Originally Posted by Kepi

For Millennial men? Probably not until in and around the 2T. Nothing new anyway. We'll probably keep all the stuff amalgamated over the past 20 years, like different fits of pants, and the various athletic wear options, and a lot of the subculture fashions, but I think in a 1T environment, guys will want to wear what they've always worn. In a lot of ways the 1T is supposed to be a nice nap, I don't expect to see major innovations in adult men's fashion until late 1T, and that will probably be a young man's amalgamation. Kinda like you saw with early rockabilly styles in the 50's. Relatively simple and made up of things which already exist in men's fashion, just done a little different. I don't think it will be until the 2T when you start to see men experimenting with fashion trends. Artists have a habit of starting them when the grow up.

Now, there are times where fashion changes with the 1T, but that's when you're really altering the social fabric in a fundamental way. It'd take a whole lot, though, and I don't think that major changes are going to be in order. Even if we switch over to a Direct democracy, it won't be so novel a change in our direction that you'd see a drastic difference in dress to correct a division from the old world to the new.

Maybe this explains why to me it's always seemed like during the last high, men's fashion was a bit bland, boring and stagnant throughout whereas women's fashion continued it's influence with the dior "new look", then the early 50s polished look, then the late 50s frilly/fussy look, and then the early 60s minimal look. It's not that men's fashion didn't change at all, but I think it was more subtle compared to women's. And it wasn't really until the awakening that men's fashion started to be an influence again. So do you basically think the men's fashion during the 1T will pretty much be what it is now? After all, every era has a distinctive "look". Do you think it will pretty much be unchanged from now?

I find thinking about what the future will look like aesthetically interesting for some reason lol.

Originally Posted by TimWalker

Fashion? Its basically a womens' thing. For males the choices are limited, dull, and boring-so why care about clothes?

And there is a reason why men refer to formal garb as "monkey suits".

Men's fashion tends to be more varied in cut, women's tends to be more varied in over time. For women, at least in the past two turnings, it's been about competition. Check out skinny jeans. I've seen a grand total of maybe 3 girls look good in skinny jeans, but for several years that and high waisted mom jeans were the only available style. During this time, even though men's clothes gravitated towards a more form during style, you could still get, and can still get, clothes that are cut the same way they were in the 90's. When it comes to Men's business wear, the resurgence of the bow tie, the pocket square, and the double vented back on jackets as business casual wear are all changes to the fashion. However you can get traditional jackets and ties still.

However does anyone still actively want to dress like this regularly? Based on what I've seen over the past 10 years of work, not really. Men would rather be comfortable than flashy.

Originally Posted by hkq999

Maybe this explains why to me it's always seemed like during the last high, men's fashion was a bit bland, boring and stagnant throughout whereas women's fashion continued it's influence with the dior "new look", then the early 50s polished look, then the late 50s frilly/fussy look, and then the early 60s minimal look. It's not that men's fashion didn't change at all, but I think it was more subtle compared to women's. And it wasn't really until the awakening that men's fashion started to be an influence again. So do you basically think the men's fashion during the 1T will pretty much be what it is now? After all, every era has a distinctive "look". Do you think it will pretty much be unchanged from now?

I find thinking about what the future will look like aesthetically interesting for some reason lol.

Pretty much. Their might be some deviations in cut, but mostly I think men's fashion will largely stay the same. Much like there was very little change between during and after the war in men's fashion, I don't think you'll see much change. The same thing tends to happen with food, as a chef friend of mine noted. In a crisis, changes in food trends die. Awakening open them up more, but really in the 3T you see the opportunity for things to go all over the place.

The world wars and the cold war represented in my opinion the culmination of the secular age that began with the renaissance around 1450 and particulary flowered between roughly 1750 and the mid-20th century. I see an increasing religiousity and spritualist oriented ideologies becoming predominant over the next couple centuries, this trend I believe started in roughly the late 1960's.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Hey Kepi, enjoy this documentary that shows the 7 wonders of the Buddhist world.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H7ZIpVKZaI4

At this point, the host specifically mentions how the hippies helped bring Buddhism to America, and how big it has grown in "the last 40 years" since the 2T, as well as how it first came to America in the previous 2T. Boomers have had a good impact.
http://youtu.be/H7ZIpVKZaI4?t=1h1m34s

One of the 7 wonders of the Buddhist world is in Los Angeles, imagine that! And built in the 1980s.

The 2T has left its mark on Xers and Millennials too. The revolution is proceeding apace, as well as could be expected.


I'm not sure what you "get" New traditions exploded in the 2T. And old traditions were brought back, even as the superficial non-traditions of America were thrown out. Justifiably so, because they consisted of nothing at all.

The Romans did indeed create a world culture, by the standards of their time. There was lots of exchange in the Empire, and even with the east along the Silk Road. Then the new culture of Christianity conquered the Roman culture, although it was not what brought down the Empire itself. But that took 300 years. We are only a century or so into our own new "imperial" era. Our current civilization will be around another 400 years. Indeed, the West has already fallen. It fell in 1914. What has succeeded it, is the world culture (not a "coming" world culture, but the now-existing one!), which the West (and not America) created by making it possible. But the result is cultural exchange, just as happened in Rome.

And Christianity was a very rich source of art in the Western world; the biggest source by far in fact. No, you can't compare it to mariachi bands!

Yes, I do because variance is variance and all variance is pretty much good in cultural terms. I don't look at one culture's contributions and say it's good and another and say it's bad. I also don't pretend that imperialism is anything but imperialism, and imperialism is bad. That's something I can look at and say 100% of the time is exploitive and wrong. That goes for Roman, English, and American brandings just the same as the Babylonians, the Egyptians, and on and on and on. This isn't creating a one world culture, it's suppressing those cultures and cherry picking the parts of it our people want to consume. Most of the people who are Bhuddist in the US descend from the same cultural backgrounds Bhuddism flourished in. The 2T contribution to Buddhism here is America by people who come from non-Asian backgrounds is as Bhuddist as the Mithra cult was Zoroastrian.

Originally Posted by Kepi

Yes, I do because variance is variance and all variance is pretty much good in cultural terms. I don't look at one culture's contributions and say it's good and another and say it's bad.

It helps to do that, and it is only being honest. It's obvious and agreed upon by scholars that there is great and lousy art. It's a matter of inspiration and craftsmanship. Christian art in cathedrals and renaissance painting is great. Mariachi is ugly. The point is, don't expect Hispanics of the next generation to listen only to music of their own culture. People can hear things from everywhere now, and they will. Of course, your stated preferences sometimes make me think you yourself don't really listen to the music, but only to the words, so that would make it hard for you to say what's good.

I also don't pretend that imperialism is anything but imperialism, and imperialism is bad.

So you can judge what people do regarding rulership and state behaviors, but not what people do in the arts?

That's something I can look at and say 100% of the time is exploitive and wrong. That goes for Roman, English, and American brandings just the same as the Babylonians, the Egyptians, and on and on and on. This isn't creating a one world culture, it's suppressing those cultures and cherry picking the parts of it our people want to consume. Most of the people who are Bhuddist in the US descend from the same cultural backgrounds Bhuddism flourished in. The 2T contribution to Buddhism here is America by people who come from non-Asian backgrounds is as Bhuddist as the Mithra cult was Zoroastrian.

You can say imperialism is wrong, and I agree, but it has been the way of the world anyway since before 2000 BC, and it has effects you can't deny. European imperialism created a world culture through exploration and colonization, just as Rome's imperialism had done; and Western technology has further advanced it through communication and transportation. Cherry picking still means it's influential.

The world culture is just a fact; denying it is putting your head in your sand. Why are you doing that? To protect your idea that the 2T and Boomers were bad and hippies failed? If you saw the program, you could see that people of European descent have become Buddhists. The stats quoted indicate this also. The program was one good reference for you. I can also testify to its influence on me and many others I know. Racial and ethnic background means nothing at all anymore. We are one people on one Earth. And you don't spell Buddhism correctly. Why? Haven't you studied it? Why not?

Originally Posted by Cynic Hero '86

The world wars and the cold war represented in my opinion the culmination of the secular age that began with the renaissance around 1450 and particulary flowered between roughly 1750 and the mid-20th century. I see an increasing religiousity and spritualist oriented ideologies becoming predominant over the next couple centuries, this trend I believe started in roughly the late 1960's.

I agree with Cynic Hero '86. It must be a good day

One possibility is that we have entered a "chaotic" period between secular and religious ages. (See Sorokin's theory).

Originally Posted by Kepi

Men's fashion tends to be more varied in cut, women's tends to be more varied in over time. For women, at least in the past two turnings, it's been about competition. Check out skinny jeans. I've seen a grand total of maybe 3 girls look good in skinny jeans, but for several years that and high waisted mom jeans were the only available style. During this time, even though men's clothes gravitated towards a more form during style, you could still get, and can still get, clothes that are cut the same way they were in the 90's. When it comes to Men's business wear, the resurgence of the bow tie, the pocket square, and the double vented back on jackets as business casual wear are all changes to the fashion. However you can get traditional jackets and ties still.

However does anyone still actively want to dress like this regularly? Based on what I've seen over the past 10 years of work, not really. Men would rather be comfortable than flashy.

Well you know that's what I'm saying, the guys that are into fashion now will still be then and the guys that aren't won't.

Originally Posted by hkq999

Well you know that's what I'm saying, the guys that are into fashion now will still be then and the guys that aren't won't.

When fashion standards relax, they relax for everyone. What's interesting about the new standards of more formal men's wear is that the standards have been so relaxed by the general desire for casualness that nobody remembers the formal rules. Seperates are now considered a suit. I can wear a tie with a sweater and be considered dressed up. I can have the knees in my pants be only slightly less in measure to my waist size and that's all okay. The trend right now is to have a mismatched tie and pocket square. All this and when I dress like this people think I'm in formal wear because of what? A tie?

Tomorrow, I'm going to be wearing separates with a bow tie and sweater vest and people will say I'm dressed up. Meanwhile, I watch something like the Grammys and see someone in separates with no cumberbund and I think "I thought this was black tie?" And that's now where you're till expected to tuck in your shirts at a lot of places and t-shirts are not allowed. As time goes on I think fashion will exclusively be about subculture for men. To a certain degree it makes sense that there will be a few ska kids and a few goth and steam-punk aficionados who are pleased that they can now wear their preferred styles anywhere without having to tone it down or up... but for the overwhelming majority? Nah, bare mins.

When you lower the bar like that, it creates a drag. I'm in favor of this drag, even though I'd be somewhat of an eccentric under it.

Originally Posted by Kepi

When fashion standards relax, they relax for everyone. What's interesting about the new standards of more formal men's wear is that the standards have been so relaxed by the general desire for casualness that nobody remembers the formal rules. Seperates are now considered a suit. I can wear a tie with a sweater and be considered dressed up. I can have the knees in my pants be only slightly less in measure to my waist size and that's all okay. The trend right now is to have a mismatched tie and pocket square. All this and when I dress like this people think I'm in formal wear because of what? A tie?

Tomorrow, I'm going to be wearing separates with a bow tie and sweater vest and people will say I'm dressed up. Meanwhile, I watch something like the Grammys and see someone in separates with no cumberbund and I think "I thought this was black tie?" And that's now where you're till expected to tuck in your shirts at a lot of places and t-shirts are not allowed. As time goes on I think fashion will exclusively be about subculture for men. To a certain degree it makes sense that there will be a few ska kids and a few goth and steam-punk aficionados who are pleased that they can now wear their preferred styles anywhere without having to tone it down or up... but for the overwhelming majority? Nah, bare mins.

When you lower the bar like that, it creates a drag. I'm in favor of this drag, even though I'd be somewhat of an eccentric under it.

Well I'm just saying most guys aren't really interested in fashion, but the few that are right now will probably still be then. I don't really see it being much different to how things are now, except you won't have to look perfect for work. Like you said, people will probably be how they are now. But to be honest I think there is always some sort of popular fashion or dominant overall looks for most people, even if it's casual. A lot of guys my age wear tight pants and pastel shirts because it's in fashion. Or at least it was a year ago. I mean i'm sure if the fashion were bare minimum people would be following that. But my point is I don't see apathy for looks and trends in everyone, but obviously in some. The people who care aren't just going to suddenly change. To be honest, I already think rules are pretty relaxed..at least among younger people. But the people who care, still care.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

It helps to do that, and it is only being honest. It's obvious and agreed upon by scholars that there is great and lousy art. It's a matter of inspiration and craftsmanship. Christian art in cathedrals and renaissance painting is great. Mariachi is ugly. The point is, don't expect Hispanics of the next generation to listen only to music of their own culture. People can hear things from everywhere now, and they will. Of course, your stated preferences sometimes make me think you yourself don't really listen to the music, but only to the words, so that would make it hard for you to say what's good.

So you can judge what people do regarding rulership and state behaviors, but not what people do in the arts?


You can say imperialism is wrong, and I agree, but it has been the way of the world anyway since before 2000 BC, and it has effects you can't deny. European imperialism created a world culture through exploration and colonization, just as Rome's imperialism had done; and Western technology has further advanced it through communication and transportation. Cherry picking still means it's influential.

The world culture is just a fact; denying it is putting your head in your sand. Why are you doing that? To protect your idea that the 2T and Boomers were bad and hippies failed? If you saw the program, you could see that people of European descent have become Buddhists. The stats quoted indicate this also. The program was one good reference for you. I can also testify to its influence on me and many others I know. Racial and ethnic background means nothing at all anymore. We are one people on one Earth. And you don't spell Buddhism correctly. Why? Haven't you studied it? Why not?

When you mentioned Mariachi music, the thought came to me that Mariachi might be to this 3T/4T what, say, Polka music was to the last one which featured much immigration from Poland and other Eastern European nations. And how easy is it to find polka music today? Neither of the above mentioned styles have spawned any kind of real celebrity, although in polka Frankie Yankovic may have come the closest.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

It helps to do that, and it is only being honest. It's obvious and agreed upon by scholars that there is great and lousy art.

If there's one thing I'm sure of, it's that scholars don't agree. Not with what you just said, not with each other, not with me. They're a contrary bunch, scholars. Also, if you're talking about art scholars, you'd doubly be wrong. If most artists thought that art was best in the renaissance, they'd still be making art in that style. They don't, because there's absolutely no consensus amongst artists as to what makes art great or why.

It's a matter of inspiration and craftsmanship.

The primary inspiration for renaissance art was money. Church patronage meant a whole lot of money. Pretending that guys like Michelangelo started painting religious iconography just because or due to some divine inspiration is totally disingenuous. He did it because he got paid. The craftsmanship is also somewhat debatable. Most of the people who diverged from classical styles did so with full knowledge of technique on how to do them, and abandon them to do something new. Picasso is probably the best example of this.

Christian art in cathedrals and renaissance painting is great. Mariachi is ugly.

Mariachi is great. It's got some very intersting roots and influences, and the bands are expected to know pretty much the greater cannon of hits before they hit the stage. You can't get most musicians to play songs they wrote 3 albums ago of they weren't going to play them anyway. Latin rhythms are probably amongst the more complex in western folk music, and it's one of the few forms I can expect to diverge of the major or minor scales at times. Russian folk is probably the only other form of music I can regularly expect those things from... Except that whole "knowing hundreds of hits on command" thing.

The point is, don't expect Hispanics of the next generation to listen only to music of their own culture.

I don't either. Almost every culture in the world is producing punk and metal bands now. But they are punk and metal as interpreted by that culture. Hispanic punk bands pay punk using Latin rhythms and keeping to punk progressions, but flaring out with distinctly Hispanic riffs. There's distinct sonic difference and variance in how the music is done.

People can hear things from everywhere now, and they will. Of course, your stated preferences sometimes make me think you yourself don't really listen to the music, but only to the words, so that would make it hard for you to say what's good.

Right because I'm the guy who has a history of panning music where the only measurable distinction between the pieces he likes and doesn't is articulation in the vocals and can't articulate a single facet of music, preferring to hold to vague, in articulate, nonexact standards to reinforce his layman's prejudice. The rest of us aren't stupid, we know exactly what you're doingwhen you play that game.

So you can judge what people do regarding rulership and state behaviors, but not what people do in the arts?

Yes, ridership and the state is a temporary order which has measurable effects which end with that order. Art lasts for a much longer time and it's direct influence lasts as long as someone witnesses it.

You can say imperialism is wrong, and I agree, but it has been the way of the world anyway since before 2000 BC, and it has effects you can't deny. European imperialism created a world culture through exploration and colonization, just as Rome's imperialism had done; and Western technology has further advanced it through communication and transportation. [/QUOTE]

Western imperialism didn't create a world culture. Likewise, every empire trends to stifle innovation shortly after their inception, and concentrate disproportionately large stockpiles of wealth, stifling growth and innovation everywhere they go. Most empires are their most innovative and adaptive prior to their imperial phase, not during it.

Cherry picking still means it's influential.

Cherry picking usually means that the influence is only to suit a specific agenda. In this case it's usually a very lazy one, and that influence usually does once the participant either actually studies the religion and realized there's, like, rules and stuff, and it's like, just another religion that gets in the way of their, like, spiritual growth with all those things they'd have to do or once they get to their 20's. It's not a lasting influence, it's a shield.

The world culture is just a fact; denying it is putting your head in your sand. Why are you doing that? To protect your idea that the 2T and Boomers were bad and hippies failed? If you saw the program, you could see that people of European descent have become Buddhists.

I see that a very few have actually become Bhuddist, and most of the tourists leave quickly, and all mostly for the same reason: they don't want to participate in a religion that has expectations of them. That's not my own experience talking, either. See I have a fairly large Bhuddist temple about 20 miles from me. I talk to the clergy. I know laymen Bhuddists.

The stats quoted indicate this also. The program was one good reference for you. I can also testify to its influence on me and many others I know. Racial and ethnic background means nothing at all anymore. We are one people on one Earth.

Until it comes to things like socio-economic status, huh? All the things you preach, funny how they just allow people to systematically ignore injustice. Everybody's equal so long as we don't measure it?

And you don't spell Buddhism correctly. Why? Haven't you studied it? Why not?

Because when I stopped on this tablet, that's what came up. For the millionth time, I don't care about spelling. You obviously understood what I meant, that's more than good enough.

Originally Posted by hkq999

Well I'm just saying most guys aren't really interested in fashion, but the few that are right now will probably still be then. I don't really see it being much different to how things are now, except you won't have to look perfect for work. Like you said, people will probably be how they are now. But to be honest I think there is always some sort of popular fashion or dominant overall looks for most people, even if it's casual. A lot of guys my age wear tight pants and pastel shirts because it's in fashion. Or at least it was a year ago. I mean i'm sure if the fashion were bare minimum people would be following that. But my point is I don't see apathy for looks and trends in everyone, but obviously in some. The people who care aren't just going to suddenly change. To be honest, I already think rules are pretty relaxed..at least among younger people. But the people who care, still care.

See where I disagree is there are a lot of people who have a specific purpose in caring about fashion. If, for instance, fashion has little to no bearing on things like promotions or social standing, I think a lot of people will fall out of caring. If culture firmly homogenizes and nobody cares to carry on various subculture banners, people will fall out of caring. There are some people who just want to look good, but I'd that loses meaning due to extremely lowered standards what will they do? There are a few people who just like fashion or who have it so ingrained in their heads how to do it that those people will keep on, but as time goes on there will be fewer and fewer and fewer.

Originally Posted by Kepi

See where I disagree is there are a lot of people who have a specific purpose in caring about fashion. If, for instance, fashion has little to no bearing on things like promotions or social standing, I think a lot of people will fall out of caring. If culture firmly homogenizes and nobody cares to carry on various subculture banners, people will fall out of caring. There are some people who just want to look good, but I'd that loses meaning due to extremely lowered standards what will they do? There are a few people who just like fashion or who have it so ingrained in their heads how to do it that those people will keep on, but as time goes on there will be fewer and fewer and fewer.

Most people who care about fashion also care about expressing themselves through their clothing in general and also care about and have a fine eye for aesthetics. A lot of people just want to complement their body type. A lot of people want to look nice or good or polished or clubby or sexy or just experiment with colors or patterns. A lot of people just genuinely enjoy following trends and following the fashion industry. I don't understand why they would suddenly change? I see very little social pressure to dress a certain way these days (especially for guys) in the overall culture, unless it's high school or for work or some kind of event or in a broad sense (not wearing a disco suit or clown suit or mullet). But a lot people still enjoy everyday fashion today. So I don't know why this would change.

Do me a fair this week and pay attention to the number I'd wrist watches you see on Millennials. Try to develop a sense of what percentage (ball park, of course) are wearing wrist watches, and how much they are spending on them.

Originally Posted by Kepi

If there's one thing I'm sure of, it's that scholars don't agree. Not with what you just said, not with each other, not with me. They're a contrary bunch, scholars. Also, if you're talking about art scholars, you'd doubly be wrong. If most artists thought that art was best in the renaissance, they'd still be making art in that style. They don't, because there's absolutely no consensus amongst artists as to what makes art great or why.

There is a consensus and a canon of great art and music. Art was great in the renaissance, but the change of style was not because the old style wasn't great, but because there are other styles to pursue, silly.

The primary inspiration for renaissance art was money. Church patronage meant a whole lot of money. Pretending that guys like Michelangelo started painting religious iconography just because or due to some divine inspiration is totally disingenuous. He did it because he got paid. The craftsmanship is also somewhat debatable. Most of the people who diverged from classical styles did so with full knowledge of technique on how to do them, and abandon them to do something new. Picasso is probably the best example of this.

Ah, Kepi; more easy arguments to clear away Fine and dandy.

Just because in those days the aristocracy supported great art, does not mean that the artists were not inspired. That kind of thinking is exactly why many civic/nomad cuspers are so cut off from life and from what makes it beautiful. Of course Michaelangelo was divinely inspired. Nothing could be more obvious to those who can actually perceive and appreciate art. That new artists come along to explore new territory is just further testimony to the continuing inspiration that comes to great artists. To devalue art as you do, is to contribute to the denigration and degradation that characterizes American culture. Yes, American culture and art is dominated by money, to a great extent. That's why it's so lousy, and why pop culture is considered art. That's all most people know, again thanks to money-dominated media.

Mariachi is great. It's got some very intersting roots and influences, and the bands are expected to know pretty much the greater cannon of hits before they hit the stage. You can't get most musicians to play songs they wrote 3 albums ago of they weren't going to play them anyway. Latin rhythms are probably amongst the more complex in western folk music, and it's one of the few forms I can expect to diverge of the major or minor scales at times. Russian folk is probably the only other form of music I can regularly expect those things from... Except that whole "knowing hundreds of hits on command" thing.

So that horrendously-ugly mariachi music is "great," along with that horrible punk stuff you posted a while back. So something must be "great" then, in its own right; not because the artists got paid? OK, then why not appreciate the great art then, and not the junk? Complex rhythms? What about the other things that make music great?

I don't either (think Hispanics will only be interested in music of their own culture). Almost every culture in the world is producing punk and metal bands now. But they are punk and metal as interpreted by that culture. Hispanic punk bands pay punk using Latin rhythms and keeping to punk progressions, but flaring out with distinctly Hispanic riffs. There's distinct sonic difference and variance in how the music is done.

Fine then, they will add their influences from their cultures to the mix. That's what a world civilization is all about. That's what we got. And there's no reason to think young Hispanics will like one form of lousy music any better than another. And white punk bands will pick up on those Hispanic rhythms too. Fine and good.

Right because I'm the guy who has a history of panning music where the only measurable distinction between the pieces he likes and doesn't is articulation in the vocals and can't articulate a single facet of music, preferring to hold to vague, in articulate, nonexact standards to reinforce his layman's prejudice. The rest of us aren't stupid, we know exactly what you're doing when you play that game.

I don't know who you are talking about; yourself perhaps? Certainly not me

And art is a technical pursuit, just like engineering and science and the other dried-up merely-intellectual stuff you materialist nomad/civics do? Bah!

(over-generalizations on my part again, oh well )

Western imperialism didn't create a world culture. Likewise, every empire tends to stifle innovation shortly after their inception, and concentrate disproportionately large stockpiles of wealth, stifling growth and innovation everywhere they go. Most empires are their most innovative and adaptive prior to their imperial phase, not during it.

Of course Western imperialism created a world culture. That is the consensus of historians. Western art was innovative throughout Western history, so I don't know what you mean in that case. The Roman Empire created a lot of exchange in the arts, religion and philosophy. Imperial periods are no better than other ones, and arguably not as good, but they do have the effect of spreading things around. How great a culture an empire creates is beside the point. My point is that empires create cross-cultural currents and blends, regardless of quality. Quality IS AND REMAINS solely a function of the artist's inspiration-- divine inspiration. Soli Deo Gloria. And Bach remains better than punk.

Cherry picking usually means that the influence is only to suit a specific agenda. In this case it's usually a very lazy one, and that influence usually does once the participant either actually studies the religion and realized there's, like, rules and stuff, and it's like, just another religion that gets in the way of their, like, spiritual growth with all those things they'd have to do or once they get to their 20's. It's not a lasting influence, it's a shield.

So Hispanic punk artists are cherry-picking too. People influenced by Buddhism are cherry-picking. It does not matter. The influences are there. The whole world past and present is our heritage now. That's our unique fact of history and you can't ignore it.

I see that a very few have actually become Bhuddist, and most of the tourists leave quickly, and all mostly for the same reason: they don't want to participate in a religion that has expectations of them. That's not my own experience talking, either. See I have a fairly large Bhuddist temple about 20 miles from me. I talk to the clergy. I know laymen Bhuddists.

But you can't even spell the word correctly. What does that say about your level of acquaintance with Buddhism? Not much, I'd wager. You don't have to become a Buddhist monk either to be influenced by the philosophy. It's as much a part of our cultural foundation and background now as Christianity or Judaism or Islam. All the world is our heritage.

Until it comes to things like socio-economic status, huh? All the things you preach, funny how they just allow people to systematically ignore injustice. Everybody's equal so long as we don't measure it?

Status varies among all races and peoples. Yes, just like yourself, most people are not yet awake to the new world we entered since the 1890s. It takes time. So there's some lingering racism around, and the lingering effects of white domination for 500 years. If we understand that we are now one people on one Earth, and that this is a fact and not an ideal, social justice will follow, as it should.

Originally Posted by Kepi

Do me a fair this week and pay attention to the number I'd wrist watches you see on Millennials. Try to develop a sense of what percentage (ball park, of course) are wearing wrist watches, and how much they are spending on them.

Uh is this question directed at me? Haha..I don't know what that has to do with anything..wrist watches are kind of outdated and I don't know any millenials who go have a professional career. I don't know why anyone would wear one otherwise. Also you don't haves to buy expensive things to like fashion.

Originally Posted by hkq999

Uh is this question directed at me? Haha..I don't know what that has to do with anything..wrist watches are kind of outdated and I don't know any millenials who go have a professional career. I don't know why anyone would wear one otherwise. Also you don't haves to buy expensive things to like fashion.

And there's my point. Wrist watches used to be an expected feature of fashion. It didn't have to be expensive (swatches), but the expectation created competition, which encourages fashion. I figured watches were dead in 2006 because your cellphone was more accurate and everyone's had a time display, right? By and large I was right. Millennials don't wear watches. Then I started working for a transit company that requires certain personnel to wear wrist watches. That requirement means that I'm seeing a lot of cooperative watch wear even in offices and departments that don't require watches to be worn.

When you reduce expectations, you reduce the status derived from that expectation, and you kill off the motivation to try at superfluous goals because people will aim for goals that actually mean something to people. Fashionistas will become eccentrics in this equation.

Originally Posted by Kepi

And there's my point. Wrist watches used to be an expected feature of fashion. It didn't have to be expensive (swatches), but the expectation created competition, which encourages fashion. I figured watches were dead in 2006 because your cellphone was more accurate and everyone's had a time display, right? By and large I was right. Millennials don't wear watches. Then I started working for a transit company that requires certain personnel to wear wrist watches. That requirement means that I'm seeing a lot of cooperative watch wear even in offices and departments that don't require watches to be worn.

When you reduce expectations, you reduce the status derived from that expectation, and you kill off the motivation to try at superfluous goals because people will aim for goals that actually mean something to people. Fashionistas will become eccentrics in this equation.

Hmm..well the thing is I don't think of fashion of having to necessarily be about competition. The competition of fashion is pretty much dead at this point. Fashion is also about the aesthetics of clothing and expression through clothing. This doesn't have anything to do with competition necessarily, and most of the people who like fashion today like it for this purpose. There are too many people like this to label them as, "eccentric". I don't see why they won't be here twenty years from now, their interest and appreciation and fashion doesn't stem from competition. Let's face it, competing through fashion and judging by fashion is pretty much a high school thing. Most people today don't shun people for not wearing the latest trends. I'm not sure grown adults ever did this, unless it was to shun someone for not being able to afford trends. That may go too, but again fashion will not because the majority of people who take the effort to dress fashionable today do it because it genuinely interests them.

Originally Posted by hkq999

Hmm..well the thing is I don't think of fashion of having to necessarily be about competition. The competition of fashion is pretty much dead at this point. Fashion is also about the aesthetics of clothing and expression through clothing. This doesn't have anything to do with competition necessarily, and most of the people who like fashion today like it for this purpose. There are too many people like this to label them as, "eccentric". I don't see why they won't be here twenty years from now, their interest and appreciation and fashion doesn't stem from competition. Let's face it, competing through fashion and judging by fashion is pretty much a high school thing. Most people today don't shun people for not wearing the latest trends. I'm not sure grown adults ever did this, unless it was to shun someone for not being able to afford trends. That may go too, but again fashion will not because the majority of people who take the effort to dress fashionable today do it because it genuinely interests them.

It's not about shunning. Competitions have rewards. Fashionable men would land fashionable women, go farther in the careers, etc, etc. This has been a long standing tradition in our culture to be well dressed. If there's no longer a correlation between fashion and success, then the fashion industry will lose money to something else and this will inhibit their ability to produce new looks. They'll go really conservative in terms of variety in order to maintain a predictable amount of income because the alternative will so frequently fail. Also, if Chas and I are correct that the 1T world emphasizes sincerity, fashion could very well be seen as insincere or an indicator of insincerity or somehow attempting to alter someone's status visually, and boom, out.

Originally Posted by Kepi

It's not about shunning. Competitions have rewards. Fashionable men would land fashionable women, go farther in the careers, etc, etc. This has been a long standing tradition in our culture to be well dressed. If there's no longer a correlation between fashion and success, then the fashion industry will lose money to something else and this will inhibit their ability to produce new looks. They'll go really conservative in terms of variety in order to maintain a predictable amount of income because the alternative will so frequently fail. Also, if Chas and I are correct that the 1T world emphasizes sincerity, fashion could very well be seen as insincere or an indicator of insincerity or somehow attempting to alter someone's status visually, and boom, out.

Er..no. It would be more insincere if someone pretends not to care but they actually do. Have you not been reading what I've been saying? I'm not talking about people who care about how they dress because they have to, I'm talking about those who do because they want to. If you think the only reason people put any thought into what they're wearing is success and social climbing, you're mistaken. And you already don't have to dress well to be successful. Bill Gates? Mark Zuckerburg? This has already happened. Except for certain professions. But overall, dressing well isn't really an indicator of success anymore and hasn't been for a while. If fashion was only about looking "well dressed" and "advancing your career" there'd be no such thing as casual fashion. But this is what the fashion industry has focused on for the last 15 years. Because people these days mostly dress casual when they go out and about. You are making the mistake of thinking fashion is always about success and competition but it's frequently not. I am not talking about fashion in a competitive sense! I'm talking about expression and aesthetics. This is what the mainstream fashion industry is mostly about these days. Besides, you really think guys wore those ugly sweaters in the mid 90s to compete or for rewards? A lot of times, people just wear something because it seems that it's what to wear at the time.

What you seem to be talking about is an anti-fashion attitude. A kind where millenials reject any value to clothing other than as comfort and protection and all dress as simply and the same as possible. This is simply not how millenials are. If this were true, you'd think this attitude would've manifested itself by now. It hasn't. Just the popularity of a show like project runway or gossip girl completely rejects this idea..obviously there is a lot of diversity in the shows millies like but these are shows with a predominantly young audience. In fact, I can't think of a single generation that has ever adopted this attitude. Keep in mind, I'm speaking of generations as a whole..not individual people. Btw..being well-dressed is always going to have some rewards because well-dressed people just look more out together and pleasing. A person in a fitted coat is always going to look better to people than a person in a jacket from walmart..I'm not saying that's good or bad but it's true. The well-dressed person could be disliked because they are perceived as snobbish..but this has always been the case. Were yuppies not mocked in the 80s?

Also, if the next 1T is about sincerity that would be odd considering that's really not what 1Ts are supposed to be about. Aren't 1Ts about conformity, keeping up appearances, and sort of putting on a show? Sincerity seems more 2T or 3T. I mean 1Ts are about society over individual, 3Ts are about individual over society. Unless the theory of alternating turnings is true..

You don't think that a sincerity movement wouldn't start or well intentioned, do exceedingly well for a decade, and then get crushed under the weight of its own hypocrisy and contradiction like every other human movement ever, do you? There will be a certain amount of freedom that comes from it, then over time it will become stale, and in that state it will become binding. But really, when I look at GIs, they had a lot of fashion freedom early on in their lives and spent the 3T owning very little in the way of clothing. Usually the fashion budget went to their wives.

Why? We're they disinterested in fashion all the sudden? I don't think so. There's a reason they tend to wear higher waisted pants (zoot suits). It was because they would rather put their money towards other things. At 45, GIs were more interested in their houses and cars than they were clothes. I expect Millennial men to follow this pattern, except instead of their cars it will be about their devices. I don't think we'll see a return to the equivalent of a 3-7 suit standard, but I think that fashion is kinda... Less exciting as you get older. Like, when I was in high school, it was really exciting. In college it was this personalized, signature thing. Now it's kinda secondary. I take time to keep my wardrobe in good repair, and I make sure I have all the parts I've always had, provided that it no longer looks silly for a man my age to wear, but honestly, I'm more excited about my telescopic mechanical mod coming in two weeks or the new laptop I might be getting in the next six months. Considering wardrobe costs, I really think that when faced with the decision of getting a new lawn mower drone (or whatever) versus a new expensive suit... I think a 45 year old is going to choose the drone.

As to what a 1T is about... I think they can be about a lot of things. I look at it as a time when people set society on auto pilot and do anything they have to to keep people in a certain degree of metaphorical slumber and rest. There's a lot of activity in terms of everyday commerce and building and growth, but I think that most of it isn't an aggressive keeping up with the Jones's thing as much as it is an attempt to keep everything calm.

Originally Posted by Kepi

You don't think that a sincerity movement wouldn't start or well intentioned, do exceedingly well for a decade, and then get crushed under the weight of its own hypocrisy and contradiction like every other human movement ever, do you? There will be a certain amount of freedom that comes from it, then over time it will become stale, and in that state it will become binding. But really, when I look at GIs, they had a lot of fashion freedom early on in their lives and spent the 3T owning very little in the way of clothing. Usually the fashion budget went to their wives.

Why? We're they disinterested in fashion all the sudden? I don't think so. There's a reason they tend to wear higher waisted pants (zoot suits). It was because they would rather put their money towards other things. At 45, GIs were more interested in their houses and cars than they were clothes. I expect Millennial men to follow this pattern, except instead of their cars it will be about their devices. I don't think we'll see a return to the equivalent of a 3-7 suit standard, but I think that fashion is kinda... Less exciting as you get older. Like, when I was in high school, it was really exciting. In college it was this personalized, signature thing. Now it's kinda secondary. I take time to keep my wardrobe in good repair, and I make sure I have all the parts I've always had, provided that it no longer looks silly for a man my age to wear, but honestly, I'm more excited about my telescopic mechanical mod coming in two weeks or the new laptop I might be getting in the next six months. Considering wardrobe costs, I really think that when faced with the decision of getting a new lawn mower drone (or whatever) versus a new expensive suit... I think a 45 year old is going to choose the drone.

As to what a 1T is about... I think they can be about a lot of things. I look at it as a time when people set society on auto pilot and do anything they have to to keep people in a certain degree of metaphorical slumber and rest. There's a lot of activity in terms of everyday commerce and building and growth, but I think that most of it isn't an aggressive keeping up with the Jones's thing as much as it is an attempt to keep everything calm.

I don't disagree with you that a lot of men may choose to by devices instead of other things. I can sort of see this happening because I see it right now in some people. But the thing is, at least right now, it's not a general thing and I don't think a lack of interest in fashion is a general thing among millennial guys right now (there is variety). Just as many guys I know would save up to buy that trendy pair of sneakers as those who'd save up to buy the new iPhone. Who knows though, maybe like the GIs, millennials will suddenly show more of what you're talking about in mid-life (I don't think the GIs really starting showing their strong core traits until the high began). But even during the last high in mid-life, GI men worse pastel colored shirts and pullover sweaters, bermuda shorts, looser cuffed-pants, corduroy jackets, and broad double-breasted suits. This was all technically fashion of the time. A pastel colored shirt isn't something men wear to compete or show off..it's just the predominant look of the time that they wear because everyone else is and it's what's selling and is in stores. It's like those light colored high waisted causal jeans in the 80s or the large loose shirts in the 90s. They are just what men were buying..but if a man decided to not wear it he wouldn't be any less..which is why those things weren't based on social standing. So what I'm saying is, there is always a certain fashion or look of a certain time..even if it's more practical and utilitarian.

I think formal wear will be worn less during the next 1T (the formal wear of the 20s and 30s was unchanged in the late 40s and 50s but worn much less often). I actually don't think expensive brands will be as important in the next 1T because unfortunately, I don't see this 4T turning out well (and I think another financial crisis is coming soon that will be worse the the 2008 one). I don't think there are going to be times of excess again until at least the next 2T. That wouldn't mean general trends like size or color going away though (which seem to come no matter what).

What period do you belong to?

Just for Fun (rather trivial questions)
http://www.buzzfeed.com/samstryker/w...-really-belong

What Period In History Do You Really Belong In?

You got: Imperial China
Hey there, trendsetter! You’ve started a dynasty of awesome, because no one knows what will be hot earlier than you. Who cares if everyone else is copying you — you came up with it first, anyway!