvious to people who read your posts Huh, it's weird how goofninjas are always so pretentious and defensive. Calm down, dude.

Anonymous Sat Aug 10 12:46:59 2013 No.6666264

>>6666254

i wear patrik ervell and acne, theres nothing for me to defend. i was just explaining how certain posts are received. type however you want, if you want to go make gothninja threads, go for it.

like i said in the first place, it doesnt mean anything.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 12:53:58 2013 No.6666289 >>6666264 It's awful, especially acne. A so-called 'brand' which tries to steal literally everything from Hedi should ashame anyone who doesn't have enough self respect and wears it.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 12:54:59 2013 No.6666295 >>6666289 just kidding, i only wear j crew, happy now?

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 12:55:58 2013 No.6666298 >>6666264 You are really ignorant, aren't you? Gothninja is a terms for certain aesthetic, it describes draped clothes, layers, oversized hoods etc. It doesn't refer to a brand or to anything else except aesthetic.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 12:56:58 2013 No.6666305 >>6666295 Actually yes. J crew is just as pleb as acne, they just don't pretend to hide it.

Anonymous Sat Aug 10 12:58:28 2013 No.6666308

>>6666298

>You are really ignorant, aren't you?

Haha no

>Gothninja is a terms for certain aesthetic, it describes draped clothes, layers, oversized hoods etc. It doesn't refer to a brand or to anything else except aesthetic.

ok so if an outfit had a big hood, layers, and draping its gothninja?

what if it only has a big hood and draping?

how big does the hood have to be?

how much draping is required for it to be considered gothninja?

how many layers are necessary?

Anonymous Sat Aug 10 13:01:28 2013 No.6666316

This is a bad thread, and you should all feel bad, and take your daft snobbishness to RKOI.

Pleb this, pleb that, can any of you dipshits dropping buzzwords actually explain why x is pleb and y is not without some unsubstantiated "it's better quality" chant?

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 13:05:18 2013 No.6666328 >>6666316 >unsubstantiated "it's better quality" chant? thats the opposite of unsubstantiated, if some clothing is higher quality than others, it can be quite a substantial difference

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 13:08:49 2013 No.6666342 >>6666308 Dude, shut the fuck up, seriously. It's a word people use to describe a look, just like streetwear and dadcore. You wouldn't argue over the word streetwear.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 13:11:48 2013 No.6666352 >>6666342 >Dude, shut the fuck up, seriously im not the one using a stupid term for something i clearly dont understand

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 13:13:49 2013 No.6666362 >>6666352 I'm not even the guy you were arguing with.

banana Sat Aug 10 13:14:18 2013 No.6666367
File: 18 KB, 366x365, illiminurdy.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6666342
gothninja encompasses a much larger sphere of styles than you realise, and the "kids" who practice what you think is "gothninja" would be looked down in distaste by most of the former practitioners

sorri :(((

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 13:14:18 2013 No.6666368 >>6666362 regardless youre defending the usage of it, im not responsible for your poor vocabulary

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 13:15:48 2013 No.6666373 >>6666342 actually, yeah streetwear is bullshit. It's like if black people wear it it's automatically streetwear. Fuck that.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 13:17:18 2013 No.6666385 File: 20 KB, 366x365, 1376154889575.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	banana Sat Aug 10 13:18:48 2013 No.6666388 >>6666367 what i was trying to say was it was a fuzzy and bad turm

>>	banana Sat Aug 10 13:23:49 2013 No.6666412 >>6666385 gtfo illuminati i don't wanna join ur gay club gay master

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 13:24:49 2013 No.6666417 >>6666367 >>6666368 >>6666373 neo-/fa/ gothninja is a term you fucking idiots

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 13:25:48 2013 No.6666420 >>6666417 yeah but its a meaningless term

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 13:26:18 2013 No.6666427 >>6666308 A trolling attempt is bad when the only reaction you get is people wondering how stupid that person is. This is your example.

>>	banana Sat Aug 10 13:26:18 2013 No.6666431 File: 18 KB, 300x250, bananas are made of cheese.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6666417 neo-/fa/ is a gud thing gothninja is a pop-cultoor term its a stereotype :(((( also i'm not an idiot >:((

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 13:27:18 2013 No.6666432 >>6666420 Give me an example of term describing the clothing style which isn't meaningless then. I am waiting.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 13:28:48 2013 No.6666441 >>6666427 that doesnt really address anything, so whatever? >>6666432 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victorian_fashion

>>	banana Sat Aug 10 13:28:48 2013 No.6666442 >>6666432 ur asking for a term to describe a whole bunch of styles of clothing, some of which are independent of eachother http://tuxbell.com/fa/majortest/index.php?title=Styles has user's best attempt

Anonymous Sat Aug 10 13:32:18 2013 No.6666457

>>6666441
Okay.
>In the 1840s and 1850s, women's gowns developed wide puffed sleeves.
>In the 1860s, the skirts became flatter at the front and projected out more behind the woman.
So, the flat skirt in 1850, was it victorian fashion or not? How "wide" a sleeve should be in 1840 to be considered victorican?

>>	yung lelders B.H.A DOWN WI(...) !!Ckr8T299qdM Sat Aug 10 13:33:48 2013 No.6666461 >>6666431 neo /fa/ is the antichrist the sworn enemy of the Bucket Hat Alliance protectors of all things and pure noble on /fa/

>>	banana Sat Aug 10 13:34:19 2013 No.6666463 >>6666457 why are you asking him its a wikipedia article he didn't write

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 13:34:19 2013 No.6666465 >>6666442 I meant ANY clothing style. And I wasn't talking with you, since the best you can do is to give a link you haven't contributed to. Oh wait, he has done the same: serves him well.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 13:35:48 2013 No.6666470 >>6666463 Because I have asked him to give me an example of style. I wasn't asking for a wiki link, so he utterly failed already.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 13:35:48 2013 No.6666471 >>6666457 read the wikipedia article, you tell me.

>>	banana Sat Aug 10 13:36:48 2013 No.6666476 File: 52 KB, 360x480, suckle puckle.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6666465 >>6666470 is english not your native language >>6666461 i am a sworn enemy of the bucket dicks allliance

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 13:36:48 2013 No.6666477 >>6666470 no victorian fashion is an example of a style of clothing. if you look up gothninja on wikipedia nothing comes up

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 13:37:18 2013 No.6666481 File: 35 KB, 640x480, waifu tier.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6666471 nice cop out you piece of shit you have no argument looks like we are done here

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 13:37:18 2013 No.6666484 >>6666481 not really, i responded to your point, and youre unable to formulate a reaction. not my problem.

>>	banana Sat Aug 10 13:38:48 2013 No.6666487 >>6666481 u didnt respond to >>6666431

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 13:39:18 2013 No.6666494 File: 1.17 MB, 200x147, 1375584122712.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6666484 yeah right you fucking nerd all you did was use a cop out >this is neo /fa/

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 13:39:48 2013 No.6666498 >>6666484 also: i dont see how this goes over so many peoples heads, its really not that hard to understand.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 13:40:48 2013 No.6666502 >>6666494 whoosh lol >>6666498

>>	banana Sat Aug 10 13:40:48 2013 No.6666503 >>6666498 crossboarders need a blanket term to insult things they don't like

>>	yung lelders B.H.A DOWN WI(...) !!Ckr8T299qdM Sat Aug 10 13:43:48 2013 No.6666525 File: 499 KB, 500x335, tumblr_ltwdjq3uTs1qzhuoho1_500.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6666476

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 13:43:48 2013 No.6666528 Hey fuck you guys I like gothninja Cop Rick faggot >my feels when no Rick

Anonymous Sat Aug 10 13:44:48 2013 No.6666533

>>6666471
Of course you should tell me since you used this as an example. That's why I am asking you this, because according to your logic each term related to clothing style is meaningless. And this is plain stupid, this is slang, not a math/physics.

>>6666476
Of course not. Isn't it obvious?

>>	banana Sat Aug 10 13:45:19 2013 No.6666542 >>6666533 yes don't ignore >>6666431 it hurts my feels

Anonymous Sat Aug 10 13:47:18 2013 No.6666554

>>6666533

>And this is plain stupid, this is slang, not a math/physics.

yep, and i gave you an example of slang that described a specific era and style of dress.

"gothninja" has none of those attributes, there is nothing specific or descriptive about it. no one can even accurately state what time period it is, because no one has a clear definition of the style.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 13:47:18 2013 No.6666555 >>6666308 bwahahaha I believe you ask "what is a fuccboi" each time you're called a fuccboi, you fuccboi.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 13:47:18 2013 No.6666566 >>6666555 sounds like youre a fuccboi, i bet you think gothninja is actually a thing.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 13:48:18 2013 No.6666567 >>6666554 But you've failed to answer the same type of question you ask yourself.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 13:48:48 2013 No.6666575 >>6666567 Nope, clearly stated in the article. want me to copy paste it?

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 13:48:49 2013 No.6666577 >>6666554 >victorican fashion >slang u wot m8

>>	banana Sat Aug 10 13:49:18 2013 No.6666583 >>6666567 i think ur language barrir is preventing u from understanding what he is saying dude re-read his posts

Anonymous Sat Aug 10 13:51:18 2013 No.6666599

>>6666575
Yes, please do. Especially "how wide should the sleeeve be" and I will add something else:
>Dresses were simple and pale
What do you mean by simple here?
What is considered pale?
>Women's wear in the last decade of the Victorian Era was characterised by high collars
How high should be the collar?

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 13:52:18 2013 No.6666604 >>6666583 I think someone saying ur barrir u should go back to school.

>>	banana Sat Aug 10 13:52:18 2013 No.6666607 >>6666599 ur nitpicking u know he's right why are you entrenching urself there's no point of doing it >>6666604 im out

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 13:54:18 2013 No.6666612 >>6666607 No. I am just trying to apply his own logic to his posts to show him how stupid he is. If you don't understand even this.. Well, I don't have any advice for you.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 13:54:18 2013 No.6666616 dont respond anymore who gives a fuck about some immigrant bitch

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 13:55:48 2013 No.6666620 >>6666612 here is an experiment, try looking up gothninja on wikipedia, tell me the result.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 13:56:48 2013 No.6666624 >>6666620 stop responding

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 13:56:48 2013 No.6666626 >>6666620 >THE TERM DOESN'T EXIST IF IT'S NOT ON WIKIPEDIA!!!!111 Any other arguments?

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 13:58:49 2013 No.6666637 >>6666626 its pretty obvious that it has less legitimacy than victorian fashion, im sure you would agree.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 13:58:49 2013 No.6666638 >>6666616 Someone which ancestors were brought to USA as slaves shouldn't be so vocal.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 13:59:48 2013 No.6666644 >>6666626 >people who don't wear the clothes in charge of naming the style Email Rick Owens ask him if he's a gothninja designer

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 14:00:18 2013 No.6666650 >>6666637 Well, since you consider "victorian fashion" the slang terms there is no need to argue over it, lol.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 14:01:18 2013 No.6666654 >>6666637 >Any other arguments? also, yeah, the entire thread, ive basically shown through various points that gothninja is a meaningless term and no one has been able to effectively dispute that.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 14:01:18 2013 No.6666657 >>6666650 >there is no need to argue over it, lol. then dont bother, its a waste of your time, i already proved my point earlier.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 14:04:18 2013 No.6666686 >>6666657 Yeah. A person claimed victorian fashion is a slang shouldn't be someone to spend time on. Bye and good luck education yourself what "slang" actually is.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 14:05:48 2013 No.6666699 >>6666686 its a term for style, but yeah thanks for the good luck "education" myself

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 14:06:19 2013 No.6666705 >>6665898 what is LUC?

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 14:06:19 2013 No.6666707 >>6666686 >educating fixd

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 14:06:19 2013 No.6666714 >>6666085 By that logic, English doesn't exist.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 14:06:49 2013 No.6666712 >>6666705 It's Label Under Construction by Luca Laurini.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 14:07:19 2013 No.6666716 >>6666705 Label under construction

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 14:07:48 2013 No.6666718 >>6666714 maybe if you misunderstand the logic, sure.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 14:07:48 2013 No.6666719 >>6666117 >being this philosophically inept

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 14:08:48 2013 No.6666724 >>6666719 >greentexting at posts your reading comprehension/knowledge doesnt allow you to understand

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 14:08:48 2013 No.6666725 Really gothninja is gay for the same reason Pyrex/hba/supreme is gay. It's something nice worn by plebs. (Atleast was nice)

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 14:08:48 2013 No.6666726 >>6666699 Yeah, so you've failed in general and decided to point out typos. Nice try.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 14:09:48 2013 No.6666734 >>6666712 Thanks. >>6666718 What you're saying is that because a certain signifier only signifies something to a certain group or groups of people, it does not exist. That is not logically different than saying English doesn't exist.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 14:10:18 2013 No.6666739 >>6666599 >>6666599 >>6666599 >>6666599 >>6666599 lol still no answer

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 14:10:18 2013 No.6666740 >>6666666

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 14:10:48 2013 No.6666742 >>6666725 When was it cool to wear $500 champion shorts with a cookingware companies name on it???

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 14:10:48 2013 No.6666743 >>6666726 nah i succeeded, i accurately refuted your point tbh basically you just keep whining. thats cool i guess its 4chan after all.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 14:11:49 2013 No.6666750 >>6666734 >What you're saying is that because a certain signifier only signifies something to a certain group or groups of people, it does not exist. no im saying its an attempt to describe a style that doesnt exist, its undefined.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 14:12:48 2013 No.6666755 >>6666739 >>6666471

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 14:12:48 2013 No.6666761 >>6666742 Wen u hav Sweg #yolo

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 14:15:18 2013 No.6666779 >>6666750 It's pretty easy to recognize once you've seen a few fits. I don't really think you're thinking this through with any sort of rigor.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 14:18:18 2013 No.6666790 >>6666779 >It's pretty easy to recognize once you've seen a few fits. not really, there is no criteria to meet that qualifies as something as gothninja.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 14:19:19 2013 No.6666797 >>6666755 So you've agreed the style you've used as example doesn't exist. Nice way to contradict yourself you faggot.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 14:20:18 2013 No.6666805 >>6666797 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victorian_fashion

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 14:20:18 2013 No.6666808 >>6666806 >>6666805

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 14:20:18 2013 No.6666810 File: 8 KB, 250x228, 1368866535641.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6666755 >I'M A HUGE CONTRADICTING RETARD WHO CAN'T FORM A PROPER ARGUMENT SO I'M GOING TO TELL YOU YOU'RE IN THE WRONG WHEN IT'S TRULY MYSELF k

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 14:20:48 2013 No.6666806 >>6666755 yah thats what I meant by still no answer. no answer is no answer after all

Anonymous Sat Aug 10 14:21:49 2013 No.6666812

>>6666805
how wide should the sleeeve be?
>Dresses were simple and pale
What do you mean by simple here?
What is considered pale?
>Women's wear in the last decade of the Victorian Era was characterised by high collars
How high should be the collar?

Article doesn't contain these answers so I am waiting for these answers from you.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 14:21:49 2013 No.6666813 >>6665554 >>6665527 Stop pretending you have friends and wouldn't react like a school girl if someone asked you to play beer pong.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 14:22:49 2013 No.6666818 >>6666810 not really, just refuted. >>6666812 its not my responsibility, the style of victorian fashion is clearly defined, figure it out yourself.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 14:23:49 2013 No.6666823 File: 37 KB, 480x351, ensemble_projector_cradle.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6666813

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 14:25:18 2013 No.6666833 >>6666823 You'd be the one projecting you fucking autist.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 14:26:18 2013 No.6666834 >>6666818 Yes, it's yours responsibility since you've used this term as an example of "defined style" and called it slang for some reason in the process. So once you can't answer these questions you ask yourself your whole point is irrelevant.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 14:27:18 2013 No.6666841 >>6665554 I'm sorry material possessions give you emotional worth.

timber Sat Aug 10 14:27:48 2013 No.6666839

just now i stepped into a store w/o looking where i was going and literally ran headfirst into a group of three 6'+ guys w/ HY's all in head-to-toe silent and there was a really tense 20 seconds where everyone in this tiny like 10"x10" room was watching a collision of gothninja in the wild

good thread tho :-)

Anonymous Sat Aug 10 14:27:48 2013 No.6666840
File: 198 KB, 450x450, InFocus_IN5550_Series_Projector_topfaceleft.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6666833

pic related

>>6666834

not at all, i havent seen anyone respond with a comprehensive post describing gothninja yet, my point very obviously still stands.

Anonymous Sat Aug 10 14:33:19 2013 No.6666868

>>6666840
I've asked you some questions related to description of victorian fashion you've used as example which aren't covered in the article. You've failed to answer them.
I can easily give you a link to some reddit articles where someone tried to make a research what is called gothninja or to sz posts from 2007 era, but there is no point.

Your only claim is "If I don't understand something it doesn't exist".

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 14:34:48 2013 No.6666883 >>6666868 no my claim is that something doesnt exist because its so vague that its left undefined. and thats unchanged.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 14:40:49 2013 No.6666917 File: 7 KB, 275x183, anon.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6666840 Pic very accurate. Shit fit btw

Anonymous Sat Aug 10 14:42:18 2013 No.6666924

>>6666883
I've given you a definition of which style is called gothninja. You've asked some questions to prove its vagueness and after that failed to answer the same types of questions for your own example.

I will go further and answer your questions myself.
>if an outfit had a big hood, layers, and draping its gothninja?
Yes, the chances are very high it could be called gothninja. Especially since it's most black.
>what if it only has a big hood and draping?
Give me an example i.e. picture. If it's an actual clothing worn by a real person and not a costume for some kind of event, then yes. Layers can punish you at summer.

>how big does the hood have to be?
Enough to call it oversized if it's not BBS ninja hoods.

>how much draping is required for it to be considered gothninja?
This isn't the necessary criteria. Your outfit could be considered gothninja with or without draping.

>how many layers are necessary?
See above.

Anonymous Sat Aug 10 14:50:18 2013 No.6666967
File: 154 KB, 870x1110, image4xl.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6666924

>Yes, the chances are very high it could be called gothninja

you could call something that, whether its an accurate description is open to judgement.

>Especially since it's most black.

So off white/beige collections by rick owens or julius wouldnt be gothninja? interesting.

>Enough to call it oversized if it's not BBS ninja hoods.

so there is a caveat: they can be any size

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 14:57:19 2013 No.6666998 >>6666967 Your pic is a failed gothninja design attempt, that's right. The other are just the exceptions to prove the general rule.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 14:58:49 2013 No.6667005 >>6666998 no, im just realizing more and more than it truly is so vague and meaningless term, no one can really encapsulate it honestly. but yeah of course people will keep using it on /fa/, just amusing tbh

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 14:59:48 2013 No.6667007 >>6666967 >rick owens or julius You shouldn't throw names around you don't understand at all. A lot of RO or even julius pieces aren't gothninja.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 15:00:18 2013 No.6667015 >>6667005 So your questions were answered and you have nothing to contradict the statement "gothninja is a slang term to describe the certain clothing style". Meanwhile, let me remind you've failed to answer questions you've been asked.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 15:00:18 2013 No.6667016 >>6667007 >A lot of RO or even julius pieces aren't gothninja. that is precisely my point, its too vague.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 15:01:18 2013 No.6667020 >>6667015 >you have nothing to contradict the statement "gothninja is a slang term to describe the certain clothing style" >>6666186

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 15:01:48 2013 No.6667018 >>6667016 Do you refuse to understand designer != style? You shouldn't be on /fa/ then.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 15:02:48 2013 No.6667022 >>6667018 no i agree, designer != style

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 15:04:18 2013 No.6667026 >>6667022 So you've understood your try to present ro and julius (brand) as a style was stupid. That's good.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 15:05:18 2013 No.6667034 >>6667026 >>6667016

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 15:05:18 2013 No.6667036 >>6667034 >>6667018

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 15:06:48 2013 No.6667040 >>6667036 >>6667022

>>	turnleft !!t/GvfGACpW7 Sat Aug 10 15:07:18 2013 No.6667042 best thread 2013 had a dream about Sruli Recht last night B)

Anonymous Sat Aug 10 15:12:48 2013 No.6667065

>>6667034
Let me explain. I am ashamed I have to explain such basic things to you, but since you don't understand I just have to do it.

Styles are being created by different designers. There are a lot of designers which produce clothing suitable for a certain style. You can't say "this item is from this style so it's made by this designer". That logic link doesn't work (there COULD be an exception but almost always you have to create the term or the style by yourself. Something like if a style "clothing from spider silk" existed it would be Sruli Recht. So it's more like a hypothetical situation, I don't know any real examples)
Designers work in different style. One designer produces style-related clothing and neutral clothing as well.
More than that (and I find it amusing I have to explain this as well), one item rarely define a style. It could define it possibly, but this is a rare example.

Now please tell me why are you trying to contradict this?

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 15:12:48 2013 No.6667066 >>6667042 >>6666839 >muh elitism if you're not going to contribute anything or make any new points, why even post?

Anonymous Sat Aug 10 15:16:18 2013 No.6667082

>>6667065

>one item rarely define a style. It could define it possibly, but this is a rare example.

im glad you say this, because it reflects my original point and is a large component of the discussion: in this case, the attempt to describe gothninja is not feasible since it is based on garments.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 15:16:18 2013 No.6667083 >>6667016 >A lot of RO or even julius pieces aren't gothninja. Please explain how is it related to >that is precisely my point, its too vague.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 15:17:48 2013 No.6667087 >>6667066 because they recognize the foolishness of attempting to discuss fashion with people who are in over their heads. unfortunately im not so wise.

Anonymous Sat Aug 10 15:18:48 2013 No.6667094

>>6667082
The style isn't created by a single item. It's created by a combination of items in more or less percentage. In case of gothninja, the slang term to describe a style, it's several items with a certain degree of draping, black color, oversized hoods, layers etc. Just what you were told at the beginning.

Anonymous Sat Aug 10 15:19:48 2013 No.6667097

>>6667083

it illustrates my point that it is not feasible to define gothninja as a style due to the fact that clothing and designs are so diverse and suit a variety of styles, which leads to the conclusion that it is not possible to encapsulate designers/outfits/clothes as specifically "gothninja"

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 15:20:18 2013 No.6667100 >>6667094 >>6666186

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 15:22:18 2013 No.6667111 >>6666834 >>6666924 >>6667065 (psst. It's a troll, just let it go)

Anonymous Sat Aug 10 15:27:48 2013 No.6667129

>>6667097
>it is not possible to encapsulate designers/outfits/clothes as specifically "gothninja"
>designers
Absolutely right. Designer can make 90% of items suitable for gothninja style and 10% not suitable. This doesn't prove your point though.
>clothes
Absolutely right. Each specific item won't define a style (most certainly). There are some exceptions like RO droid hoodie or Julius oversized hoodies blousons. These items alone define gothninja style, so you can compliment them with proper pieces a be a good dressed gothninja or you can wear pieces suitable for different style and be shit.
This doesn't prove your point though.
>outfits
This is nonsense and this is where you've failed. Each outfit which HAS a style and is performed in a single style is gothninja as long as it has clothes suitable for gothninja.

The style "label" is triggered by outfit itself, by its aesthetic.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 15:29:18 2013 No.6667138 >>6667137 >you can wear pieces suitable for different style and be shit.

Anonymous Sat Aug 10 15:29:48 2013 No.6667137

>>6667129

>There are some exceptions like RO droid hoodie or Julius oversized hoodies blousons. These items alone define gothninja style

not at all, if you paired them with a yellow dress and jimmy choos, no one would describe them that way.

>This is nonsense and this is where you've failed.

on the contrary haha

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 15:30:18 2013 No.6667140 >>6667138 >These items alone define gothninja style

Anonymous Sat Aug 10 15:30:18 2013 No.6667143

>>6667137
>not at all, if you paired them with a yellow dress and jimmy choos, no one would describe them that way.
That would be a failed gothninja attempt.
Just like if someone would wear a victorian dress with a leather biker jacket on top of that.
This is not a style.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 15:31:18 2013 No.6667147 >>6667143 >That would be a failed gothninja attempt. nope, they wouldnt be attempting anything because they wouldnt be trying to wear gothninja clothing is the first place, because it doesnt really exist. they would be attempting to wear a hoodie.

Anonymous Sat Aug 10 15:32:48 2013 No.6667152

>>6667140
Yes. So with yellow dress it would be a gothninja hoodie with a yellow dress. We're talking about outfits performed in one style. See
>Each outfit which HAS a style and is performed in a single style

By the way, this answers your questions about yellow converse etc etc.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 15:33:18 2013 No.6667159 >>6667147 >Just like if someone would wear a victorian dress with a leather biker jacket on top of that. Stop resisting to face the reality.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 15:33:48 2013 No.6667161 >>6667152 >it would be a hoodie with a yellow dress. fixed

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 15:34:18 2013 No.6667164 >>6667159 that doesnt mean theyre attempting victorian style at all though.

Anonymous Sat Aug 10 15:36:19 2013 No.6667171

>>6667161
And this is where you are wrong. This hoodie which I was talking about is a hoodie performed in a specific style, a style we call gothninja. It could help you to create a gothninja outfit or ruin any other outfit because it won't be suitable anywhere except gothninja.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 15:36:19 2013 No.6667172 >>6667171 >because it won't be suitable anywhere except gothninja. no you can wear it with whatever you want, no one will stop you.

Anonymous Sat Aug 10 15:38:18 2013 No.6667182

>>6667147
>because it doesnt really exist.
No, this isn't how you use logic. Your statements should be "gothninja doesn't really exist because A, B,C", not "A, B,C, because gothninja doesn't exist". You are hopelessly trying that slang term doesn't exist, so you can't use it as an argument.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 15:39:18 2013 No.6667188 >>6667182 yeah i can, works fine. whether you agree or not is here nor there.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 15:40:18 2013 No.6667192 >>6667172 Give me an example of outfit with a RO gimp/droid hoodie which could be most certainly defined as style different than gothninja. Streetgoth or goofninja or whatever as a part of gothninja doesn't count.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 15:41:48 2013 No.6667194 >>6667188 Then you have failed at logic and all your points are invalid. Just what we've tried to prove is proven.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 15:44:14 2013 No.6667211 >>6667188 >I don't understand it so it doesn't exist Haven't you been told it's useless?

Anonymous Sat Aug 10 15:45:14 2013 No.6667213
File: 287 KB, 600x600, 040513_iaz_owens.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6667192

here you go.

>>6667194

not really, no one has really proven that gothninja is a distinct style. its really apparent that what i originally said still stands, regardless of your feelings on the matter.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 15:45:14 2013 No.6667216 >>6667211 that quote doesnt relate to any of my posts.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 15:47:14 2013 No.6667226 >>6666790 That's just completely wrong. What criteria are there for anything, then? Must it be in the dictionary or recognized by some social institution that validates it, sets its boundaries, etc? Jesus, dude

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 15:48:44 2013 No.6667230 >>6667213 >RO gimp/droid hoodie Please learn to read.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 15:48:44 2013 No.6667232 >>6667226 >recognized by some social institution that validates it, sets its boundaries, etc? yeah

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 15:49:14 2013 No.6667240 >>6667230 i love how you cant even recognize the clothes you are talking about.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 15:50:44 2013 No.6667243 >>6665887 True if you hang out with kids from special education.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 15:51:15 2013 No.6667251 >>6667240 Because this is not a hoodie in question and it's YOU who doesn't understand what you were asked.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 15:51:44 2013 No.6667246 >>6667243 are you poverty stricken?

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 15:52:15 2013 No.6667258 >>6667232 Then that's completely arbitrary. It exists, it just, in your opinion, hasn't gone through certain institutional processes. Learn to say what you mean.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 15:52:45 2013 No.6667256 >>6667251 yeah shes wearing a rick owens druid hoodie http://abbediaz.com/tag/rick-owens/ sorry but #rekt

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 15:53:14 2013 No.6667261 >>6667258 no its the opposite of arbitrary, it needs to be defined rather than left to peoples opinions.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 15:56:14 2013 No.6667268 >>6667246 no i just dont hang out with faggots

Anonymous Sat Aug 10 15:57:15 2013 No.6667275

>>6667256
Oh my god, my statement about trolling which doesn't work when the only reaction about the so-called troll is "what a stupid person" still stands.
This is not a droid hoodie, this is another item by RO. This girl has druid hoodie though and it's here.
http://abbediaz.com/2012/12/05/druid/5149/
Now let's return to my original question.

>>6667192
>Give me an example of outfit with a RO gimp/droid hoodie which could be most certainly defined as style different than gothninja
So, your example you've given is an outfit which could be most certainly defined as style different than gothninja. Now my second question: WHICH style is the outfit you've given me as an example? Remember, since you've used it you suppose it has a style since it was a certain condition set by me. Now, which style is it?

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 15:57:44 2013 No.6667272 >>6667268 haha post a fit i want to see a poor's outfit

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 15:59:44 2013 No.6667278 >>6667275 its abbe diaz's personal style.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 16:00:14 2013 No.6667284 File: 416 KB, 2423x1433, 2iMxZ.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6667272 here bitch

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 16:01:44 2013 No.6667289 I bought a pair of Ricks and realized this was for 20 year old swagfags.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 16:03:14 2013 No.6667292 >>6667278 So the only one #rekt here is you. Nice.

Anonymous Sat Aug 10 16:04:44 2013 No.6667296

>>6667192
I see that hoodie on the subway every other week. Usually it's on an otherwise normal man or woman, often mid-late 20s, several times 40's an up. It is a hoodie. It works in a LOT of contexts. I have seen in on a 'goth ninja' maybe once in my life. The real function of the full zip is to add a shiny bit of silhouette and bling to the rest of your fit. It stands out, just enough. the added length and fit is truly a relief in a world where every new garment seems increasingly catered to overweight short people.

Most of this stuff can be worn 15 ways to sunday if you've got the brains & balls.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 16:05:14 2013 No.6667305 about 4 months tops

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 16:05:44 2013 No.6667303 File: 32 KB, 513x268, Screen shot 2013-07-02 at 11.44.18 PM.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6667289

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 16:06:14 2013 No.6667307 >>6667292 not really, it is her personal style. and by the way that is a druid hoodie, you just didnt know it.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 16:07:44 2013 No.6667315 >>6667296 We are talking about another type of hoodie here. Full zip is different one and you will see it more and more since the design was finally stolen by h&m or maybe zara I forgot.

Anonymous Sat Aug 10 16:09:14 2013 No.6667332

>>6667307
That was really weak. First you've tried to fight with style wide-accepted at lot of websites, now you claim "a style exists as long as one or two person accepts it". That was really pathetic and weak, can't wait for you to back off. Also
>that is a druid hoodie
Can't wait for you to prove it.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 16:11:44 2013 No.6667341 >>6667332 http://www.ebay.com/itm/Rick-Owens-DRKSHDW-Tie-Front-Fleece-Hoodie-sz-XS-in-Dust-/300938564614?pt=US_Womens_Sweats_Hoodies&hash=item4611561406 #rekt

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 16:14:14 2013 No.6667360 >>6667354 nope its the same hoodie, look at the tie. #rekt

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 16:14:15 2013 No.6667354 >>6667341 So? This is still not the same piece she's wearing here >>6667213 Also, are you going to complain about the hoodie now since you've admitted your loss at the style issue?

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 16:14:15 2013 No.6667356 >>6667332 >now you claim "a style exists as long as one or two person accepts it" no you misunderstand my claim, my claim is that some styles cant be defined by labels like "gothninja"

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 16:17:14 2013 No.6667375 >>6667315 >stolen by h&m or maybe zara I forgot. If I had that picture of Gosling in Drive, the one where it says [AUTISM INTENSIFIES] and he looks really mad? I would post that now, because that's kind of how I feel right now.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 16:17:44 2013 No.6667371 >>6667356 >some styles cant be defined by labels like "gothninja" Why? Also >some styles At least you've accepted that this is a certain and defined "style". That's a progress. Now please explain why the certain style can't be given a label.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 16:18:44 2013 No.6667376 >>6667371 >Why? because gothninja doesnt have any clear definition >explain why the certain style can't be given a label. because it doesnt accurately describe the style

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 16:19:14 2013 No.6667379 >>6667360 Wrong. You aren't familiar with RO items and this is understandable. You won't be able to use the same collar as she did with a piece from ebay you've posted. Tie is similar if not exact but the item is different.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 16:19:44 2013 No.6667381 >>6667379 nope, im familiar its the same.

Anonymous Sat Aug 10 16:20:44 2013 No.6667384

>>6667261
But it is recognizable. Defined doesn't always mean cataloged in the dictionary. Your qualifications of existence are arbitrary.
All of it is people's opinions, conceptions. Different styles are recognized by patterns (not like, textile patterns, just to clear that up) in the brain, etc. Gothninja is more than recognizable once one has been acquainted with the style, along with its signifier: gothninja.
It's all intersubjective, but either you're trolling or you have no idea how concepts, styles, ideas are formed and come to exist.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 16:21:44 2013 No.6667391 >>6667376 Give me some examples of labels which accurately describe the thing they are refer to. Say, 5 of them. Of course it should be the label itself.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 16:22:44 2013 No.6667396 >>6667381 No it's not. And no, you aren't. Her jacket in question doesn't have a hood like this.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 16:23:14 2013 No.6667403 >>6667396 yeah it does, its the same and yeah i am

Anonymous Sat Aug 10 16:23:44 2013 No.6667399

>>6667384

>But it is recognizable.

not to everyone

>Your qualifications of existence are arbitrary.

so are yours

>All of it is people's opinions, conceptions.

yeah thats why its effectively meaningless how we attempt to describe a style until there is a full consensus

>Different styles are recognized by patterns (not like, textile patterns, just to clear that up) in the brain, etc.

sure

>Gothninja is more than recognizable once one has been acquainted with the style

no

>It's all intersubjective

yeah exactly.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 16:24:15 2013 No.6667410 File: 17 KB, 448x380, 1368237117772.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6667376 >mfw this guy is still baiting and switching just ignore and report the troll jesus fucking christ

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 16:25:15 2013 No.6667416 >>6667410 >reporting people for being correct in a discussion okay...

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 16:25:45 2013 No.6667415 >>6667403 Post a fit fuccboi

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 16:26:44 2013 No.6667421 >>6667415 I win

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 16:26:44 2013 No.6667423 >>6667415 Post a fit fuccboi

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 16:27:14 2013 No.6667432 >>6667403 You contradict yourself. If you were familiar you'd know that's impossible to pull hood so high. This is not a julius hoodie cut.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 16:27:15 2013 No.6667425 >>6667421 I win

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 16:28:44 2013 No.6667435 >>6667416 Gothninja exists because people here say so. You're wrong. Reported

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 16:28:44 2013 No.6667438 >>6667432 no im familar, its easily possible, its the same druid hoodie, its fairly obvious from the ties in the other pics. it really doesnt matter how you feel, thats just what the garment is.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 16:28:44 2013 No.6667439 >>6667399 Don't ignore me please, this is my latest post in our discussion >>6667391

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 16:29:45 2013 No.6667444 >>6667435 its against the rules to announce reports >Gothninja exists because people here say so. theyre wrong deal w/ it

>>	banana Sat Aug 10 16:29:45 2013 No.6667446 >>6667439 he ignored me too

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 16:30:14 2013 No.6667459 >>6667444 You're driving down the road and all the other cars in the wrong lane, you're fine

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 16:30:15 2013 No.6667453 >>6667438 Nope it isn't. The tie isn't proof and her hoodie looks different. You're just a fuccboi who wants to discuss things he saw in internet only.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 16:34:14 2013 No.6667482 >>6667391 mod fashion flapper style elizabethian prep grecian style dress

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 16:36:14 2013 No.6667489 >>6667453 no theyre both the same hoodie. im sorry you arent able to recognize rick owens garments but thats really not my problem >>6667459 being correct = driving in the wrong lane? news to me.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 16:36:44 2013 No.6667491 >>6667482 Okay, now proceed with an explanation how these labels by itself "accurately describe the style".

>>	banana Sat Aug 10 16:36:45 2013 No.6667494 >>6667459 respond to my post pls :))))

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 16:37:14 2013 No.6667502 >>6667489 >no they aren't because this >no they are >no they aren't because also this >no they are >no they aren't because also this and this >no they are Ah, this is 4chan.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 16:37:44 2013 No.6667500 >>6667491 which one specifically? just try googling them and doing research, you can find any specifics youre interested in.

>>	banana Sat Aug 10 16:38:14 2013 No.6667510 >>6667491 respond to my post pls :))))

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 16:38:45 2013 No.6667507 >>6667502 well it is.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 16:39:14 2013 No.6667515 I thought it was fucking ridiculous from the first moment I saw it. I never bought into you fags' monochrome/black edgy man skirt shit.

>>	banana Sat Aug 10 16:39:14 2013 No.6667520 File: 14 KB, 300x250, banana meets sneaker man.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6666431 please respong :(

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 16:39:14 2013 No.6667522 >>6667510 god dammit, banana

Anonymous Sat Aug 10 16:39:44 2013 No.6667517

>>6667500
No, I don't need to google them. I need to get an explanation how the label by itself could give me the accurate description of the style.
If you need to google the label to understand what does it mean that means the label doesn't describe anything actually.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 16:40:14 2013 No.6667523 >>6667510 To which one? You've marked posts of different people now: mine and the person I am arguing with.

>>	banana Sat Aug 10 16:40:14 2013 No.6667526 >>6667523 see >>6667520

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 16:40:44 2013 No.6667525 >>6667517 >If you need to google the label to understand what does it mean that means the label doesn't describe anything actually. wrong. talk to any costumer, and see if elizibethan clothing means anything to them. try again!

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 16:41:15 2013 No.6667531 >>6667525 You're wrong again. You were talking about the label itself. Not "what does that label means", but the label itself, how is it called. So, you've failed to prove another point of yours. What now?

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 16:42:46 2013 No.6667534 >>6667526 There are no questions asked in >>6666431

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 16:43:46 2013 No.6667540 >>6667531 >So, you've failed to prove another point of yours. What now? you misunderstood it, which is fine, sometimes its hard to post on 4chan. but yeah what the label means = the label itself

>>	banana Sat Aug 10 16:43:46 2013 No.6667542 >>6667534 gothninja is a pop cultoor term do u agree

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 16:44:47 2013 No.6667545 File: 105 KB, 720x960, 734453_473991862661183_946159419_n.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6667542

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 16:45:16 2013 No.6667548 gothninja is paying 5000 dollars to be on a lower tier than h&m

>>	banana Sat Aug 10 16:45:16 2013 No.6667560 File: 196 KB, 419x839, 3_2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6667545 ur angry so u post a pic of someone you think is me :(((((( here is me sorry to dissapoint u :((( now pls respond to >>6667542

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 16:45:46 2013 No.6667551 >>6667548 you sound poor

Anonymous Sat Aug 10 16:46:46 2013 No.6667563

>>6667540
So you've backed off? Okay, I get it. Now we're one point back I believe. To another "misunderstanding"
>>6667356
>no you misunderstand my claim, my claim is that some styles cant be defined by labels like "gothninja"
So we are talking about a certain style in clothing. Explain to me why it can't be called gothninja. Again, since your previous statement was backed off.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 16:47:16 2013 No.6667567 >>6667563 >>6666186

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 16:48:16 2013 No.6667582 >>6667548 poorfag detected

>>	banana Sat Aug 10 16:48:16 2013 No.6667583 >>6667576 pop culture term :)

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 16:48:46 2013 No.6667576 >>6667542 What is " pop cultoor term"?

>>	banana Sat Aug 10 16:53:17 2013 No.6667621 >>6667576 i'm still here please respond :(((

Anonymous Sat Aug 10 16:55:16 2013 No.6667639

>>6667567
>at what point is a particular outfit considered gothninja
At the same point any other style starts to be considered that style and no other. This is subjective, we can use some criteria but none of them would be exact to the math "necessary and sufficient conditions". This is related to any style, not only to gothninja.
>if they wear a red cap is it still gothninja
Most probably not. A red cap in an outfit to my opinion is a thing enough to ruin any gothninja outfit to make it out of style. It could be a "gothninja outfit with a red cap what the fuck", something like this.
>what if they cuff their pants
That would be an error. The silhouette with stacks is more acceptable in gothninja. I am yet to see any gothninja outfit with cuffed pants: most of the time they are just cropped.
>yellow converse shoes
See red cap part.
>coat with toggles
Maybe. It depends how that coat is cut. I haven't seen any gothninja toggle coats though.

So, your point? The answers are as correct and not vague as any other answers could be regarding any other styles (not uniform).

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 16:56:46 2013 No.6667646 >>6667583 What is "pop culture term"? Your own description please.

>>	banana Sat Aug 10 16:58:16 2013 No.6667654 >>6667576 Well in this case, a term that is not used by the designers, but the media :))) Prep and punk would be terms that designers use :)))))

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 16:58:17 2013 No.6667668 >>6667545 you are platinum mad post a fit

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 16:58:46 2013 No.6667659 >>6667639 >all personal opinions, nothing clearly defined with no major consensus yawn, been thru this

Anonymous Sat Aug 10 16:58:46 2013 No.6667661

Why do you guys argue over this shit so much it's dumb seriously

If you're into "goth ninja" then cool go and wear it
if you're not into it that's also cool

people are different stop being so stubborn like babies

also half of you guys defending "goth ninja" don't even dress like that

>>	banana Sat Aug 10 16:59:47 2013 No.6667670 >>6667661 i just want the thread to stop being bumped

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 17:00:16 2013 No.6667680 >>6667670 then continue with your "listen to me" posts

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 17:00:16 2013 No.6667682 >>6667654 Then you are right. I doubt any designer would call their style "gothninja", even those who are familiar with the community like zamb.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 17:02:46 2013 No.6667690 >>6667682 so basically, everyone that calls clothing gothninja is unqualified to make that judgement as they had no role in the creation of those clothes.

Anonymous Sat Aug 10 17:03:46 2013 No.6667697

>>6667659
And this is related to each style. There are no clear set in stone definition considering most styles. Let me remind you how you ignored same questions about your own example of victorian clothing, all you could squeeze out of yourself was "r-read t-the article" even after you were told the answers aren't there.
Also
>personal
You were asked ME, right? So I have you mine opinion, why do you whine about that now?

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 17:04:16 2013 No.6667705 >>6667697 if you look up victorian clothing there is a clear consensus on the era and genre. not so for gothninja.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 17:04:47 2013 No.6667707 >>6667690 This is a slang term, not a definition or judgement.

banana Sat Aug 10 17:04:47 2013 No.6667709

>>6667682
Now consider each of the designers under the blanket term "gothninja" is different and independent in their own regard (rick, yohji, BBS)

Thus the term is being used to push them all into one box, which stifles discussion of them individually!!!

>>6667680
>>6667690
You aren't responding to my posts because you can't counter them, so instead you link pictures that you think are me to try and get me to leave

respond to >>6667654

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 17:06:16 2013 No.6667717 >>6667705 There is no clear consensus on how wide the cuffs should be, how high should collar be etc etc. Also I love how you still consider "victorian clothing" a slang term.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 17:06:17 2013 No.6667723 >>6667717 thats doesnt matter as there are clearly set parameters of the era, not so for gothninja.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 17:06:47 2013 No.6667719 >>6667707 regardless, of course people who do not understand clothing are unqualified to label it whether its slang or not. i mean they are free to, but its effectively meaningless

Anonymous Sat Aug 10 17:09:46 2013 No.6667739

>>6667709
Wrong. You can't label the designer, I've described it here >>6667065
You can label the style only, the outfit and so on.

Also you are trying to establish the wrong logic connection here: even if one specific designer makes ONLY clothes for gothninja outfits, you can't say each other gothninja outfits are the same. Any mackerel is a fish, but any fish isn't mackerel.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 17:10:47 2013 No.6667751 >>6667719 Now you just have to prove that people who label that style as gothninja don't understand clothing, all of them, and we're set.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 17:10:47 2013 No.6667753 >>6667739 yeah but a mackerel is a specific breed of fish, gothninja is not a specific "breed" of style.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 17:11:17 2013 No.6667762 >>6667723 >there are clearly set parameters of the era So if a garment was created in 1840-1850 that makes it a victorian clothing?

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 17:11:47 2013 No.6667757 >>6667751 well once they call it gothninja its self evident whoosh

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 17:12:47 2013 No.6667766 >>6664348 saged n hidden u kids have fun arguing over the word gothninja while i go and hang out with my patrician friends losers

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 17:12:47 2013 No.6667767 >>6667753 Gothninja is a specific style.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 17:12:47 2013 No.6667768 >>6667762 yeah if the other parameters apply sure

Anonymous Sat Aug 10 17:12:47 2013 No.6667770

>>6667709
Now consider each of the designers under the blanket term "gothninja" is different and independent in their own regard (rick, yohji, BBS)
Thus the term is being used to push them all into one box, which stifles discussion of them individually!!!

Why do you guys keep mentioning designers? It's a look. When someone posts some fagot dressed in black baggy clothes and a skirt, most people here immediately think " oh that's that goth ninja shit".
It doesn't matter if /fa/ is the only place where that happens, it doesn't matter if the fagot in question is actually wearing zara clothes. It exists for us, because we can identify it.

banana Sat Aug 10 17:13:16 2013 No.6667783

>>6667739
A slim outfit made only of rick and an outfit made only of baggy yohji are very different

The only similarity is they are both black

Thus is it a nebulous term

also respond to>>6667654

>>6667770
It stifles expansion because anything from zara to yohji = gothninja

its like calling dadcore and prep the same thing

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 17:13:17 2013 No.6667775 >>6667767 no, too vague, too much variance to be a style

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 17:13:46 2013 No.6667780 >>6667770 >" oh that's that goth ninja shit". thats where theyre wrong

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 17:14:16 2013 No.6667784 >>6667768 You was talking about the era only. Now, which parameters are we talking about? Note: something like "look in the article" or "google it" is forbidden, I need your own opinion here. You can copypaste it though if you are that hopeless.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 17:14:16 2013 No.6667787 >>6667784 my opinion isnt relevant if the parameters are already defined

Anonymous Sat Aug 10 17:16:16 2013 No.6667802

>>6667783
>A slim outfit made only of rick and an outfit made only of baggy yohji are very different
Right. And if it's gothninja or not depends on the outfit, not on designers which have created the items for that. You have to understand it.

>also respond to>>6667654
Done it here >>6667682

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 17:17:17 2013 No.6667810 >>6667802 >Right. And if it's gothninja or not depends on the outfit, not on designers which have created the items for that. You have to understand it. what are the exact criteria, previous descriptions have the been nebulous and imprecise

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 17:17:17 2013 No.6667811 >>6667787 Okay. So which parameters are we talking about? Note: something like "look in the article" or "google it" is forbidden. You can copypaste it though if you are that hopeless.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 17:18:47 2013 No.6667818 >>6667811 >So which parameters are we talking about? do some research and find out, im not your mom

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 17:19:46 2013 No.6667822 >>6667818 backing off once again

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 17:20:49 2013 No.6667829 >>6667822 not really, im fine with having an accurate point of view. whether you agree or not isnt my concern.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 17:20:49 2013 No.6667835 >>6667829 Despite you don't have anything to prove your "point of view"? Too bad.

banana Sat Aug 10 17:21:49 2013 No.6667836

>>6667802
remove the words rick and yohji and you have two separate styles

a slim-fit outfit with a tight silhouette

&

a baggy outfit with a more drapey silhouette

These are way too different to group into one style

So you could not put them both under a single term unless it was nebulous

Thus gothninja is a nebulous term

Anonymous Sat Aug 10 17:21:49 2013 No.6667837

>>6667783
It stifles expansion because anything from zara to yohji = gothninja

What does that matter, if zara makes models based on designer clothes? The only thing that matters is the final look. Make an handmade gothninja outfit, or a victorian outfit, it's all the same.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 17:21:49 2013 No.6667838 >>6667835 >Despite you don't have anything to prove your "point of view"? yeah im pretty happy about that, it tends to be that way when your point of view accurately reflects reality.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 17:23:49 2013 No.6667851 >>6667836 Full yohji is hard to be called gothninja. I have to see the outfit on pic, words aren't enough here. And they aren't different as long as they follow gothninja style, which was described earlier.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 17:23:49 2013 No.6667855 >>6667851 regardless of the outfit, gothninja wouldnt be an accurate descriptor

>>	banana Sat Aug 10 17:24:49 2013 No.6667857 >>6667837 Zara clothes tent to look much worse For menswear, we have "dadcore" For gothninja, there is just "gothninja" Therein lies the issue

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 17:24:49 2013 No.6667858 >>6667838 Please prove your statement. As of now it looks like delusional bullshit.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 17:24:49 2013 No.6667862 >>6667855 Just like any other style.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 17:24:49 2013 No.6667863 >>6667858 thanks but im not really concerned how you feel.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 17:25:49 2013 No.6667869 >>6667862 yeah pretty much unless it was a specific style that had parameters accepted though wide consensus.

banana Sat Aug 10 17:26:49 2013 No.6667875

>>6667851
>Full yohji is hard to be called gothninja

But people still call it gothninja, and the slim one gothninja, thus the term is nebulous.

>gothninja style
If gothninja style encompaggs both a baggy drapey fit and a slim tapered fit, I propose that it is nebulous

Do you agree? (y/n)

Anonymous Sat Aug 10 17:26:49 2013 No.6667880

>>6667863
So your participation in that long discussion is concluded to "I am right so I don't have to back it up and actually I can't back it up because I am right".
This is a nice end to this: I grant you the right to leave the last word, kids like you just can't live without it.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 17:27:49 2013 No.6667883 >>6667869 For example?

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 17:28:50 2013 No.6667887 >>6667880 i mean sure if you misread the rest of the discussion, but yeah, deal with it however you want.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 17:28:50 2013 No.6667889 >>6667875 Whoever calls full yohji gothninja is clearly wrong. Don't follow his example. And I mean not his basics.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 17:28:50 2013 No.6667893 >>6667883 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victorian_fashion

>>	banana Sat Aug 10 17:29:50 2013 No.6667896 >>6667889 Respond to part two of my post

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 17:35:50 2013 No.6667932 >>6667893 But these parameters at your link aren't: 1. Exact. 2. Accepted through wide consensus.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 17:35:50 2013 No.6667935 >>6667896 No, I don't agree.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 17:36:51 2013 No.6667940 >>6667932 >1. Exact. its exact to the degree necessary to describe the style of dress >2. Accepted through wide consensus. yes it is, there is no debate about whether victorian fashion was an era of style or not.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 17:38:51 2013 No.6667954 >>6667940 What is this degree? Where does it lie?

banana Sat Aug 10 17:40:51 2013 No.6667957
File: 1.06 MB, 800x640, comparison.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6667935
So you are stating that a slim fit black outfit, and a baggy drapey outfit are easily encapsulated in the same style?

The outfits are in my image. Please replace any red garments with black in your mind

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 17:40:51 2013 No.6667959 >calling «Victorian clothing» a slang term PFFFFT BWAHAHAHA WHAT A FUCKING FAGGOT WHY DO YOU BOTHER REPLYING

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 17:40:51 2013 No.6667961 >>6667954 >What is this degree? the level that is necessary to describe the style of dress >Where does it lie? at the period from when the style developed to when it lost popularity

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 17:41:51 2013 No.6667964 >>6667957 Why do you call the right one gothninja?

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 17:42:51 2013 No.6667971 >>6667961 Ah, that's nice. I am too lazy to reread the thread but most definitions of gothninja written here were enough to describe that style of dress.

>>	banana Sat Aug 10 17:42:51 2013 No.6667974 >>6667964 I don't call it that. I am asking if you encapsulate them in the same style. It is a baggy drapy fit . Please answer the question with a yes or no :)

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 17:43:51 2013 No.6667977 >>6667971 hm. i read them and they werent, apparently there isnt a consensus.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 17:49:23 2013 No.6667996 >>6667977 We are talking about "wide", not "everyone". And wide audience of internet community has a consensus towards gothninja slang term and what it refers to. >>6667974 No.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 17:49:23 2013 No.6667998 >>6667560 fuck off ph

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 17:49:25 2013 No.6668001 >>6667996 nope, there is no wide consensus.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 17:50:25 2013 No.6668002 >>6667977 you call victorian clothing a slang term => you're stupid => your opinion isn't worth a cent

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 17:51:25 2013 No.6668006 >>6668001 >nope, there is no wide consensus. Care to prove that?

>>	banana Sat Aug 10 17:51:25 2013 No.6668008 >>6667996 define gothninja pls or link me the post where it is defined >>6667998 ph is azn

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 17:54:25 2013 No.6668017 >>6668008 >Gothninja is a terms for certain aesthetic, it describes draped clothes, layers, oversized hoods etc. It doesn't refer to a brand or to anything else except aesthetic

Anonymous Sat Aug 10 17:54:25 2013 No.6668020

>>6668006

yeah there are many people disagreeing in this thread, also ive seen multiple disagreements with the term on sz, and here is a discussion on the topic here with multiple people disagreeing with the term: http://www.styleforum.net/t/131495/random-fashion-thoughts/315

>>6668002

great, neither is yours

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 17:55:25 2013 No.6668025 >>6668017 >>6666186

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 17:57:25 2013 No.6668034 >>6668025 >>6667639

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 17:58:26 2013 No.6668038 >>6668020 It's just because you are uneducated and haven't seen any discussions about victorian clothing.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 17:58:26 2013 No.6668039 >>6668034 >>6667659

banana Sat Aug 10 17:58:26 2013 No.6668041
File: 55 KB, 686x1024, dats cool.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6668017
The baggy outfit contains
-draped clothes
-layers

why is it not "gothninja"?

Are you saying that all you need for "gothninja" is layers, draped clothes, and oversized hoods? I have attached a picture with all three. is this "gothninja"?

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 17:58:26 2013 No.6668044 >>6668039 >>6667659 is bullshit.

>>	banana Sat Aug 10 17:59:26 2013 No.6668048 File: 51 KB, 500x667, 3247324732648364732.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6668041 another outfit that meets your terms is this "gothninja"?

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 17:59:26 2013 No.6668050 >>6668038 >It's just because you are uneducated and haven't seen any discussions about victorian clothing. nope, i am educated, and yeah ive participated in discussions on victorian clothing.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 18:00:26 2013 No.6668056 >>6668044 nope, just read the post, its not.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 18:00:26 2013 No.6668057 >>6668041 You should learn what necessary and sufficient conditions are. After that you will understand why they aren't applicable to fashion.

>>	banana Sat Aug 10 18:00:26 2013 No.6668058 File: 92 KB, 500x720, 1375681585225.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6668048 one more

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 18:01:26 2013 No.6668061 >>6668056 Yes, read it, it is. You are just too stupid to understand that. Not ad hominem, just stating the obvious facts.

>>	banana Sat Aug 10 18:01:26 2013 No.6668062 >>6668057 The onus is on you to define gothninja, as you are defending it Define gothninja, and state why the pictures I posted are not gothninja

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 18:01:26 2013 No.6668065 >>6668057 if you learned that, it might make you realize that the term gothninja is effectively meaningless, too vague.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 18:02:26 2013 No.6668067 >>6668061 nope i actually just read it, its an on point and relevant post

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 18:03:26 2013 No.6668077 >>6668062 Ok. I will re-phrase since you don't understand. You should learn what necessary and sufficient conditions are. After that you will understand why they aren't applicable to fashion and why your request is stupid.

>>	banana Sat Aug 10 18:04:26 2013 No.6668084 >>6668077 If you cannot define something, it does not exist. You are evading my question because you cannot answer it.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 18:04:26 2013 No.6668085 >>6668065 Just like any other style, as was proved here before. Once asked for criteria you throw a tantrum of GOOGLE IT YOURSELF I DON'T KNOW ANYTHING.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 18:05:26 2013 No.6668089 >>6668077 Ok. I will re-phrase since you don't understand. Youre dodging the question, apparently banana is correct. have a nice day

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 18:05:28 2013 No.6668090 >>6668084 But I can and I have defined it. >Gothninja is a terms for certain aesthetic, it describes draped clothes, layers, oversized hoods etc. It doesn't refer to a brand or to anything else except aesthetic

>>	banana Sat Aug 10 18:06:28 2013 No.6668094 >>6668090 see >>6668041

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 18:06:28 2013 No.6668097 >>6668085 >>6667869

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 18:06:28 2013 No.6668101 >>6668089 Define a criteria of victorian clothing for me. Right here in this post, no links, no dodging. Make sure all criteria are mentioned and are exact.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 18:07:28 2013 No.6668106 >>6668101 in your post in this thread*

Anonymous Sat Aug 10 18:07:28 2013 No.6668114

>>6668101

Victorian fashion comprises the various fashions and trends in British culture that emerged and grew in province throughout the Victorian era and the reign of Queen Victoria, a period which would last from June 1837 to January 1901. Covering nearly two thirds of the 19th century, the 63-year reign would see numerous changes in fashion. These changes would include, but not be limited to, changes in clothing, architecture, literature, and the decorative and visual arts.

By 1907, clothing was increasingly factory-made and often sold in large, fixed price department stores. Custom sewing and home sewing were still significant, but on the decline. New machinery and materials changed clothing in many ways.

The introduction of the lock-stitch sewing machine in mid-century simplified both home and boutique dressmaking, and enabled a fashion for lavish application of trim that would have been prohibitively time-consuming if done by hand. Lace machinery made lace at a fraction of the cost of the old, laborious methods.

New materials from far-flung British colonies gave rise to new types of clothing (such as rubber, which made gumboots and mackintoshes possible.) Chemists developed new, cheap, bright dyes that displaced the old animal or vegetable dyes.

Anonymous Sat Aug 10 18:08:28 2013 No.6668118

>>6668114

Women's fashion

In the 1840s and 1850s, women's gowns developed wide puffed sleeves. Dresses were simple and pale. Realistic flower trimming were on dresses. Petticoats, corsets, chemises were worn under gowns. By the 1850s the number of petticoats was reduced and the crinoline was worn; as such the size of the skirts expanded. Day dresses had a solid bodice and evening gowns had a very low neckline and were worn off the shoulder with shawls.

In the 1860s, the skirts became flatter at the front and projected out more behind the woman. Day dresses had wide pagoda sleeves and high necklines with lace or tatted collars. Evening dresses had low necklines and short sleeves, and were worn with short gloves or fingerless lace or crocheted mitts.

In the 1870s, uncorseted tea gowns were introduced for informal entertaining at home and steadily grew in popularity. Bustles were used to replace the crinoline to hold the skirts up behind the woman, even for "seaside dresses".

In the 1880s, riding habits had a matching jacket and skirt (without a bustle), a high-collared shirt or chemisette, and a top hat with a veil. Hunting costumes had draped ankle-length skirts worn with boots or gaiters. Clothing worn when out walking had a long jacket and skirt, worn with the bustle, and a small hat or bonnet. Travelers wore long coats like dusters.

In the 1890s, Women's wear in the last decade of the Victorian Era was characterised by high collars, held in place by collar stays, and stiff steel boning in long line bodices. By this time, there were neither crinolines nor bustles. Women opted for the tiny wasp waist instead.

Anonymous Sat Aug 10 18:09:28 2013 No.6668123

>>6668118

In the 1870s, the fad of hoop skirts had faded and women strived for a slimmer style. The dresses were extremely tight around the corseted torso and the waist and upper legs; Punch ran many cartoons showing women who could neither sit nor climb stairs in their tight dresses.[1] The crinoline was replaced by the bustle in the rear. Small hats were perched towards the front of the head, over the forehead. To complement the small hat, women wore their hair in elaborate curls. Some women wore hairpieces called "scalpettes" and "frizzettes" to add to the volume of their hair.[1]

Anonymous Sat Aug 10 18:09:28 2013 No.6668127

>>6668123

Women's hats

Emma Hill by Ford Madox Brown (1853), a woman wearing a later version of the poke bonnet.
Opera singer Emmy Destinn wearing a plume-covered hat, around 1909.

Women's hats during the Victorian era are stereotypically thought of as the enormous, feather- and flower-laden creations that were fashionable in the late-Victorian period. They evolved through many trends over the decades before reaching the later style. The exaggerated structure of certain Victorian dress elements was part of an effort by designers to emphasise the popular silhouette of the moment. Millinery was incorporated into this design strategy. During the early Victorian decades, voluminous skirts held up with crinolines, and then hoop skirts, were the focal point of the silhouette. To enhance the style without distracting from it, hats were modest in size and design, straw and fabric bonnets being the popular choice. Poke bonnets, which had been worn during the late Regency period, had high, small crowns and brims that grew larger until the 1830s, when the face of a woman wearing a poke bonnet could only be seen directly from the front. They had rounded brims, echoing the rounded form of the bell-shaped hoop skirts.

Anonymous Sat Aug 10 18:10:28 2013 No.6668130

>>6668127

The silhouette changed once again as the Victorian era drew to a close. The shape was essentially an inverted triangle, with a wide-brimmed hat on top, a full upper body with puffed sleeves, no bustle, and a skirt that narrowed at the ankles[2] (the hobble skirt was a fad shortly after the end of the Victorian era). The enormous wide-brimmed hats were covered with elaborate creations of silk flowers, ribbons, and above all, exotic plumes; hats sometimes included entire exotic birds that had been stuffed. Many of these plumes came from birds in the Florida everglades, which were nearly entirely decimated by overhunting. By 1899, early environmentalists like Adeline Knapp were engaged in efforts to curtail the hunting for plumes. By 1900, more than five million birds a year were being slaughtered, and nearly 95 percent of Florida's shore birds had been killed by plume hunters.[3]

Anonymous Sat Aug 10 18:10:28 2013 No.6668132

>>6668114
>the 63-year reign would see numerous changes in fashion.
> These changes would include, but not be limited to, changes in clothing, architecture, literature, and the decorative and visual arts.
Yet someone complains about wideness of gothninja style. lol.

Anonymous Sat Aug 10 18:10:28 2013 No.6668135

>>6668130

Men's Fashion
Drawing of Victorian men 1870s

During the 1840s, men wore tight-fitting, calf length frock coats and a waistcoat or vest. The vests were single- or double-breasted, with shawl or notched collars, and might be finished in double points at the lowered waist. For more formal occasions, a cutaway morning coat was worn with light trousers during the daytime, and a dark tail coat and trousers was worn in the evening. The shirts were made of linen or cotton with low collars, occasionally turned down, and were worn with wide cravats or neck ties. Trousers had fly fronts, and breeches were used for formal functions and when horseback riding. Men wore top hats, with wide brims in sunny weather.

During the 1850s, men started wearing shirts with high upstanding or turnover collars and four-in-hand neckties tied in a bow, or tied in a knot with the pointed ends sticking out like "wings". The upper-class continued to wear top hats, and bowler hats were worn by the working class.

In the 1860s, men started wearing wider neckties that were tied in a bow or looped into a loose knot and fastened with a stickpin. Frock coats were shortened to knee-length and were worn for business, while the mid-thigh length sack coat slowly displaced the frock coat for less-formal occasions. Top hats briefly became the very tall "stovepipe" shape, but a variety of other hat shapes were popular.

During the 1870s, three-piece suits grew in popularity along with patterned fabrics for shirts. Neckties were the four-in-hand and, later, the Ascot ties. A narrow ribbon tie was an alternative for tropical climates, especially in the Americas. Both frock coats and sack coats became shorter. Flat straw boaters were worn when boating.

>>	banana Sat Aug 10 18:11:28 2013 No.6668139 >>6668132 you haven't offered a response to my post yet :) Are the pictures i posed gothninja? (y/n)

Anonymous Sat Aug 10 18:11:28 2013 No.6668140

>>6668135

During the 1880s, formal evening dress remained a dark tail coat and trousers with a dark waistcoat, a white bow tie, and a shirt with a winged collar. In mid-decade, the dinner jacket or tuxedo, was used in more relaxed formal occasions. The Norfolk jacket and tweed or woolen breeches were used for rugged outdoor pursuits such as shooting. Knee-length topcoats, often with contrasting velvet or fur collars, and calf-length overcoats were worn in winter. Men's shoes had higher heels and a narrow toe.

Starting from the 1890s, the blazer was introduced, and was worn for sports, sailing, and other casual activities.[4]

Throughout much of the Victorian Era most men wore fairly short hair. This was often accompanied by various forms of facial hair including moustaches, side-burns, and full beards. A clean-shaven face did not come back into fashion until the end of the 1880s and early 1890s.[5]

Distinguishing what men really wore from what was marketed to them in periodicals and advertisements is problematic, as reliable records do not exist.[6]

Anonymous Sat Aug 10 18:12:28 2013 No.6668143

>>6668140

Mourning black
Victoria's five daughters (Alice, Helena, Beatrice, Victoria and Louise), photographed wearing mourning black beneath a bust of their late father, Prince Albert (1862).

In Britain, black is the colour traditionally associated with mourning for the dead. The customs and etiquette expected of men, and especially women, were rigid during much of the Victorian era. The expectations depended on a complex hierarchy of close or distant relationship with the deceased. The closer the relationship, the longer the mourning period and the wearing of black. The wearing of full black was known as First Mourning, which had its own expected attire, including fabrics, and an expected duration of 4 to 18 months. Following the initial period of First Mourning, the mourner would progress to Second Mourning, a transition period of wearing less black, which was followed by Ordinary Mourning, and then Half-mourning. Some of these stages of mourning were shortened or skipped completely if the mourner's relationship to the deceased was more distant. Half-mourning was a transition period when black was replaced by acceptable colours such as lavender and mauve, possibly considered acceptable transition colours because of the tradition of Church of England (and Catholic) clergy wearing lavender or mauve stoles for funeral services, to represent the Passion of Christ.[7]

Anonymous Sat Aug 10 18:12:28 2013 No.6668146

>>6668143

Norms for Mourning

Manners and Rules of Good Society, or, Solecisms to be Avoided (London, Frederick Warne & Co., 1887) gives clear instructions, such as the following:[8]
Relationship to deceased First mourning Second mourning Ordinary mourning Half-mourning
Wife for husband 1-year, 1-month; bombazine fabric covered with crepe; widow's cap, lawn cuffs, collars 6 months: less crepe 6 months: no crepe, silk or wool replaces bombazine; in last 3 months jet jewellery and ribbons can be added 6 months: colours permitted are grey, lavender, mauve, and black-and-grey
Daughter for parent 6 months: black with black or white crepe (for young girls); no linen cuffs and collars; no jewellery for first 2 months 4 months: less crepe – 2 months as above
Wife for husband's parents 18 months in black bombazine with crepe – 3 months in black 3 months as above
Parent for son- or daughter-in-law's parent – – 1-month black –
Second wife for parent of a first wife – – 3 months black –

Anonymous Sat Aug 10 18:13:28 2013 No.6668150

>>6668146

The complexity of these etiquette rules extends to specific mourning periods and attire for siblings, step-parents, aunts and uncles distinguished by blood and by marriage, nieces, nephews, first and second cousins, children, infants, and "connections" (who were entitled to ordinary mourning for a period of "1–3 weeks, depending on level of intimacy"). Men were expected to wear mourning black to a lesser extent than women, and for a shorter mourning period. After the mid-19th century, men would wear a black hatband and black suit, but for only half the prescribed period of mourning expected of women. Widowers were expected to mourn for a mere three months, whereas the proper mourning period expected for widows was up to four years.[9] Women who mourned in black for longer periods were accorded great respect in public for their devotion to the departed, the most prominent example being Queen Victoria herself.

Women with lesser financial means tried to keep up with the example being set by the middle and upper classes by dyeing their daily dress. Dyers made most of their income during the Victorian period by dyeing clothes black for mourning.[10]

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 18:13:29 2013 No.6668152 >>6668139 I am another person. Respond to my post since you are against gothninja wideness.

Anonymous Sat Aug 10 18:14:29 2013 No.6668155

>>6668150

Victorian prudishness

Main article: Victorian morality
This section possibly contains original research. Please improve it by verifying the claims made and adding inline citations. Statements consisting only of original research may be removed. (May 2008)
"The proper length for little girls' skirts at various ages", from Harper's Bazaar, showing an 1868 idea of how the hemline should descend towards the ankle as a girl got older

Men's clothing is seen as formal and stiff, women's as fussy and over-done. Clothing covered the entire body, we are told, and even the glimpse of an ankle was scandalous. Critics contend that corsets constricted women's bodies and women's lives. Homes are described as gloomy, dark, cluttered with massive and over-ornate furniture and proliferating bric-a-brac. Myth has it that even piano legs were scandalous, and covered with tiny pantalettes.

Of course, much of this is untrue, or a gross exaggeration. Men's formal clothing may have been less colourful than it was in the previous century, but brilliant waistcoats and cummerbunds provided a touch of color, and smoking jackets and dressing gowns were often of rich Oriental brocades. This phenomenon was the result of the growing textile manufacturing sector, developing mass production processes, and increasing attempts to market fashion to men.[6] Corsets stressed a woman's sexuality, exaggerating hips and bust by contrast with a tiny waist. Women's ball gowns bared the shoulders and the tops of the breasts. The jersey dresses of the 1880s may have covered the body, but the stretchy novel fabric fit the body like a glove.[11]

Anonymous Sat Aug 10 18:14:29 2013 No.6668158

>>6668155

Home furnishing was not necessarily ornate or overstuffed. However, those who could afford lavish draperies and expensive ornaments, and wanted to display their wealth, would often do so. Since the Victorian era was one of increased social mobility, there were ever more nouveaux riches making a rich show.

The items used in decoration may also have been darker and heavier than those used today, simply as a matter of practicality. London was noisy and its air was full of soot from countless coal fires. Hence those who could afford it draped their windows in heavy, sound-muffling curtains, and chose colours that didn't show soot quickly. When all washing was done by hand, curtains were not washed as frequently as they might be today.

There is no actual evidence that piano legs were considered scandalous. Pianos and tables were often draped with shawls or cloths—but if the shawls hid anything, it was the cheapness of the furniture. There are references to lower-middle-class families covering up their pine tables rather than show that they couldn't afford mahogany. The piano leg story seems to have originated in the 1839 book, A Diary in America written by Captain Frederick Marryat, as a satirical comment on American prissiness.

Victorian manners, however, may have been as strict as imagined—on the surface. One simply did not speak publicly about sex, childbirth, and such matters, at least in the respectable middle and upper classes. However, as is well known, discretion covered a multitude of sins. Prostitution flourished. Upper-class men and women indulged in adulterous liaisons.

>>	banana Sat Aug 10 18:14:29 2013 No.6668159 >>6668152 oh sorry brah i'm not against its "wideness", i think its wide, aka nebulous

Anonymous Sat Aug 10 18:15:29 2013 No.6668162

>>6668158

Victorian women
See also: Women in the Victorian era
See also: Neo-Victorian

Some people now look back on the Victorian era with wistful nostalgia. Historians would say that this is as much a distortion of the real history as the stereotypes emphasising Victorian repression and prudery. Women were not allowed to swim, for it would be frowned upon as "bad etiquette". Women also had to wear special suits to ride bikes.

Also notable is a contemporary counter-cultural trend called steampunk. Those who dress steampunk often wear Victorian-style clothing that has been "tweaked" in edgy ways: tattered, distorted, melded with Goth fashion, Punk, and Rivethead styles. Another example of Victorian fashion being incorporated into a contemporary style is the Lolita Fashion.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 18:16:29 2013 No.6668170 >>6668118 >developed wide puffed sleeves. How wide should be the sleeve? I need exact measurements, thank you. >Dresses were simple and pale What dress is considered simple? Give me a criteria please. What is pale? Colour? I'd like to have an RGB code.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 18:17:29 2013 No.6668173 >>6668162 >>6668158 >>6668155 >>6668150 >>6668146 >>6668143 >>6668140 >>6668135 >>6668130 >>6668127 >>6668123 >>6668118 >>6668114 feel free to link me a article on gothninja at this level of detail any time!

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 18:18:29 2013 No.6668180 >>6668159 So how being "wide" contradicts to "being a style"? We have an example of style which has drastically changed here.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 18:18:29 2013 No.6668181 >>6668170 both points arent relevant to discussion, feel free to try again

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 18:19:29 2013 No.6668182 >>6668181 Youre dodging the question

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 18:19:29 2013 No.6668183 >>6668180 no, it was stated that gothninja is nebulous a long time ago

>>	banana Sat Aug 10 18:19:29 2013 No.6668186 >>6668180 I am merely saying it is nebulous/wide, do you agree?

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 18:19:29 2013 No.6668187 >>6668182 >>6668173

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 18:20:29 2013 No.6668189 >>6666186 none of these points arent relevant to discussion, feel free to try again

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 18:20:29 2013 No.6668193 >>6668187 Youre dodging the question

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 18:20:29 2013 No.6668194 >>6668189 >>6668173

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 18:21:29 2013 No.6668197 >>6668194 >>6668194

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 18:21:30 2013 No.6668201 >>6668197 >>6668194

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 18:22:30 2013 No.6668207 >>6668194 Youre dodging the question

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 18:23:30 2013 No.6668215 >>6668201 >>6668173

>>	banana Sat Aug 10 18:23:30 2013 No.6668216 >>6668207 he's dodging >>6668186 too

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 18:23:30 2013 No.6668219 >>6668207 >>6668173

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 18:25:30 2013 No.6668224 >>6668219 Youre dodging the question. What you've linked isn't an answer at all.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 18:25:30 2013 No.6668226 >>6668224 >>6668173

>>	banana Sat Aug 10 18:26:30 2013 No.6668227 >>6667857 respond to this too

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 18:26:30 2013 No.6668228 >>6668226 >>6668226

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 18:27:30 2013 No.6668232 >>6668219 >>6668197

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 18:27:30 2013 No.6668234 >>6668232 >>6668228 >>6668173

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 18:27:30 2013 No.6668236 >>6668226 >>6668187

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 18:28:30 2013 No.6668240 >>6667545 lel banana is such a faggot

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 18:29:30 2013 No.6668244 >>6668240 >>6668173 please respond

banana Sat Aug 10 18:30:32 2013 No.6668251

if you ignore me then its pretty much proof that i'm right

you've already admitted that
- designers don't acknowledge the term gothninja and tha
- A baggy drapey fit is very different from a slim tapered fit (see the image comparison)

You refuse to define gothninja because you cannot, even when asked more that three times

Whereas the other person readily defined "victorian fashion"

And your definition include the outfits I posted, but you refuse to acknowledge this because its true, and those outfits are clearly not gothninja

thus you are wrong

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 18:30:32 2013 No.6668254 >>6668251 fuck off you fat piece of shit

>>	banana Sat Aug 10 18:30:32 2013 No.6668258 >>6668240 that isn't me tho i've posted many fits and one of them is in the thread 2 :( >>6668254 i win nerd

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 18:31:32 2013 No.6668259 >>6668254 post a fit fat piece of shit

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 18:31:32 2013 No.6668260 >>6668258 It's you.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 18:31:32 2013 No.6668264 >>6668251 #rekt

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 18:32:32 2013 No.6668267 >>6668251 >those outfits are clearly not gothninja not any of the guys you were talking to but, how are they not?

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 18:32:32 2013 No.6668269 >>6668251 >those outfits are clearly not gothninja They are gothninja attempt. One is pretty close. What are you talking about?

banana Sat Aug 10 18:33:32 2013 No.6668271

>>6668260
did you even read the thread where it was posted
some guy just posted a random fb profile with a banana as its profile img

i dont understand y ur so angry at me why not admit to being wrong on the internet

i would have

im legit not angry at you stop it

>>6668267
>>6668269
which ones

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 18:33:32 2013 No.6668272 >>6668244 Please respond >>6668170

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 18:34:32 2013 No.6668276 >>6668271 so much butthurt over your fb profile leaked lel

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 18:34:32 2013 No.6668277 >>6668267 >>6668269 because they didnt fall under the umbrella that is considered gothninja

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 18:34:32 2013 No.6668279 >>6668272 >>6668181

>>	banana Sat Aug 10 18:35:32 2013 No.6668281 >>6668276 i dont have fb unfortunately i talk to my friends on skype how would someone even find mine if it existed lol, i never posted fb pics or my name

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 18:35:32 2013 No.6668282 >>6668277 Which umbrella are you talking about? What exactly makes them fall out of it?

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 18:35:32 2013 No.6668287 >>6668279 Too bad they are since they are the same type of questions you've asked about gothninja. Try again.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 18:36:32 2013 No.6668292 >>6668281 That excuse is definitely poor. Stop lying you fat fuck

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 18:36:32 2013 No.6668295 >>6668282 since no solid parameters exist, all details in the outfit are outside of the umbrella gothninja could potentially encompass

>>	banana Sat Aug 10 18:36:32 2013 No.6668297 >>6668292 you can think its me if you want and post it all over 4chan go ahead do it

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 18:38:33 2013 No.6668306 >>6668287 irrelevant, please post an article detailing gothninja to the level that the article on victorian fashion did. im not interested in how you feel

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 18:39:33 2013 No.6668313 >>6668306 Ah, so your own questions and arguments are irrelevant? I am glad you've admitted it.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 18:39:33 2013 No.6668317 >>6668295 Care to prove it?

>>	banana Sat Aug 10 18:40:33 2013 No.6668318 >>6668297 i'm waiting also, if all three of those fits were gothninja, or even one of them and the slim fit one posted earlier, that would be proof gothninja is nebulous

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 18:40:33 2013 No.6668321 >>6668313 if you dont understand my posts its fine, i dont expect everyone on 4chan to read properly.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 18:41:33 2013 No.6668324 >>6668317 >>6666186

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 18:41:33 2013 No.6668329 >>6668318 Of course not.

>>	banana Sat Aug 10 18:42:33 2013 No.6668333 >>6668329 of course not is response to which part of my post quote it pls

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 18:42:33 2013 No.6668335 >>6668321 At least you have guts to admit your failure. >>6668324 Irrelevant as you've admitted.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 18:42:33 2013 No.6668338 >>6668329 >that would be proof gothninja is nebulous you missed that part of the post

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 18:43:33 2013 No.6668341 >>6668333 >if all three of those fits were gothninja, or even one of them and the slim fit one posted earlier, that would be proof gothninja is nebulous

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 18:43:33 2013 No.6668342 >>6668335 >>6666186

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 18:43:33 2013 No.6668346 >>6668341 sorry, but thats proof no matter how you feel about it

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 18:43:33 2013 No.6668347 >>6668338 Yes, I did. Of course it's not the proof. Also leard to differ a style and a style attempt.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 18:44:33 2013 No.6668350 >>6668347 >>6668346

>>	banana Sat Aug 10 18:44:33 2013 No.6668351 >>6668341 so you are saying that if >>6667957 (left) and >>6668058 were both in the same style, it wouldn't be a nebulous style? Because that is what you are saying

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 18:44:33 2013 No.6668352 >>6668346 So you've failed once again. No matter how you feel about it, that's right.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 18:45:23 2013 No.6668362 >>6668355 neb·u·lous /ˈnebyələs/ (of an idea) Unclear, vague, or ill-defined.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 18:45:33 2013 No.6668355 >>6668351 Of course it's not.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 18:45:33 2013 No.6668358 >>6668352 >>6668346 #rekt

banana Sat Aug 10 18:48:23 2013 No.6668371
File: 57 KB, 350x321, 5426ac39c084b5f3f604a4f18c4152cf60ea193f.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6668355
If you think that those two very different images (the slim guy in a black tank, grey tee, shorts and sneakers, and the woman in a white oversized hood with some layering)

Are the same (defined, and not wide/nebulous) style, then I'm done here, you've pretty much been cornered

I just wanted 2 see if i culd do it

its ok 2 be rong on the internet friend

bye :)

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 18:48:23 2013 No.6668372 >>6668362 Yes, so that style wouldn't be nebulous. It's obvious.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 18:49:26 2013 No.6668377 >>6668372 >>6668351

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 18:49:26 2013 No.6668380 >>6668371 Of course. Why were you trying so hard with an argument which was discarded by that wiki article on victorian clothing?

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 18:50:26 2013 No.6668382 File: 318 KB, 827x640, slim.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6668372 lol

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 18:50:26 2013 No.6668383 >>6668377 Yes, it wouldn't. Are you disabled that I have to repeat myself?

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 18:50:26 2013 No.6668385 >>6668382 oh, those are both totally different styles

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 18:51:26 2013 No.6668387 >>6668385 thank you for admitting defeat

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 18:51:26 2013 No.6668388 >>6668383 theyre both totally different styles, super nebulous i saw the pics.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 18:51:26 2013 No.6668390 >>6668387 yeah tbh i agree, if those are both gothninja, its a nebulous term

>>	banana Sat Aug 10 18:52:26 2013 No.6668392 >>6668380 I just finished my finals today and was bored soz at least you have honour about it though im tired now

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 18:52:26 2013 No.6668395 >>6668390 basically meaningless even, idk why people even say it

>>	banana Sat Aug 10 18:53:26 2013 No.6668398 >>6668392 fuck i feel autistic af tho

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 18:53:26 2013 No.6668401 File: 579 KB, 620x599, vf.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6668385 >>6668387 >>6668388 >>6668390 >>6668392 >>6668395 Hey, stop samefagging, it's pathetic. Look here.

>>	banana Sat Aug 10 18:54:26 2013 No.6668409 >>6668401 im one of the posts lol i also think that one is nebulous 2 not saying it isnt

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 18:55:26 2013 No.6668416 >>6668401 nice, very cool pic, maybe they both fall in the victorian era. its funny because gothninja doesnt have any of those specific parameters defined under wide consensus that diffferent outfits would fall under. interesting.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 18:56:26 2013 No.6668422 >>6668409 Now just find me a modern style which isn't nebulous then. Except, maybe, slimane-core.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 18:57:27 2013 No.6668426 >>6668422 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steampunk

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 18:57:27 2013 No.6668427 >>6668416 They are from the same article, they are both victorian, yet they are totally different. I am trying to say NONE of the styles except uniform have these exact parameters.

>>	banana Sat Aug 10 18:57:27 2013 No.6668431 >>6668422 why exclude slimanecore i'm using that one lol

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 18:58:27 2013 No.6668438 >>6668426 So, how come it's not nebulous?

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 18:59:27 2013 No.6668442 >>6668427 >yet they are totally different. yeah but they both fall into the parameters of victorian fashion. there is nothing like that for gothninja

>>	banana Sat Aug 10 18:59:27 2013 No.6668446 guys pls stop its over :((((

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 18:59:27 2013 No.6668447 >>6668438 because it has clearly defined parameters through consensus

Anonymous Sat Aug 10 19:03:27 2013 No.6668464

>>6668447
Oh yeah.
https://marketplace.secondlife.com/p/RT-Junkyard-Queen-steampunk-dress-bundle/993443?id=993443&slug=RT-Junkyard-Queen-steampunk-dress-bundle
https://marketplace.secondlife.com/p/Grim-Bros-couture-mechalibrarian-steampunk-dress-BOXED/2072713
Really.

Totally same outfit, totally not nebulous.

>>6668431
Because for me it's pretty much defined and this is an exception. But you can give it a try and give me a verbal definition of slimane-core if you are so eager to use it.

>there is nothing like that for gothninja
There is. That's why pics above are gothninja attempts since they are trying to look like gothninja style.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 19:04:27 2013 No.6668474 File: 70 KB, 207x207, 1375818151089.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Thread Over ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Anonymous Sat Aug 10 19:05:28 2013 No.6668477

>>6668464

>Totally same outfit, totally not nebulous.

they both fall within the steampunk style parameters

>There is. That's why pics above are gothninja attempts since they are trying to look like gothninja style.

there are no clearly defined parameters through consensus, so no.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 19:05:28 2013 No.6668479 I wonder why banana always fails so hard. Only basedprophet failed more.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 19:06:28 2013 No.6668484 >>6668477 But there are. You are just too new to be here when it was discussed.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 19:07:28 2013 No.6668489 >>6668479 funny, in this thread at least his point of view was correct and failed to be disproven by the people responding. but yeah

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 19:07:28 2013 No.6668491 >>6668477 stop responding, he obviously just wants to win the arguement, you saw him try to make banana leave and he's making other posts to bait him back he just has autism >>6668479 he's not falling for the bait dude

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 19:07:28 2013 No.6668496 >>6668484 no theres not, youre just too new to realize that there are no set parameters

Anonymous Sat Aug 10 19:08:28 2013 No.6668502

>>6668489
Huh? All he tried to do is to prove that is a style is vague and 2 outfits of the same style aren't really similar: that was stupid with that article of victorian fashion floating around since it's started with a phrase EVERYTHING WAS CHANGED AND SO ON

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 19:09:28 2013 No.6668513 >>6668496 Parameters for gothninja are set to the same degree they are set to any other modern fashion.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 19:10:28 2013 No.6668515 >>6668502 well he did provide evidence that the term gothninja is effectively meaningless since there are no solid parameters, as proven by his photos.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 19:10:28 2013 No.6668519 >>6668515 See >>6668513

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 19:10:28 2013 No.6668520 >>6668513 no, that was disproven earlier when the article on steampunk was linked, the response to it was unable to refute.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 19:11:28 2013 No.6668524 >>6668519 that was already refuted earlier in the thread, youre regressing a bit

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 19:11:28 2013 No.6668530 >>6668520 So, which parameters are set to steampunk?

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 19:12:28 2013 No.6668535 >>6668524 >>6668520 No it wasn't. You fail to see the obvious facts.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 19:13:28 2013 No.6668542 >>6668530 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steampunk

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 19:13:28 2013 No.6668545 >feeding trolls

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 19:13:29 2013 No.6668546 >>6668535 no sorry it was refuted earlier in the thread, even if youre angry it was still refuted sorry.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 19:14:29 2013 No.6668548 >>6668542 So which part of this article is related to fashion and which parameters are set there? Don't miss anything.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 19:15:29 2013 No.6668550 >>6668546 No it wasn't. I don't care how you feel about that.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 19:15:29 2013 No.6668552 >>6668548 >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steampunk#Culture_and_community plus in various places in the rest of the article.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 19:16:29 2013 No.6668554 >>6668550 thats great, but it was refuted earlier regardless

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 19:16:29 2013 No.6668556 >>6668552 >Steampunk fashion has no set guidelines Ah, thank you for that link.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 19:17:29 2013 No.6668559 >>6668556 sure, all the parameters are still there though like i said

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 19:18:29 2013 No.6668569 >>6668556 hahahaha this is really funny. I thought you were trolling, searched the article and it's really there. after all this babbling about set parameters of steampunk linking an article which says there are none was gold.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 19:19:29 2013 No.6668571 >>6668569 >>6668559

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 19:19:29 2013 No.6668572 >>6668559 Expect there are none and your own article says that. Top lel.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 19:20:29 2013 No.6668573 >>6668572 except*

Anonymous Sat Aug 10 19:20:29 2013 No.6668574

>>6668572

here ill post some

Because of the popularity of steampunk, there is a growing movement of adults that want to establish steampunk as a culture and lifestyle.[86] Some fans of the genre adopt a steampunk aesthetic through fashion,[87] home decor, music, and film. This may be described as neo-Victorianism, which is the amalgamation of Victorian aesthetic principles with modern sensibilities and technologies.[8]

In September 2012, a panel was held at Stan Lee's Comikaze Expo, chaired by steampunk entertainer Veronique Chevalier and with panelists including magician Pop Hadyn and members of the steampunk performance group The League of STEAM, which suggested that because steampunk was inclusive of and encorporated ideas from various other subcultures such as goth, neo-Victorian, and cyberpunk as well as a growing number of fandoms, it was fast becoming a super-culture rather than a mere subculture.[88] Other steampunk notables such as Professor Elemental have expressed similar views about steampunk's inclusive diversity.[89]

Some have proposed a steampunk philosophy, sometimes with punk-inspired anti-establishment sentiments, and typically bolstered by optimism about human potential.[90]
Author G. D. Falksen, wearing a steampunk-styled arm prosthesis (created by Thomas Willeford), exemplifying one take on steampunk fashion.

Anonymous Sat Aug 10 19:20:29 2013 No.6668576

>>6668574

Steampunk fashion has no set guidelines, but tends to synthesize modern styles influenced by the Victorian era. This may include gowns, corsets, petticoats and bustles; suits with vests, coats, top hats[91] and spats; or military-inspired garments. Steampunk-influenced outfits are usually accented with several technological and "period" accessories: timepieces, parasols, flying/driving goggles, and ray guns. Modern accessories like cell phones or music players can be found in steampunk outfits, after being modified to give them the appearance of Victorian-made objects. Aspects of steampunk fashion have been anticipated by mainstream high fashion, the Lolita fashion and aristocrat styles, neo-Victorianism, and the romantic goth subculture.[8][38][71]

Steampunk became a common descriptor for homemade objects on the craft network Etsy between 2009 and 2011,[citation needed] though many of the objects and fashions bear little resemblance to earlier established steampunk descriptions. Thus the craft network may not strike observers as 'sufficiently steampunk' to warrant the description. Comedienne April Winchell, author of the book, Regretsy: Where DIY meets WTF, catalogs some of the most egregious and humorous examples on her website, "Regretsy".[92] The blog is popular among steampunks and even inspired a music video that went viral in the community and was acclaimed by steampunk "notables."[93]

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 19:21:29 2013 No.6668579 >>6668574 There are no set criteria there.

Anonymous Sat Aug 10 19:21:31 2013 No.6668581

>>6668576

Steampunk design emphasizes a balance between the form and function.[44] Like the Arts and Crafts Movement, this blurs the line between tool and decoration. Various modern utilitarian objects have been modified by enthusiasts into a pseudo-Victorian mechanical "steampunk" style.[9][45] Example objects include computer keyboards and electric guitars.[46] The goal of such redesigns is to employ appropriate materials (such as polished brass, iron, wood, and leather) with design elements and craftsmanship consistent with the Victorian era,[13][47] rejecting the aesthetic of industrial design.[44]

The artist group Kinetic Steam Works[48] brought a working steam engine to the Burning Man festival in 2006 and 2007.[49] The group's founding member, Sean Orlando, created a Steampunk Tree House (in association with a group of people who would later form the Five Ton Crane Arts Group[50]) that has been displayed at a number of festivals.[51][52] The Steampunk Tree House is now permanently installed at the Dogfish Head Brewery in Milton, Delaware.[53][54]

In May–June 2008, multimedia artist and sculptor Paul St George exhibited outdoor interactive video installations linking London and Brooklyn, New York, in a Victorian era-styled telectroscope.[55][56] Utilizing this device, New York promoter Evelyn Kriete organized a transatlantic wave between steampunk enthusiasts from both cities,[57] briefly prior to White Mischief's Around the World in 80 Days steampunk-themed event.[58]

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 19:21:31 2013 No.6668582 >>6668576 >Steampunk fashion has no set guidelines BWAHAHAHAH

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 19:22:31 2013 No.6668584 >>6668579 yeah but fortunately the parameters are all there, if you choose to not read them, thats fine, but they still exist.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 19:22:31 2013 No.6668589 >>6668582 >>6668581 >>6668576 >>6668574

Anonymous Sat Aug 10 19:23:31 2013 No.6668594

Okay, banana failed, sucked a dick and left, stubborn illiterate faggot with victorian fashion and steampunk can't stop sucking, guess he likes it.
That was a fun thread when you don't even understand what are you talking about. Hope you've learnt your lesson.

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 19:23:31 2013 No.6668598 >Steampunk fashion has no set guidelines

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 19:23:31 2013 No.6668599 >>6668589 >>6664381

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 19:24:31 2013 No.6668602 >>6668598 >>6668584

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 19:24:31 2013 No.6668607 >>6668594 >>6666186

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 19:25:31 2013 No.6668608 >>6668602 >>6665995

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 19:25:31 2013 No.6668609 File: 66 KB, 625x626, 1375831497441.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6668594

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 19:25:31 2013 No.6668610 >>6668608 >>6664381

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 19:25:31 2013 No.6668611 >>6668607 >>6667787

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 19:26:31 2013 No.6668613 >>6668610 >>6667439

>>	Anonymous Sat Aug 10 19:27:31 2013 No.6668620 >>6668611 >>6664381

>>	banana Sun Aug 11 00:12:04 2013 No.6670066 File: 10 KB, 300x250, kakarrot.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] hehehe

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]

/fa/ - Fashion