If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Yahoo)   Increasingly across the country the term "fashion police" is becoming literally true, as people can face up to six months in jail for wearing clothes lawmakers don't like   (news.yahoo.com) divider line 372
    More: Asinine  
•       •       •

18728 clicks; posted to Main » on 17 Sep 2007 at 9:51 AM (6 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



372 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all
 
2007-09-17 11:14:26 AM
miseducated: cheshirecatsmileyface: a generation that made themselves famous by defying cultural norms and ushering decades of hippy peace, free love and abundant drug use and now, they're threatening people with jail time for wearing baggy pants.

Sumptuary laws have been crisscrossing generations for hundreds of years now. In 17th century Japan, it was illegal for commoners to carry umbrellas. In the 1940s, zoot suits, popular with Mexicans and blacks, were deemed illegal because they were 'extravagant of fabric'.

Now it's low-rise jeans with thongs, and baggy pants.

Blatant hypocrisy aside, people in power will always attempt to force their moral code on others. Especially those others who have the least ability to remove those in power.


I award you 100 bonus points for the correct use of the word Sumptuary. The difference between the cited examples and these new laws rests on thier justifications. The Japanese (and European) clothing laws of the 16-17th century were all about enforcing the visual separation of the Nobility from the increasingly wealthy middle classes. The at least obstensible reason for the Zoot Suit ban was that the silk supplies were low (interrupted by the Japanese occupation of China) and needed as a war material (parachutes).

This however is a throwback to the ultra-conformist mindset of the McCarthy-era America where your haircut or your choice of clothes immediately branded you as "undesireable". I don't think itws an accidnet that this kind of pressure to conform came first during the "red scares" of the 50's and now during the "terrorism scares" (brown scares?)of the 00's
 
2007-09-17 11:15:51 AM
lilplatinum: As someone who thinks that people who wear baggy pants with half their ass out should be shot, I think these lawmakers should be shot.

LOL

FTFA:

At Trenton hip-hop clothing store Razor Sharp Clothing Shop 4 Ballers, shopper Mark Wise, 30, said his jeans sag for practical reasons.

"The reason I don't wear tight pants is because it's easier to get money out of my pocket this way," Wise said. "It's just more comfortable."


If you want to wear your pants loose, fine. But please don't make up bullsh*t reasons for why you wear your pants loose.
 
2007-09-17 11:16:02 AM
8bit4life: and by you people, I mean men. Women aren't really people from what I hear.

You're a very bangable sex object. All good looking women are until you open your mouth and make us decide if you're more than that or not.
 
2007-09-17 11:16:51 AM
8bit4life
Sarcasm? I can never tell with you people.

Sarcasm, HELL NO. With pictures like that how could you not know? *fap* *fap* *fap*

and by you people, I mean men. Women aren't really people from what I hear.

Damn right woman, now make me an omelette (i keed, i keed)

\i have a MAME machine
\\does that mean i can put on my wizard hat now?
 
2007-09-17 11:18:08 AM
mmm... pancake: Actually, what I posted was nearly verbatim from some other Farker in another thread where someone claimed that everyone else's health care, retirement, education, etc. was my responsibility. I just thought that since those things were my responsibility that it was also my responsibility to dictate what everyone else could wear. I don't see why this justification wouldn't work in this case too.

And that indeed is the problem: You don't see the difference.
 
2007-09-17 11:18:19 AM
While I agree that people have the right to let their pants hang down to their knees if they so wish, I have to say... you idiots who dress like this look retarded. But it makes me giggle, so I can't really complain. XD
 
2007-09-17 11:18:44 AM
MusicMakeMyHeadPound: masonreloaded

That's a +1 for awesome right there.


This.
 
2007-09-17 11:20:06 AM
and this article makes me think of the neighborhood watch people in Hot Fuzz for some reason.
 
2007-09-17 11:20:17 AM
ciberido:
And that indeed is the problem: You don't see the difference.



There is no difference. None.
 
2007-09-17 11:21:45 AM
Racism/exposure/cultural blah blah blah.

Who gives a rat's arse?

What I want to know is this:

When Paris/Lohan/Britney etc were flashing their cunnies last summer or whenever the world was atwitter over it but there were no repercussions.

I can assure you though, if it was some male celeb flashing his wang he would have been arrested, placed on a sex offender list, and all the photogs who glimpsed his organ would have sued for "sexual harassment" or some such phantom offense.

What gives?

Why the double standard?
 
2007-09-17 11:21:58 AM
I blame MTV
 
2007-09-17 11:22:36 AM
8bit4life: and this article makes me think of the neighborhood watch people in Hot Fuzz for some reason.

For the greater good. Aparently, the neighborhood watch were followers of the Tau'va.
 
Ox
2007-09-17 11:23:17 AM
Land of the free and home of the brave indeed..
 
2007-09-17 11:24:14 AM
8bit4life: Clandestine digital operative: Holy flirking shnit, 8bit4life is the hottest farkette I've ever seen! Just look at this tattoo (SO COOL!!!)
And just so I'm not threadjacking:
Pants . . . yadda, yadda, yadda . . . black people . . . yadda, yadda, yadda . . . 2 jews and a mexican . . . Jesus Christo DE MUERTE . . . yadda, yadda, yadda . . . Penis.

Sarcasm? I can never tell with you people.


After checking your myspace, it definately wasnt sarcasm.. damn!
 
2007-09-17 11:24:35 AM
mmm... pancake: You don't have a Constitutional right to wear what you want. We live in a civilized society and it's a privilege to do so. If you want to live in a civilized society you have to play by society's rules. If you don't like it, move somewhere else.

Most legal scholars agree that the right to free speech encomapsses a general freedom of expression, and that actually does extend, in most cases to choice of clothing. O'Brien vs US , 391 U.S. 367 (1968) stated cleary that an obscenity conviction of a man wearing a T_shirt that said "fark the Draft" could was not Constitutional as his choice of t-shirt was celarly expressing a point of view and was therefore protected by the 1st amendment
 
2007-09-17 11:25:21 AM
8bit4life: and by you people, I mean men. Women aren't really people from what I hear.

Just to add to the chorus, holy shiat.

Relax. You're stunning.
 
2007-09-17 11:25:42 AM
8bit4life: and this article makes me think of the neighborhood watch people in Hot Fuzz for some reason.

My block is forming a group that's trying to make it a better place to live.

It is eerily similar to the neighborhood watch from Hot Fuzz. I'm trying really hard not to let it turn into that.
 
2007-09-17 11:26:00 AM
FarkinOgre: The ex prison guard who works with me told me that the style started in prison, and that when you wear your pants like that in prison you're looking for teh buttsecks.

I wonder how these "fashion conscious" folks would feel if they knew they were advertising teh gay.

======================================================

I once knew this slavemaster who said he used to call people "ni&&er" to be disrespectful and now some people use it as a term of endearment.

What's that?

Sometimes things change? Unpossible.

Oh, and speaking of gay, your homophobia is showing.
 
2007-09-17 11:26:25 AM
czarangelus: 1) Negroes wear baggy pants.
2) We don't like negroes!
3) Make baggy pants illegal.
4) ???
5) All the negroes are in jail! Another victory for truth, justice, and the American way


rims.
 
2007-09-17 11:26:29 AM
As long as my "No Fat Chicks" shirt remains legal, I'm good.
 
2007-09-17 11:26:40 AM
I_Can't_Believe_it's_not_Boutros: Relax. You're stunning.

Yes, 8bit4life is a hottie but let's not deviate from the topic at hand. We can come back to that after I've left work and can ogle her profile pics.
 
2007-09-17 11:27:22 AM
FTA:There's a fear with people associating the way you dress with crimes being committed."

This some good talking makes.
 
2007-09-17 11:27:37 AM
MugzyBrown: If I was at a children's playground with just a thong on staring at kids, do I still have freedom of expression?

I've got to agree with MugzyBrown's point and the tiger dude picture. There are times when freedom of expression is not such a good idea and if you can't make a good decision on your own I guess it's not such a bad idea if you have some government guidance. While making a law on baggy pants is a huge waste of time maybe it'll help people look in the mirror and regain some personal pride.

//This is not 'Nam. There are rules.
 
2007-09-17 11:27:53 AM
The Icelander: I_Can't_Believe_it's_not_Boutros: Relax. You're stunning.

Yes, 8bit4life is a hottie but let's not deviate from the topic at hand. We can come back to that after I've left work and can ogle her profile pics.


yeah...let's not turn this into one of those threads...
 
2007-09-17 11:28:14 AM
darkmayo: After checking your myspace, it definately wasnt sarcasm.. damn!

Yeah, I hope she doesn't take back that black dress. That'd be a shame.
 
2007-09-17 11:28:27 AM
Sooo, how's that 'War on Terrorism' going for ya?
 
2007-09-17 11:29:23 AM
The Icelander: mmm... pancake: Small Government kept close to home is the most realistic solution. The more centralized power there is, the more abuse there will be.

I wasn't aware the Federal government was outlawing saggy pants. Seems to me that it's mostly cities and municipalities doing it, and it's just now creeping up to the state level.

Besides, it's not like we're living in a dictatorship. WE are the government. If we don't like something, we have the power to change it. (I realize it's not that simple and there need to be reforms to have the government better reflect the will of the people.)

If this law is unpopular, people will be voted out of office and it will be changed.


Democracy: Two wolves and a sheep deciding whats for dinner.
 
2007-09-17 11:30:22 AM
They could wear these pants...


img515.imageshack.us
 
2007-09-17 11:32:29 AM
The Icelander: If this law is unpopular, people will be voted out of office and it will be changed.

Or more likely in this case, ruled unconstitutional.
 
2007-09-17 11:33:00 AM
Hey, the guy worked at a prison, and he said that the prisoners that did it were advertising for gay sex. Even if Snopes doesn't agree, I'd say he's a reliable source.
 
2007-09-17 11:34:30 AM
If they would ban pink shirts for men...I would be in favor of the law.

And no camoflage clothes unless you are actually surrounded by forest.
 
2007-09-17 11:34:41 AM
At first I thought this article would be about Iran. But I wasn't too surprised to find out that it's right here at home.
 
2007-09-17 11:36:12 AM
Hey, the guy worked at a prison, and he said that the prisoners that did it were advertising for gay sex. Even if Snopes doesn't agree, I'd say he's a reliable source.

Or a liar who hates sagging and thinks it's funny to make it seem as though hardcore gangsters are secretly advertising for teh buttsecks.
 
2007-09-17 11:36:36 AM
WhiteLarryBird: I've got to agree with MugzyBrown's point and the tiger dude picture. There are times when freedom of expression is not such a good idea and if you can't make a good decision on your own I guess it's not such a bad idea if you have some government guidance.

Subtle, yet, not enough hot points to get others to take the bait. 5/10
 
2007-09-17 11:37:59 AM
Setinotathome img526.imageshack.us How that turned into this is unbelievable

Why is pregnancy unbelievable?
 
2007-09-17 11:38:34 AM
we_hates: I'd like to see a law put into place - one that says before you can hold any public office, you have to pass a test on basic Constitutional law.

That is interesting, because every single lawmaker is sworn to uphold the constitution...

Can they be held in contempt or purjury for that swearing in if you can prove they either haven't done so, or have passed laws that eventually prove to be unconstitutional?

or is that "to the best of my ability" an "out" for them?
 
2007-09-17 11:42:42 AM
impaler: Why is pregnancy unbelievable?

Because Setinotathome doesn't know where babies come from yet.

\burn
 
2007-09-17 11:42:49 AM
Clandestine digital operative: \i have a MAME machine
\\does that mean i can put on my wizard hat now?


Winkawaks is a better capcom emulator, unless you have very fast hardware.

/and yes, I'm completely aware of how worthy of derision that is
//but I leave the thread, I won't see any derision
 
2007-09-17 11:44:25 AM
 
2007-09-17 11:44:34 AM
poopflingster: Can they be held in contempt or purjury for that swearing in if you can prove they either haven't done so, or have passed laws that eventually prove to be unconstitutional?

To my knowledge that has never happened anywhere. Basically, I think they're just held to their honor, so you can see how that works out.
 
2007-09-17 11:46:15 AM
remember too that if three people are randomly dressed similarly on a streetcorner, even if meeting police dress codes, they can be pulled in as a suspected gang members in some places like San Jose, CA
 
2007-09-17 11:46:28 AM
damn, the crack trend is really starting to sag.
 
2007-09-17 11:47:32 AM
Preston Preston: You can even lose your children if the courts don't like how you express your first amendment rights.

Is that a promise?
 
2007-09-17 11:49:12 AM
8bit4life is teh hawtness...;)

/not lesbian...again
//oh, and

And just so I'm not threadjacking:
Pants . . . yadda, yadda, yadda . . . black people . . . yadda, yadda, yadda . . . 2 jews and a mexican . . . Jesus Christo DE MUERTE . . . yadda, yadda, yadda . . . Penis.


This

7th Son of a 7th Son

you're welcome...I'm 9 of 9
 
2007-09-17 11:50:08 AM
img.villagephotos.com

Everyone knows a man-skirt is much more fashionable...
 
2007-09-17 11:51:22 AM
I think we need to FORCE some social order lest we become like the well rounded folk from idiotcracy.

I'm sorry, you can wear a shirt that says "gangsta power!" but the minute you can't manage to wear pants, shorts, etc, around your damn waist is where I have to question what purpose you even serve or how little IQ power is at your control. Dressing like that is why people can't take them serious or why others have no problems with enforcing "draconian" dress codes.

And in all honesty, unless you want to live in poverty your entire life, it wouldn't hurt to pull up the pants, go to school, and stop trying to be dope stupah fly mo'fo you know what I'm saying, oh yeah, that's it.
 
2007-09-17 11:51:24 AM
trippdogg
i201.photobucket.com

why yes it is...
 
2007-09-17 11:52:52 AM
WhiteLarryBird: MugzyBrown: If I was at a children's playground with just a thong on staring at kids, do I still have freedom of expression?

I've got to agree with MugzyBrown's point and the tiger dude picture. There are times when freedom of expression is not such a good idea and if you can't make a good decision on your own I guess it's not such a bad idea if you have some government guidance. While making a law on baggy pants is a huge waste of time maybe it'll help people look in the mirror and regain some personal pride.

//This is not 'Nam. There are rules.

===========================================================


The problem comes when you leave things like this to interpretation. Because this segment of the population is so unliked almost anything that they do is vilified. We are all intelligent enough to know the difference between a guy who's pants are too big and a guy with face tatoos and piercings but it is in the best interest of some to try and act as if that division does not exist. Instead of attacking the people who you don't like (and risking labels or racist or Uncle Tom) you attack their "culture" and the things associated with them. Before the baggy pants and the grills were sent up as a sign of the coming apocalypse it was cornrows/dreadlocks and tatoos. I'm old enough to remember when it was said that only hoodlums wore hoodies, Timberlands, and starter jackets. It has NOTHING to do with the actual dress of these people.

If the same segment of the population suddenly thought it was cool to wear Brooks Brothers suits people would say the same things.
"Look at that ni&&er in that suit. I bet he's drug dealing scum."

I'm a professional and off the clock my pants are probably what many of you would consider baggy. Anyone who thinks I need to justify my clothing by showing my office or my bank account can eat a dick. It should not suprise anyone though. Of course the same people who thought that they could judge the character of a person by looking at his skin are stupid enough to judge based on the length of his jeans.
 
2007-09-17 11:55:57 AM
but the minute you can't manage to wear pants, shorts, etc, around your damn waist is where I have to question what purpose you even serve or how little IQ power is at your control

They can wear their pants correctly, they just choose not to in order to project a certain image. That's like saying, "Guys with long hair don't know how to go to a barber! They're all stupid!" Saggers may not be projecting an image that you like or can identify with, but that doesn't make them idiots.

And in all honesty, unless you want to live in poverty your entire life,

You have a point here, to some degree, but it's not illegal to be poor, or have a crappy education, or whatever. It's their decision. There are plenty of unemployed or poorly-employed people out there who don't sag. And remember, just because you don't know of any "decent" people who sag, doesn't mean there aren't any. Again, the IT guys at my job sag and I'm sure they're making decent money. Some (though not all) of them even have college degrees.
 
2007-09-17 11:57:40 AM
poopflingster: we_hates: I'd like to see a law put into place - one that says before you can hold any public office, you have to pass a test on basic Constitutional law.

That is interesting, because every single lawmaker is sworn to uphold the constitution...

Can they be held in contempt or purjury for that swearing in if you can prove they either haven't done so, or have passed laws that eventually prove to be unconstitutional?

or is that "to the best of my ability" an "out" for them?


Well some laws are passed in good faith, other laws are absolutely unconstitutional and everyone knows it will be struck down. The lawmakers should have to pay all the fees that the state spent defending a law that was blatantly unconstitutional.
 
Displayed 50 of 372 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report