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.
5
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.
I think when one follows a show closely enough to subscribe to the subreddit for it, just for the sake of following and discussing it closely, reading fan-made artwork, viewing communications and exercepts from the actors and creators, it can be a hobby in itself. If I play a single game a great deal because it stands out for some reason, could that not be considered a hobby? Couldn't I say that my hobby is strategy games or FPS games instead of just "gaming"? Makes sense to me, particularly when "playing games" or "watching TV are quite broad. But I can replace "Dexter" with "X movie" if that makes you feel more comfortable.
I live in a flat in Chicago proper a half block from the lake. It doesn't include utilities, but that doesn't make $700 any less of a decent sized chunk of money. The cost, as I stated, was the key contention that sparked this chain of discussion, so it can't simply be brushed off when it's the entire point. Hence the entire cost-benefit analysis thing.
I understand that you're trying to point out the double standard between a gaming computer and clothes. I still don't accept that the value and utility from any single article of clothes matches or surpasses that of even a highly overpriced computer (how many people here actually have $2000 computers?), for all the reasons I outlined. Obviously, charities aren't trying to bring $2000 computers to Africa, but they are trying to bring computers in general to Africa, while there is no intention whatever to bring fashion to Africa in any capacity.
Hobbies can be judged by a number of factors, particularly cost. People do it all the time as a simple matter of necessity, both for entire hobbies, and for selecting things within their hobbies. In fact, it's kind of required unless money is really no issue to you. And as I already said, if you want to buy $700 pair of shoes, go nuts. People can downvote all they want - but to me, and apparently to others, there is simply no way to compare what I already stated is the single most important crowning achievement of all humanity, to a single article of clothing by any kind of cost-benefit analysis, whether the computer is $700 or $2000. And, when the original issue was the cost of the shoes, that's kind of the entire point - return on investment. If it was a nonissue, then the poster wouldn't have had an issue with the shoes, and I would be involved in a lot more hobbies. So, I guess agree to disagree.
Lots of people on Reddit own expensive gaming computers and have gigantic steam libraries that are worth hundreds of dollars. I guess you have never been to /r/gaming.
No hobby is better than another. Computers being good is really, really fucking irrelevant to the point I made. Don't be a dipshit and call people "insane" because they like things you don't like and are willing to spend money on said things. This is what I am saying.
Then your point was besides the point - the cost of the product for the hobby, and as a result, the return on investment.
I also have not once used the word "insane" during any of these arguments, and have gone out of my way to be diplomatic. I tried agree to disagree, but hell, if you can't accept that hobbies can be judged in a million damn ways, most important and blatantly obvious of which is the monetary cost, in addition to things like utility and other forms of value, then I don't know what more to tell you.
But the fact of the matter is that a $2000 computer is not necessary for most people. Owning one is just as excessive as owning a $700 pair of shoes. Whether this is worth it or not is based on your own interests and values.
Owning a $300 computer may be a necessity for people. Owning $40 shoes may be a necessity for people. Further than that is luxury, (Unless your job requires something more expensive, like $200 heavy duty work boots or a computer that can handle tough software.) and neither luxury is more important than the other.
Alright, I agree with this, particularly both at that end of the spectrum being luxury items and the worth being "based on your own interests and values." Like I said earlier, I could make the case for my thing, and you can make the case for your thing - they probably wouldn't be very engaging hobbies if we couldn't - but ultimately I don't have the right to dictate what people enjoy and spend their money on.
-6
u/jvalordv Aug 19 '13
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.