baggy pants law

Only if they're administered by Mr. T, the Last Black Guy to Wear a Belt.

/I love this thread

 

Its hardly suprising is it, after all, people of their grandparents generation were singing on about them http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XJOLwy7un3U
- perhaps knowing that would disssuade them
At least they usualy seem to be wearing boxers that their mums have ironed. Builders bottom is far more horrific. Perhaps the genteel answer would be to whisper in their ear whilst glancing at their fallen pants - 'two sheets , one to wipe and one to polish'. Saw some of hampshire constabularys finest at a get together they were policing. Smokey Bears Picnic- people get together, have a picnic and chat, and get together to voice their opinion that cannabis should be legalised. Expecting stoners on the rampage, you generaly have two or three coppers per picnicer - we noticed a row of them from the back, any seemed to have the groin area of their pants down by their knees - surely that would make it difficult to run - like being hobbled.

 

Paraphrase and restate all you want. I don't expect anyone here to agree with me, ever. I've made enough comments and read enough posts to understand the general trend of thinking here and have no allusions about changing anyone's mind. But coming back with Dog bandanas, sport jerseys and speaking Russian, is just lame. Regardless, I will continue to comment on whatever topic catches my eye. What continues to strike me as strange, however, is how vehemently some will defend a point of view they only briefly state once someone else has an opposing view. For a place named "Tilted" a lot of time is spent defending 'pop culture' and it's icons. Obviously tilted has another meaning to me. We should probably rename the forum "Popular Thought for the Masses".

So after 7 pages of comments, the majority think baggy pants and laws against them are stupid. But it's okay, because it's fashion. No one cares where it came from originally, it's fashion, so it doesn't matter. And any one opposing this view is obviously confused or 'out of touch' with fashion. You bring race into the discussion, then deny any similarities between racist groups. You voice a strong opinion, then accuse anyone with an opposing opinion, of being on the brink of homicide for having time to have an opinion. Discussion forum or Dog pile? You tell me.

Maybe my opinion is a little more 'Tilted' than your own. I try to keep the whole picture in focus when forming an opinion and not just the parts I like. The origin of a thing does not just go away because you don't like it. And to deny any correlation between the origin and the current rendition is just self deprecating. Digging a hole and burying your head, won't keep your ass from getting shot off.

Maybe you should go ask the writers of the law, why they wrote it.

 

.... "The origin of a thing does not go away just because you don't like it"

To which I add "The diffusion of a thing into popular culture does not go away just because you don't like it"
Maybe combine those into "The origins and destinations exist regardless of our feelings toward them."
Then I urge that whilst we we should apply our energy to sources of perceivable problems. Saggy Pants are a Safety issue whoever wears them. Murdering thugs are a safety issue whatever they wear.

That's the principle I offer.
But what about in practice?



My own life history does not fit ... walk with me down my memory lane:

Example 1: I was with an ex-girlfriend, and in discussing how to work audiences seated at tables rather than in rows, said "As a rule of thumb ...."
And that is as far as I got. She got upset with me, and she'd calmed and I had asked what was going on, she explained that the origin of 'rule of thumb' was that "The Law" a long time ago was that a man could beat his wife ONLY if the stick was no thicker than a man's thumb. I was mortified and never used that term again. Until then, it had meant no more than 'guideline which, as an approximation may be a first choice approach to an outcome, though look out for details which might make a difference, since it is not a precise solution.
Example 2: Up until I was the age of 16, and too big to have my fashion choices squashed, I was forbidden from wearing black shirts [even though they were cool], because of Oswald Mosely ... leader of the British Nazi Party, whose members were known as blackshirts. I dang well asserted my right to wear black shirts.



Under what circumstances should I do differently?

I remember my black shirt, and, as with saggy pants, the judgment "Silly bugger" could be leveled at me, because, wanting it to be seen, I did not wear a coat, even in cold weather. Like them, I compromised my safety to make a fashion statement.

I was, in my behaviour asserting "I choose what statement I am making, rather than let others tell me what statement I am making."

Though I was following the fashion judgment of 'cool' rather than following the political party 'Nazi'. Neither were really my own choice.
Hmmm ... however, I WAS choosing which ONE of them I was siding with.



OK ... let's tighten some screw ... here's another inconsistency in me.

I see people in saggy pants, and, whilst recognizing the origins, give them the benefit of the doubt ... or rather I acknowledge the benefit they are giving themselves. As I gave myself the benefit of 'black=cool' when informed that also 'black-Nazi'

KKK Sheets and Pointy Hats. however .... y'know, I'd get a MASSIVE negative reaction ... and all the strong concerns you raise about saggy pants would be alive in my belly.



Y'see, I'm torn? I'm not coming to conclusions here, but wanted to share some of what has been going on I'm me as I have followed this thread.

 

Rogue Gypsy, you've got to let me in on how you managed to get your other hand nailed to that cross.

We're a discussion forum. We're discussing it. You've got one point of view, other people have another. Your analogies are no more or less valid than theirs. But to imply that we can't think for ourselves is a little disengenuous simply because we don't toe your self-imposed line.

You know, I had all sorts of respect for you defending an unpopular point of view up until now. Seven pages of good stuff. Then you decided to post this, and you essentially burned up that respect for this thread. /slow clap

 

Talking shit about people with baggy pants is not rebellious. It is not "tilted".

And I couldn't care less about the particulars of the style. What I'm defending is the idea that we shouldn't judge people, especially youngsters, harshly and unduly based on what they choose to wear. For fuck's sake, you're willing to threaten random children because you don't like how they dress. Had you tried to pull that shit with some of the folks I grew up with, you'd have rightly gotten your self righteous ass kicked. If I saw some jackass doing that to the neighbor kids who live down the alley, I'd give that motherfucker hell. You're willing to completely disregard basic human decency with respect to complete strangers because you've convinced yourself that you know what their fashion choices mean without even consulting them. That's not tilted, that ridiculous.

Discussion forums resemble dog piles when one person expresses an opinion contrary to a large group of members. That's the internet for you. I've been there, it isn't necessarily fun, but whining about it isn't going to change anything. Really, though, comparing children with large pants on to Nazis is ridiculous. I wouldn't be so shocked that folks had a problem with your line of reasoning if I were you.

Keeping the whole picture in mind is useless if the picture you're looking at is a ridiculous distortion of reality. You're looking at a picture where children in large pants are carrying the torch for Nazis and Pol Pot. Sorry, dude. but you're just plain wrong here.

Why? Whatever their stated rationale, it's probably just code for "because they make me uncomfortable."

 

RogueGypsy
When criticizing something because of the origin of it, just keep in mind how many of the medical advances that make our quality of life possible are do to the Nazi parties horrible experiments on the Jews, and how many monkeys met an untimely end so we could pop an asprin whenever we get a head ache. Or how many native Americans died so we can watch fireworks ever 4th of July. I'm right behind you in hatred of baggy pants. It's just your reason for said hatred of said baggy pants that gives me, and I'm sure a number of others, pause. While understandable, it just seems to me to be an view that is unsustainable with any amount of consistence in this wonderful and fucked up world of ours. There is just to much stuff that has come out of completely fucked up beginnings for your argument to stand up to rational scrutiny over the long term, or so it seems to me.

 

No bitching or whining here, if anything it's an invitation for others to defend their point of view. So far, the only defense is "it's Fashion, it doesn't matter". I disagree with that point of view. Like I said, I've posted enough to know my opinion is going to be an outlier. I don't expect or even necessarily want, anyone to agree with me. I'm just looking for a valid conversation on the pros and cons of Baggy Pants. Instead I get "it's fashion so it doesn't matter", "I have too much of an opinion so I must be homicidal" and "your nuts".

I agree, saying you don't think for yourselves is disingenuous, for that I apologize. I get much more diverse responses here than other forums. I am truly a little confused over how so many here do just defend popular opinion. Maybe I expect too much.

 

You can't honestly be complaining about other folks' responsibility for the lack of quality in this conversation after comparing people wearing baggy pants to Nazis, can you? For better or worse, using Nazis as a point of comparison in an online argument about something that has nothing to do with WW2 is gauranteed to destroy the possibility of any kind of meaningful discussion. This is well known. It is probably in the top ten list of internet conversation rules.

I think that you're mischaracterizing your role in this conversation. Nobody here seems to accept your premise, which means that you can't have the conversation <i>you</i> want to have. Until you've read the mind of the majority of baggy pants wearers, you're in no position to speak about the general nature and motivations of baggy pants wearing people. That's just how it is. Repeatedly stressing an unsound argument won't suddenly make it sound.

 

That would be the "evolution" part of tilted. I'm perfectly ok with the dumb asses getting themselves killed and pulled out of the gene pool. The personal tragedy aside, the dumb people getting themselves killed is a GOOD thing.

 

I dont see the link with Nazi uniforms myself. If you want to go for an example from that era, surely it would have to be the spivs Zoot suit.

 

I've been a kid hanging around a liquor store with the intent to procure alcohol. Some dude getting a thrill from the momentary power he felt by scaring me wouldn't deter me from the pursuit of alcohol. It certainly was the type of thing that would have made me want to carry a weapon.

It doesn't take a lot of gall to impute a lack of decency to the fella bragging about scaring kids. I'm just saying, your tough guy act wouldn't have deterred me from my desire to buy alcohol when I was a kid.

Sounds like a Vanilla Ice song come to life. Color me impressed. Wait. Scratch that. Shitty neighborhoods exist in every greater-than-medium sized town. Stupid people with guns willing to kill people over stupid shit is a phenomenon as american as apple pie. I was a kid once. I spent time in shitty neighborhoods, usually in the pursuit of drugs or alcohol, though drugs were actually easier to reliably procure in the nicer neighborhoods. I've lived in shitty neighborhoods. I've walked my family around areas where the wrong color ensemble could get you shot. You aren't the first person here to spend time in a shitty neighborhood.

So your issue here is baggy pants? I think you've misplaced your ire. If I were you, I'd reserve judgment for the people who are willing to kill someone because they don't like how that person wears their pants. That's just me. I would say "Bodkin, those guys who are willing to kill someone because they don't like how that person dresses are jerks. Because, who the fuck cares how a person dresses? That's just fucking stupid."

It seemed whiny to me, but I'll take your word. It's hard to get tone right via text alone.

You compared kids in baggy pants to kids in Nazi uniforms. Because the folks driving urban fashion trends are as evil as the Nazis were. Perhaps I'm failing to grasp the subtle brilliance of this comparison, because it just seems ridiculous to me. There are similarities between the Boy Scouts of America and the Nazis. Anyone over the age of ten can find similarities between any two nouns. It takes more than vague similarities to make a cogent comparison. Humor me: explain to me all of the nontrivial ways in which gangs are like the Nazis. And by nontrivial I mean that you can't include things like "they both killed people" or "they both have uniforms". There are hundreds of groups that fit that combination of categories, many of them are "the good guys". Stop and think about what the Nazis did. It rhymes with smilled fix pillion meeple. That's the scale at which they operated.

And it is fashion. It is a style of clothes wearing. That is all it is to so many people. Like blue jeans. The vast majority of people who wear blue jeans aren't doing so out of some sort of affinity for cowboys.They are wearing them because they like them for some non-cowboy related reason.

Have you seen the stupid shit kids wear? I wore stupid shit when I was a kid. I wore it because my friends wore it and also because part of the process of adolescence is finding ways to rebel against the things you associate with your parents. And a lot of kids, in some sense, associate not wearing stupid shit with their parents.

Again, your blame is misplaced here. I would suggest, humbly, that the problem here isn't one of pants size. It is, in fact, that people are willing to kill someone else because they don't like that person's sense of style. There are places where wearing blue can get you shot. I somehow suspect you aren't going around poohpoohing stupid white kids for wearing a blue jean/blue sweatshirt combo. And, on top of that, the vast majority of the United States is comprised of places where wearing pants below your belt won't get you shot. Your position here is essentially identical to the position of someone railing against mini skirts because the occasional woman happens to get raped on a college campus while wearing one. "Stupid woman!" that person would say, "What was she thinking? I'm not saying she deserved to get raped, I'm just strongly implying that I believe she deserved to get raped."

But you know what, I'll grant you this: If I lived in a place that was filled with the type of people who like to kill folks for wearing their clothes a certain way, I would strongly discourage my children from wearing their clothes that way. However, you must realize that for the vast majority of people your concerns are irrelevant because they don't live around murderous fashionistas. So while in one sense, I see where you're coming from, I think you're a little out of touch with the scope of the risk. How many stupid white kids do you know of who have been shot for wearing sagging pants? Do you have any stats? Any newspaper stories? Most of the gang related violence in my city seems to either involve innocent bystanders, people who make the mistake of spouting off to some dipshit with more pride than sense or people involved with gang business. We certainly have our share of folks who wear droopy pants; I can't remember the last time I read about one of them getting shot for their sagging pants.

 

RogueGypsy, please don't make this into a "my postion is way more Tilted/Radical/Out There than everyone else". This isn't a competition.

I am pretty sure that Bodkin has summed up how most of us looking at this particular issue.

I also think that if you asked us if we like the fashion choice, most of us would agree it's a horrendous fashion choice... but so was much of what was worn in the 70s. Sagging pants may have evolved out of urban gangster culture but, for the most part, that has been stripped out of the meaning most kids ascribe to their clothing choices. It's how subcultures evolve into pop culture. It's been going on for years.

I would suggest that your musings suggesting, There aught to be a law against this! are just another version of the age old argument that adults use against youth culture. The same comments were once used against Zoot Suits, Leather Jackets, Mini Skirts, Jeans, Flapper's Dresses, etc. It is a pantomime that gets played out with every new generation.

In light of this, I am especially amused by your comments about the apparel of future politicians.

 

I call Godwin's Law.

 

I went out to buy some bagels a couple of days ago. I decided to pop into TK Max.

I saw a very skinny man with spectacles, shirt and tie. Shirt tail hanging low-ish, and jeans with crotch at knee height. I manoevred myself to the end of an aisle so he'd have to approach me to pass. I wanted a front view. It was hanging low, but like a hobble skirt which transformed to split-leg at knee height. I suffered vertigo looking at him. Also awe: he was not holding them up, nor did he wear suspenders, yet they did not fall down. How can this be so?

As he receded, I examined a pair of trainers with back and sides So Low ('stops chafing ankles or Achilles tendon'), that, even laced up, shot my feet backward out of them, I remembered that in recent years, socks have been developed which hardly cover the heel. There are times I have wondered if 'Uses least material' is a criterion of fashion designers.

 

http://www.ktla.com/news/landing/ktla-baggy-pants-shooting,0,2256208.story

Last year and non-gang related, but hey, you wanted a story of someone getting shot for wearing baggy pants. Maybe it's not the Gangsta's you need to look out for.

I'm pretty sure they don't classify homicides by style, so I'll have to get back to you on the stats, I'm checking Access Hollywood right now.............

So maybe with the media and fashion as reasons to accept anything, we can solve some world problems. Let's kick commercialism up a notch. We just need to get some pop stars on board and there will be world peace.

Really now

 

To tell you the truth, I didn't even know what the colors were. The gang dujour was one of those new fangled mexican gangs. So it's possible it did casually stroll around with the requisite colors. Though I don't dress gaudy, so they might not have noticed.

First, it is your comparison. Just because you don't want to follow the implications of your comparison to their logical conclusion doesn't invalidate that conclusion.

Killing people isn't trivial in a real sense. However, in terms of meaningful comparisons it is trivial, meaning, it is a comparison that lacks any sort of informative value. Lots of organized groups kill people. Many of them do so with the complete moral and legal endorsement of large groups of people. Claiming that anyone of these groups is Nazi-like merely for the fact that they kill folks is a meaningless comparison. The willingness to kill to achieve their goals isn't what made Nazis noteworthy because there are any number of organizations who are willing to kill to achieve their goals which aren't Nazis and aren't globally reviled. Again, I would suggest you examine the focus, scale and methods of the Nazis rather than merely their willingness to kill.

Your other comparison here is trivial too. You're essentially saying that organizations which seek to preserve themselves at any cost are all like the Nazis. This would include pretty much every government, the Catholic Church, etc.

And you're backtracking. You said you could fill a thread with the ways in which gang members are like Nazis. Now you're claiming that you only meant your comparison in terms of clothing. Which is it?

First, the Nazi comparison is ridiculous. Second, baggy pants as a style have apparently been sufficiently diluted so that a person need not be aware of the source to find it appealing. This is not true for Nazi uniforms. People get in trouble for wearing Nazi uniforms to Halloween parties.

Right, and you're focused on the pants here and not the shooter.

No.

No. But it has nothing to do with your point, which seems to be that people who wear baggy pants are stupid and will all be shot by scary gang members even though you can't seem to find a single documented example of that happening.

Sounds like the shooter shares your perspective.

This is the crux of why you're wrong. Your whole point is that people shouldn't wear baggy pants because in doing to they are co-opting gang culture (even though one need not even be aware of gang culture to be exposed to people wearing baggy pants) and that actual gang members will see non gang members wearing baggy pants, become angered by this, and shoot said baggy-pants-wearers. Yet, you can't seem to find a single instance of this occurring, and in fact, openly acknowledge that it is unlikely that such a detail would be noted in a police investigation. So you know you're right, but you don't have any evidence besides your opinion and you doubt that evidence even exists.

Your confidence in your own opinion has no objective basis in reality.

In my city, there have been at least three teenagers, young teenagers, who have been killed in the past three weeks in gang related violence. Three. Do you want to know why? It has nothing to do with baggy pants or style. It has to do with the fact that little fucking kids are emulating actual people in actual gangs. And the fact that these little kids have guns. And they're immature and that immaturity manifests via gun ownership in tragically predictable ways. Petty justifications aside (which murderer doesn't have some sort of petty straw-that-broke-the-camel's-back excuse?), I suspect that all gang violence can more accurately be tied to things like poverty, lack of opportunity and institutionalized discrimination. Pants? Not so much.

If this is the type of thing that pisses you off, you must have a wonderful life.

 

We know you're still here, planny.