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.

 (wwl.com) 90 More: Spiffy, Fark, parish president
•       •       •

3761 clicks; posted to Main » on 11 Apr 2013 at 3:58 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:    more»

 Paginated (50/page) Single page Single page, reversed Normal view Change images to links Show raw HTML Show posts from ignored users
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

mama2tnt: skozlaw: FlameDuck: Do young people still wear saggy pants? I haven't seen any around in a long time. The law should be more general. Anything that offends us old farts and is worn by youth we disapprove should be banned!

Some of them have switched to ball-crushing skinny jeans.

I find that trend equally galling.

Young women: look up "tight pants = yeast infections."

Tight pants on hot chicks make by dough rise.

Young men: look up "sagging pants make it hard to run away from trouble or the law."

And this is a "bad thing"?

TreeHugger: When people talk about how they hate the baggy pants, often it seems obvious to me that they are channeling their dislike for the person who is inhabiting the pants, who is black 99% of the time. It confuses some folks when they see people who have a different subculture, different skin color, clothing, hair, and behavior patterns than what they are accustomed to -- it makes some people uncomfortable. So they channel that discomfort into discussing the most obvious target (the pants). Something must be done! Call the authoritah!

I'm skeptical of that claim.  I see a great deal of white and latino men as well.  I might believe 50-60% black, but I just don't buy that it's a "black" thing or that it's racism.  Stupid? yes.  Racist? no.

Are we seriously legislating what kind of clothes people can wear now? Seems like it's time to drop the pretense of being a "free country."

I saw one of these losers fall on his face on the bus once because he couldn't move his legs. I swear everyone on the bus laughed out loud. I damn near shiat myself it was so funny.

I have no problem with the saggy pants look, because frankly some kids look good in their underwear*, but since they've replaced it with those stupid pre-made saggy 80s girley pants that Cousin Beiber** wears that look like you're carrying a load in your pants, I am ready for the kids to move on.

I wonder if they realize how silly they look when they walk or run in what I call "hobble pants" after the "hobble skirts" of the 1890s and early 1970s.

*Hey, even Marky Mark wasn't that bad. Silly, perhaps, obnoxious maybe, but not fugly. I am glad he has grown up all the same.

**Whatever else a Beiber is, it's my ninth cousin, twice removed, or something like that as I learned from a recent Metro Ottawa article. Poor kid. I really feel sorry for it, but can't help thinking sometimes that like Lucia & Mapp's Georgie, "he ought to have been drowned as a girl" (and that's the author speaking). I have to buy that series some day. It was a lot of laughs.

I've read a number of short stories by the original author of the Lucia books, E.F. Benson, one of the famous Benson siblings, all of whom were children of an Archbishop of Canterbury and a Society Queen, and who got their modest livings by writing popular books. (If I recall correctly, the Archbishop was gay, or possibly the Benson family was. There was a lot of gay in the air at any rate. I think maybe none of the children married. There were a lot of them.) Another author I've read, comic fantasy writer Tom Holt, wrote a couple of sequels to the original books. He's the poor man's Sir Terry Pratchett if you haven't tried any of his books.

A bit repetitious in that many of the main characters seem to be smitten with their older sisters (there's probably a word for that, like uxorous or "Oedipus Complex" but I don't know it). I do know that the female equivalent of Oedipus Complex is Electra Complex. Freud loved the classics and based many of his best complexes on Shakespeare or Greek mythology, such as the Hamlet complex, the Othello Complex, the Oedipus Complex, the Electra Complex, the God Complex, etc.

I think Justin Beiber could profit from a good talking-to by Marky Mark and other boy stars who grew out of that phase. Suggest it to Marky Mark, will yah?

''It's a good idea to ban saggy pants, these young people are emulating people in prison that are available for sex,'' said Hornsby.

What does he mean THESE PEOPLE

Feel nervous for the wearer's ability to ambulate without taking a header - maybe a safety issue?  However, I've never seen undue skin'.  Always makes me wonder if something compelling required their attention as they were in the process of getting dressed and that they're walking around still obsessing on whatever it was that caused them to pause.

If I was a cop looking for skin', in order to write my quota for the day, I'd cruise outdoor eateries and park benches - tagging those fata*s cracker's cracks exposed above pants too small, below shirts stretched to shrink wrap.

/not a dedicated follower of fashion'

Why all the hate?

TreeHugger: It's an institutionalized form of racism, which is supported by many supposedly non-racist people.  Just because you don't like the clothing choices someone makes, that's no reason to support authorities or businesses in singling them out.  It reminds me of some nightclubs where they ban basketball jerseys, sports caps and only certain kinds of sneakers ... the ones that those people wear, but the hipster ones are okay.  We aren't allowed to have "whites only" signs anymore, or exclude/arrest folks based on skin color, so people have had to get a little more clever to achieve the same result.

When people talk about how they hate the baggy pants, often it seems obvious to me that they are channeling their dislike for the person who is inhabiting the pants, who is black 99% of the time.  It confuses some folks when they see people who have a different subculture, different skin color, clothing, hair, and behavior patterns than what they are accustomed to -- it makes some people uncomfortable.  So they channel that discomfort into discussing the most obvious target (the pants).  Something must be done!  Call the authoritah!

The same people talking about "too much skin" will whistle with delight when a hot white girl walks by wearing next to nothing.  No similar penalty or prejudice will be applied for her clothing choices.  Just some fapping to the memory by the police chief when he gets home.  But then again, she's not considered a troublemaker who is flouting society's conventions, unlike the baggy pants crew (who are probably on their way to rob someone, and should be accosted preemptively).  Instead the girl is providing a sweet view of white skin for anyone passing by; what could be more American and mainstream than that, I ask you.

You sound concerned...

I told a co-worker that wears saggers that I would kick him in the ass if I knew where it was

lostcat: I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that the town that passed this law by an 80% margin is also 80% opposed to any form of gun control based on 2nd Amendment rights.

1. It's the Terrebonne Parish Consolidated Government that passed this measure. Houma is the biggest city within Terrebonne Parish, but their is no city government, so there is no "town" to pass the law.

2. It's south Louisiana--south of I-10 and south of Louisiana Highway 90. Down here, it's nothing but solid Republican. So you can guess how many people are opposed to any kind of gun control.

TreeHugger: It's an institutionalized form of racism, which is supported by many supposedly non-racist people.  Just because you don't like the clothing choices someone makes, that's no reason to support authorities or businesses in singling them out.  It reminds me of some nightclubs where they ban basketball jerseys, sports caps and only certain kinds of sneakers ... the ones that those people wear, but the hipster ones are okay.  We aren't allowed to have "whites only" signs anymore, or exclude/arrest folks based on skin color, so people have had to get a little more clever to achieve the same result.

When people talk about how they hate the baggy pants, often it seems obvious to me that they are channeling their dislike for the person who is inhabiting the pants, who is black 99% of the time.  It confuses some folks when they see people who have a different subculture, different skin color, clothing, hair, and behavior patterns than what they are accustomed to -- it makes some people uncomfortable.  So they channel that discomfort into discussing the most obvious target (the pants).  Something must be done!  Call the authoritah!

The same people talking about "too much skin" will whistle with delight when a hot white girl walks by wearing next to nothing.  No similar penalty or prejudice will be applied for her clothing choices.  Just some fapping to the memory by the police chief when he gets home.  But then again, she's not considered a troublemaker who is flouting society's conventions, unlike the baggy pants crew (who are probably on their way to rob someone, and should be accosted preemptively).  Instead the girl is providing a sweet view of white skin for anyone passing by; what could be more American and mainstream than that, I ask you.

I would whistle just as loudly for a fine sista, or a smoking chica. If I whistled. Which I don't. I AM sitting at a bus stop with an incredibly fine sista about 8 feet away. Red top, and those form fitting leggings all the women wear these days. Those same bars you speak of are trying to lessen the incidence of gang violence. Gangs in their area wear certain clothes? They have every right to ban those clothing styles. If it prevents a shooting over whether home-boy was wearing a red shirt with red-striped pants vs a striped shirt with red pants ... which is what he should have had on, ifn' he didn't want a cap in his arse.

It's no different than tying a piece of non functioning colored cloth around your neck and wearing a jacket in the summer time and you see that shiat ALL OVER DOWNTOWN AREAS across the country .... b/c white upper class males have decided it's what's right.

/baggy pants are farking retarded
//so are ties and jackets

DirkValentine: It's no different than tying a piece of non functioning colored cloth around your neck and wearing a jacket in the summer time and you see that shiat ALL OVER DOWNTOWN AREAS across the country .... b/c white upper class males have decided it's what's right.

/baggy pants are farking retarded
//so are ties and jackets

It isn't the same at all. If I choose to wear a light, unstructured, unlined blazer in the summer, it is my prerogative and does not expose any of my underclothes. If some idiot chooses to expose his knickers in front of my, my family, and god knows how many kids, that's offensive. No one wants to see your knickers, and it's no better than simply wandering around in just your knickers.

Also: Going into a meeting of any kind with your knickers exposed? That'll get you laughed out of the room. Wearing a decent jacket? That's a mark of respect and maturity.

/Also has a problem with parents that parade their children around in just diapers
//My lawn
///Get off it

MightyPez: ''It's a good idea to ban saggy pants, these young people are emulating people in prison that are available for sex,'' said Hornsby.

So we're off to a good stupid start here...

Violators would be those people who wear their pants below the waist in public, exposing underwear or what police determine to be too much skin.

It seems a little chilling that police get to determine, arbitrarily, what is "too much skin."

"In one year if it's not doing what we wanted it to do we will look into repealing it,'' said Hornsby.

Or until a lawyer is hired that is semi-competent challenges the charges.

dont police already decide what "too much skin" is for women? not that I agree

Sound like a bunch a' sagger-lovers in here

maram500: DirkValentine: It's no different than tying a piece of non functioning colored cloth around your neck and wearing a jacket in the summer time and you see that shiat ALL OVER DOWNTOWN AREAS across the country .... b/c white upper class males have decided it's what's right.

/baggy pants are farking retarded
//so are ties and jackets

It isn't the same at all. If I choose to wear a light, unstructured, unlined blazer in the summer, it is my prerogative and does not expose any of my underclothes. If some idiot chooses to expose his knickers in front of my, my family, and god knows how many kids, that's offensive. No one wants to see your knickers, and it's no better than simply wandering around in just your knickers.

Also: Going into a meeting of any kind with your knickers exposed? That'll get you laughed out of the room. Wearing a decent jacket? That's a mark of respect and maturity.

/Also has a problem with parents that parade their children around in just diapers
//My lawn
///Get off it

so what is the legal difference between boxer's and shorts?

TreeHugger: it seems obvious

I am not disagreeing with you but I am going to point out that weasel words don't form logical arguments. It seems to me you're a pederast that preys on young boys. See?

I do tend to agree with your sentiment however though I've been to bars that had signs posted that certain colors couldn't be worn. I was dreadfully out of place but had fun regardless. I was informed that those rules were in place specifically to stop certain gang affiliations from being known or a showing of colors from happening. It really hasn't any bearing on the conversation but I'm reminded of it.

Panatheist: maram500: DirkValentine: It's no different than tying a piece of non functioning colored cloth around your neck and wearing a jacket in the summer time and you see that shiat ALL OVER DOWNTOWN AREAS across the country .... b/c white upper class males have decided it's what's right.

/baggy pants are farking retarded
//so are ties and jackets

It isn't the same at all. If I choose to wear a light, unstructured, unlined blazer in the summer, it is my prerogative and does not expose any of my underclothes. If some idiot chooses to expose his knickers in front of my, my family, and god knows how many kids, that's offensive. No one wants to see your knickers, and it's no better than simply wandering around in just your knickers.

Also: Going into a meeting of any kind with your knickers exposed? That'll get you laughed out of the room. Wearing a decent jacket? That's a mark of respect and maturity.

/Also has a problem with parents that parade their children around in just diapers
//My lawn
///Get off it

so what is the legal difference between boxer's and shorts?

I don't give a rat's ass if there is one. Wear your farking pants at a reasonable level--preferrably one that covers your ass--and you won't have any problem from me.

UnspokenVoice: TreeHugger: it seems obvious

I am not disagreeing with you but I am going to point out that weasel words don't form logical arguments.

You forgot to add the part where I said "seems obvious to me" thus acknowledging this as subjective, based on my own feeling and observation.  The weasel style is to imply that "it would seem obvious to anyone in their right mind", which I did not.

Now for some real fun, we could get into other logical fallacies such as "No true Scotsman" ...

I remember getting refused service in a restaurant because my hair was too long. These lawmakers are the spiritual children, if not the actual children, of that owner.

Panatheist: MightyPez: ''It's a good idea to ban saggy pants, these young people are emulating people in prison that are available for sex,'' said Hornsby.

So we're off to a good stupid start here...

Violators would be those people who wear their pants below the waist in public, exposing underwear or what police determine to be too much skin.

It seems a little chilling that police get to determine, arbitrarily, what is "too much skin."

"In one year if it's not doing what we wanted it to do we will look into repealing it,'' said Hornsby.

Or until a lawyer is hired that is semi-competent challenges the charges.

dont police already decide what "too much skin" is for women? not that I agree

It's a matter of degrees, I suppose. A woman can walk down the street in a bikini barely covering up the naughty bits and the only action you'd see is a bunch of guys (and some women) panting heavily.

For some reason a man mostly being covered with the exception of his waistline area (still having underwear on, mind you) is trying to be criminalized. And the only reasons we see are "It looks stupid" and "I contorted this to mean wanting butt sex"

jamspoon: [i103.photobucket.com image 480x360]

I remember getting refused service in a restaurant because my hair was too long. These lawmakers are the spiritual children, if not the actual children, of that owner.

And the sign said "Saggy panted freaky people need not apply"
So I tucked my pants up under my belt and I went in to ask him why
He said "You look like a fine upstanding young man, I think you'll do"
So I dropped my pants on the ground, I said "Imagine that. Huh! Me workin' for you!"

Will this law include plumber's crack? If not, it should

I think:

'these young people are emulating people in prison that are available for sex,''

Goes a lot further in stopping the behavior than anything else.  I might start telling people that just for fun.

"Hey jimmy you ever heard of what being a punk in prison means"

Panatheist: so what is the legal difference between boxer's and shorts?

One is pluralized with an apostrophe, the other isn't?

Nothing like the land of the free!

Good.  You look like idiots.

lostcat: I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that the town that passed this law by an 80% margin is also 80% opposed to any form of gun control based on 2nd Amendment rights.

I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess you vote for a living.

I can wear whatever I want. Those residents can go fark themselves.

Oh, and I suppose you'd all be just fine if wide ties came back into style.

FarkinHostile: AcneVulgaris:

They can leave their pants behind

Cuz their pants don't dance and if they don't dance then they ain't no pants of mine.

Exactly what I thought of.

You guys act like JNCOs are still popular, what a dumb thing to care about. This is just another way for cops to go after certain demographics.

/seems like a 1998 problem, not a 2013 one.

MightyPez: It's far better to tie it back to gay sex, somehow.

TheJoe03: MightyPez: It's far better to tie it back to gay sex, somehow.

No snark, that interview scared the living shiat out of me.

They should, also, ban fat women from wearing spandex.

GIS Zoot Suit if you want a laugh. WW2 ended that phase because material was in short supply. (Thank you Hitler. One of the few good things he was accidentally responsible for.)

I've seen a lot of styles come and go, from the Neru Jacket in the 60's, blue jeans with cuffs in the 50's, padded shoulders in woman's and men's coats in the 40's to Goths and Emo's, hippies, dippies and yippies.

Two styles I despise. The first is those damn pleated front trousers for women. All they ever did was make the wearer look like she was 6 months pregnant. (Guys wearing a similar version just looked stupid.) The second is the baggy pants.

I grew up in the 50's. I wore blue jeans. They had cuffs. We liked 'em stiff also. Had to wash them three or four times by themselves to get the excess blue dye out and they fit best when you soaked them, put them on and let them dry while wearing them.

They shrank.

I recall everyone imitating James Dean. I remember guys wearing white T-shirts and blue jeans, with a pack of smokes rolled up in the sleeve. Everyone carried a zippo lighter. (Cool dudes filled theirs with gasoline.)

High topped keds with ankle patches and rubber toe covers. High water trousers. Poodle skirts for chicks, with pleats and a slip. Western style waistcoats, made from blue jean material and they snapped up the front. Some had adjustable little button straps at the waist to make them fit tighter.

Not many guys/kids today could pull off that look. You couldn't have a pot gut.

I noticed when the baggy pants krap started, fresh from the ghetto and hoped it would go away. Back then, oddly enough, most prisons still outfitted their residents with blue jeans and a blue jean shirt. I had been told the baggy pants came from handing down cloths to the younger siblings -- and naturally this got turned into a defiant poverty style.

Later, I was told it was from the jails.

Rappers like to promote it as being from the jails, but I still think it's mainly running around in big brothers old pants. Especially shorts. I noticed it first in shorts, where the legs fell quite a bit below the knee, kind of like the style of the 'Little Rascals' of decades ago. Knee pants.

Don't forget the period of the Rainbow Suspenders either. Worn by young white guys, with pleated front pants and short beards.

I think the Hispanics took the baggy pants to the new low: wearing lurid boxers and having the pants drag down nearly to their little balls. (That cracked me up -- especially since they'd get so freakin' serious about it.)

It's still freaking hysterical to watch a cop chase a low rider and have the bugger get caught because his pants fell down around his ankles. It makes you wonder what they were thinking when they decided to go out for a night of crime.

Obviously the no belt rules of prisons has been a big flop. They still find all sorts of ways to make weapons and off themselves with bed sheets, so they may as well bring back the belts.

Maybe it will end the craze.

Naw. They'll just do something stupid, like killing each other for high end sneakers or putting a $5000 stereo system in a$500 car.

Personally, I liked the 70's, only because of the chicks. They looked HOT!

Quantum Apostrophe: Panatheist: so what is the legal difference between boxer's and shorts?

One is pluralized with an apostrophe, the other isn't?

One is sheer and open to the genitals
One has a zipper and is made of sterner stuff

Don't care, just saying.

CSB time:
I have 2 daughters. Ages 5 and 3. My 5 year old saw a guy in new orleans (where we live) with his pants so low, you could see his legs.. white kid, btw. Daughter said, "daddy, that guys mommy didn't help him get dressed this morning". As the guy actually heard this, I couldn't hold the laughter in. My wife looked horrified, but being 6'2" and 240 lbs as opposed to this "hardcore gangsta thug" who might've been a buck 50 soaking wet with concrete in his pockets, the kid just pulled the pants up and kept walking.. kids say the strangest things..
\end csb

Quantum Apostrophe: Panatheist: so what is the legal difference between boxer's and shorts?

One is pluralized with an apostrophe, the other isn't?

D'oh! though I guess you would notice, you are the god of apostrophes

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

In Other Media

1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.