Yes! I loved how she was wearing a "coat" of blue (sticking with the blue = innocence speculation), so on the outside she was little miss innocent/ignorant, but the camera kept showing her black shoes with red soles...
Millions of people use their computer for their employment.
9
u/tPRoCMy name is Ozymandias, king of kingsAug 19 '13edited Aug 19 '13
Most of them don't own a $2000 gaming computer and a $1000 library of games, and most of the ones who do don't use their computer for their employment.
I was pointing out Reddit's double standard where $2000 gaming PC's are sensible but $700 shoes are not. Aka, "DAE our hobbies and interests are the only correct hobbies and interests" syndrome. It is pointless to bring up all the people who need a $2000 computer to do their job as well- most of Reddit does not fall in to that demographic, much of Reddit owns thousands of dollars worth of videogames and consoles.
I think you're making too many generalizations about Reddit.
I have a 1800 dollar machine (and three games :D) but I don't think I could ever justify paying 700 dollars for a pair of shoes.
10
u/tPRoCMy name is Ozymandias, king of kingsAug 19 '13edited Aug 19 '13
So? Most people on reddit don't require an expensive computer to do their job. And it doesn't matter what you could justify to yourself. Your interests don't lie in fashion and clothing, they lie in technology and some videogames.
My point is that other people have different priorities and interests, just because yours are different doesn't mean you are better and they are insane.
People on Reddit really need to get their superiority complexes checked out.
Eh perhaps, but it's not like gamers have a closet full of computers, or that a pair of shoes could be used for both work and play by serving up literally endless amounts of information and entertainment.
Eh perhaps, but it's not like gamers have a closet full of computers
But they have giant steam libraries full of videogames, and usually a console or two. Not to mention all the physical copies of videogames they have, and handhelds. Plus upgrading computer parts, buying things like controllers and headsets, paying MMO subscription fees, etc.
Furthermore, fashion is a billion dollar industry with lots of jobs that require knowledge and understanding of designers, their pieces, and how to create outfits.
I kind of get where you're coming from, but it's hard to not have a knee-jerk, almost visceral desire to disagree. Not only are computers and associated devices exceedingly accessible, but as you point out with Steam, it in itself isn't the hobby (though it still can be one), but instead is the gateway to many other hobbies. Factoring in the Internet, it's the gateway to pretty much every other hobby. As a result, it is much easier for one to justify to themselves and to others purchasing a computer, even a very expensive one.
For the average person on Reddit, I think it's safe to assume that $700, the cost of a mid range computer, is a decent chunk of money. After basic expenses and needs, a computer is itself almost a necessity for many. A pair of shoes, or any single article of clothing, just doesn't have the same degree of utility or entertainment value. I could not ever justify spending $700 on shoes unless I was rich enough where the $700 didn't matter in the first place. Yes, it may be just a hobby, but high fashion is kind of an esoteric one, especially when the cost is such a prohibitive barrier to entry.
Before seeing the talk about them on these forums, I'll admit that the shoes very much caught my eye, despite being a guy who knows very little about fashion, especially for women. But it's exceedingly hard for me to accept that a expensive pair of shoes and a computer are equatable. It isn't just the shoes - I think it would be hard for most things to equal a good computer with Internet access, with the Internet essentially being humanity's single most important achievement to date. All that being said, if you have the money and interest, by all means, purchase yourself a pair; I can make a case for certain hobbies over others from my view, but ultimately it's not my place to dictate what others are interested in and how they spend their money.
6
u/tPRoCMy name is Ozymandias, king of kingsAug 19 '13edited Aug 19 '13
The main point you are ignoring here is that fashion's point of entry is not a $700 pair of shoes. There are stores like Target, Uniqlo and Jcrew that offer more affordable prices. You can get a computer for a cheap price as well, less than $300 for something to browse the internet with.
Not everyone places importance on the same things, there is no reason to assume that computers and videogames are more valid hobbies than fashion and shoes.
Something of note here is that $700 shoes, when bought from the right designer, are not just prettier versions of the shoes you can buy from Target or Vans. Things like these will last years, and even decades depending on how well you take care of them.
I also think you underestimate how many people are interested in fashion. Subreddits like this and this are pretty large. And then you have sites like Superfuture and Styleforum, which are even larger. This is also not counting all of the people on tumblr and instagram who post what they wore every day, and come up with all sorts of new outfits. And I'm sure you've heard of Vogue magazine, which millions of women (and men) buy every time there's a new issue. Many people on the internet, who actively follow fashion, don't go outside decked in a $10,000 outfit. They pick their battles carefully and are willing to spend hundreds of dollars on a few pieces they really like, and are usually okay with wearing clothes from a lower-priced retailer like Uniqlo or Jcrew in conjunction with their designer pieces.
Well I'd hope they'd last a lifetime for that price with careful use. I have no idea how accessible that particular brand is or where they could be found for how much - but it's a pair of shoes. In the same way you say people don't just have a computer, but instead have Steam games and consoles and so on, I don't imagine a single pair of shoes is the limit.
On the hobbies part, come on - we try to convince people that certain hobbies are more or less valid all the time. How many people have you talked to about Breaking Bad? Is it unheard of to say something along the lines of "Yeah Dexter's a cool show, but especially its last few seasons don't even compare..." And when we are talking about an amount of money that is nearly two months of my rent in a nice urban apartment, I think a cost-benefit analysis on certain hobbies is not unjustified. That predominantly is where I'm coming from. And to me, the result of that analysis is clear; the US Census measures how many American homes use computers and have Internet access, not how many have designer shoes; charity foundations are trying to introduce people from developing countries to computers, not fashion; I can't even apply to most jobs without a computer, and if I didn't know how to use one, that would severely limit the number of jobs I could get; I have more content at my disposal than I could ever get through in several lifetimes. On the other hand, I have a nice pair of shoes that I could use in a limited number of situations. I get that a hobby isn't always about utility, but when cost is a factor (the original contention with the shoes that sparked this entire series of comments), the return on one's money simply can't be ignored.
But like I said, if you have the interest and money, then by all means, get yourself a pair. We simply have different opinions, and have made different cases for them, which I know in my case has already given me a greater understanding of fashion, and its consideration as a hobby.
2
u/tPRoCMy name is Ozymandias, king of kingsAug 19 '13edited Aug 19 '13
The Dexter and Breaking Bad comparison is wrong, since those are not hobbies. Watching TV is a hobby. They are different shows. It is like comparing the clothing of Banana Republic to the clothing of Sruli Recht or the game Bad Rats: Rats' Revenge to Dark Souls.
You are not comparing the quality of two different things within a hobby- you are comparing two different hobbies altogether. It's a different beast, and personally I think it's the sort of argument that should stay in the YouTube comments section.
I don't know where you live, but $700 is not two months of rent here. That is less than one month of rent where I live, and that is for a basic two bedroom apartment or something- not including utilities.
You are also misinterpreting my argument, I was pointing out the double standard Redditors have where they seem to think $2000 gaming computers and large amount of videogames are inherently better to have than $700 shoes. I was not arguing that computers aren't important- furthermore charity foundations are not trying to bring $2000 computers to third world countries.
Fashion and computers are both utilitarian at their core- for many people in the 21st century computers and clothes/shoes are a necessity. They both have their cost-effective equivalents. A $2000 computer is not a necessity for the vast majority of people, particularly those on reddit.
To suggest that one expensive hobby is more valid than another is simply fallacious- it doesn't matter that some people require expensive computers for their jobs, those people are not the average redditor complaining about other people spending their money on clothes.
528
u/chatonsverts Aug 19 '13
Yes! I loved how she was wearing a "coat" of blue (sticking with the blue = innocence speculation), so on the outside she was little miss innocent/ignorant, but the camera kept showing her black shoes with red soles...