Disqus Doodlings - Treehugger writer believes things should cost more - Granite Grok

Disqus Doodlings – Treehugger writer believes things should cost more

It’s always a trip to go over to Treehugger because it shows me what and how the other side thinks of issues.  It is clear that they are Progressive in their authors topics and contents and some of their commenter are REAL hardcore. Not only are they hardcore in renewables, recyling, EVs, and their outlook but they often show the Progressive “you don’t need that” and more than a whiff of micro-totalitarianism in being adamant that no one should have (or enjoy) those activities, discussions or property of which they would disallow.   This post by Katherine Martinko was no exception (emphasis mine):

Why we should pay more for clothes

Shopping for new clothes is a pleasurable experience for most people. It feels good to acquire stylish new items for one’s wardrobe, especially when those clothes don’t cost much. But as soon as shopping means handing over hefty sums of money that really gouge your wallet, the experience becomes less pleasurable and more painful.

This mercurial relationship between buying and paying is at the root of an interesting suggestion made by Quartz’s fashion reporter Marc Bain. Bain has set himself a goal of spending at least $150 whenever he wants to add something new to his wardrobe. This amount – which would vary from person to person – has to be enough to “make you sweat a little.

“It causes me to seriously hesitate, which is the real point. It forces me to think about just how much I want that item of clothing, how much I’ll wear it, and whether I think the value it offers is worth a significant cost. Importantly, $150 is also enough that I can’t make these purchases all the time, at least not without sacrificing elsewhere or going broke. It’s an investment, rather than the cheap buzz of getting something new.”

And then she goes into what she believes is the Evil in the fashion industry.  When I read the entire post, it became clear that the underlying theme was to have it HURT to go shopping, to make you STOP being a consumer.  Perhaps I over emphasize this but that theme, it should hurt to do things that *I* don’t approve of,  is one that riddles what I read from this and other sites.  Here, I actually tried to be constructive in leaving a comment or two.  Well, there was a problem with that – but here’s the first of what I thought was constructive criticism:

“…the experience becomes less pleasurable and more painful.” You may not realize it but that statement seems to sum up how environmentalists come across to a lot of the rest of us (those of us that pay attention, anyways) – force life for the rest of us to be more miserable to satisfy their outlook on things.

Somehow, y’all gotta change your style (and I’m not talking about clothes or furnishings) because when I see this kind of statement, it cements even more my perception of what is “required”: Happiness is misery!

And for the record, I hate shopping all together; I have clothes older than you that I just can’t part with because I don’t care about fashion at all.

Their outlook, more and more, seems to be to shut down consumption.  They seem to hate modernity and comfortable lifestyles, even just middle class ones.  Have less, do less, travel less, eat less (no meat for you!) and now they want the clothes off our backs (or to be more truthful, want new clothes for your back to be more painful.

And then a bit of a mud fight ensued…