His clothes have visible logos

[Anonymous No.14132333]

>he thinks he’s effay

[Anonymous No.14132334]

giant logos do in fact look ghetto as fuck.

[Anonymous No.14132689]

>>14132333
based.
Not a single logo is visible on any piece of clothing I wear besides the tiny casio writing on my watch.
I even seamripped the jansport logo off my backpack

[Anonymous No.14134102]

Its only good if it’s done ironically like Gucci

[Anonymous No.14134151]

>he dresses exclusively in earth tones
>he dresses exclusively in subtle scales of black
>zhe dresses in bright pastels ala palesoy
>he thinks he isnt a prime target for bullying and muggings

nobody had fucked with me since i started dressing in workwear

[Anonymous No.14134336]

>>14132689
based and brandpilled

It’s so cringe that people still think visible branding is a status symbol. Like it’s so obvious that they are coping.

[Anonymous No.14134524]

>>14134336
I agree but you (and others in this thread) are brainlets.
Visible brandind doesnt have to be graphics and logos, you can tell brands from other signifiers such as details and cuts. Wearing Rick Owens makes you branded. That is a status symbol: You can see the dropcrotch and the long drawstrings and the grey/brown tones.
You can status your wealth or fashion sense by buying into brand styles. The only way to not be 'branded' is to wear completely thrift or to wear everything in a completely original and unique way.

[Anonymous No.14134550]

>>14134524
You fucking mongoloid, you where fine until you started with the thrift shit, you will not be branded with the brand, but you will be branded with being that guy who will always bring up thrifting to everything

[Anonymous No.14134626]

>>14134151
I doubt anyone fucked you before either.

[Anonymous No.14134845]

>>14134524
I'm >>14132689, and trust me, without any visible logos, I am completely unbranded. All my clothes and plain colours, and regular fits that fit me well.
I basically look like a well-dressed npc.
Which is exactly what I'm going for. People who clumsily dress how they think looks "cool" end up standing out like retards, they never look good, and even when their outfits do look good, they stick out like a sore thumb, showing everyone around them "look at me, I like fashion" like a faggot.
On the other end of the spectrum are the slobs who blatantly cannot dress themselves, and look disgusting.
I wear well-fitting, plain clothing. I don't stand out dressed like a fashionista fag, and I don't stand out like a moron slob.
In other words, I don't let my clothes wear me.

[Anonymous No.14135117]

>>14134524
That isn’t branding, that’s the clothing design .

[Anonymous No.14135121]

>>14134845
I guess u just have a more bland personality

[Anonymous No.14135132]

[Anonymous No.14135144]

>>14135121
No, it's the opposite actually.
I don't feel the need to overcompensate for a lack of personality with my clothing. Which is something I see a lot of brainless morons doing with their instagram outfits

[Anonymous No.14135165]

>>14135144
I disagree, you are dressing how you want to dress...because that is how you feel comfortable, it's a reflection of your inner persona. Some people might over compensate, but you are not doing that, and you are dressing accordingly. Other people are not over compensating just like you, except they have louder more powerful personas. You have a somewhat distorted idea of how clothing can be used to compliment your persona, rather than over compensate for it.

[Anonymous No.14135169]

the same clothes that make you feel comfortable might seem very pedestrian and "quiet" to someone else. not everyone is a quiet boring office drone.

[Anonymous No.14135199]

>>14135165
>>14135169
You have a good point and I agree with you.
But I have interacted with many people who dress 'loudly' or with many logos, and more often than not, they are very dull and uninteresting people. They make it obvious that they use their clothing as a substitute for their lack of true social ability to communicate their personalities and beliefs (if they even have any, which they usually don't).
Many times it's a defence mechanism for dullards to dress with 'personality'.
>look at me, I have so much personality, i'm so quirky etc etc.
And then when you talk to them, they have absolutely nothing interesting to say, and their personalities do not match their outfit

[Anonymous No.14135205]

>>14135199
Virgin post

[Anonymous No.14135214]

>>14135205
whatever

[Anonymous No.14135284]

>>14135199
>ninteresting people. They make it obvious that they use their clothing as a substitute for their lack of true social ability to communicate their personalities and beliefs (if they even have any, which they usually don't).
>Many times it's a defence mechanism for dullards to dress with 'personality'.
>>look at me, I have so much personality, i'm so quirky etc etc.
>And then when you talk to them, they have absolutely nothing interesting to say, and their personalities do not match their outfit
You must be attracting (or attracted to) these types of people then. You attract what you project. If you are constantly meeting people who are subdued personality wise, this actually matches your own, it's just that they dress more wildly, which probably attracts you, since it fills that gap in your own personality, even if it doesn't match with theirs, and their personality probably matches how you actually dress, so it attracts them to you.

You attract what you put out there. If you attract dull people always, it doesnt matter how they dress, you are still attracting dull people. This coupled with the fact that you are on here, chastizing people for dressing louder than their personality seems to be, would indicate that you are a pretty dull subdued person yoruself, who actually probably brings people down to your level, or energetic level. Which is fine. It's you. Everyone's different

[Anonymous No.14135323]

>>14135284
you make decent points, but it's inaccurate to me and one point you assumed negates it.
I don't seek out people to interact with and people don't seek out interaction with me.
I'm basing my observations off people I am "forced" to interact with, in classes and such.
So it's a random sample that I'm talking about, not people who I seek out and vice versa.
If I was a person who sought out social interaction, you would be correct, but that isn't where my socialization comes from

[Anonymous No.14135349]

>>14135323
>I'm basing my observations off people I am "forced" to interact with, in classes and such
every interaction is a social one. no one is Forcing you to do anything. It sounds like you exist in a forced world, where everything is completely out of your control. this is the world you see around you. and the people who are wearing loud clothes with big logos are probably just engaging in something natural: escapism

[Anonymous No.14135370]

>>14135284
stop describing everyone on fa

[Anonymous No.14135388]

>>14135349
>no one is forcing you to do anything
This is just objectively incorrect for almost every single person on Earth. Are you a neet by any chance? Yes, in university classes I am forced into social interactions with other students. That isn't up for debate, so I don't know what you're talking about.
When you seek out socialization, you inherently exclude people you find undesirable, and therefore automatically do not have a random sample from which you can make accurate observations suitable for extrapolation.
I have already said that I do not do this, and the entirety of my social interaction is in situations wherein I have no choice but to participate. Therefore, I have no ability to exclude certain people from my social interactions. Meaning that it is pretty much a random sample of people in my demographic. Which means I can easily extrapolate my observations when observing other people who are very similar to those I have interacted with.
You say that they are partaking in escapism with their superficial consumerism and peacocking.
I say that you are giving them too much credit for intellectual thought and legitimate introspection. Instead I'm saying that they do this for completely shallow reasons, attention, validation, substitute for personality etc.
And that is where we disagree, you have too much faith in the complexity of these people, where I instead see none

[Anonymous No.14135410]

>>14135388
>Yes, in university classes I am forced into social interactions with other students. That isn't up for debate
Oh? And who's forcing you to go to these classes....
>so I don't know what you're talking about.
you clearly do not. you have literally no clue what I am talking about

[Anonymous No.14135417]

>>14135410
>oh? and who's forcing you to go to these classes
Oh for fuck's sake, you clearly can't make a point so fuck off. No, no one is literally holding a gun to my head.
Grow up

[Anonymous No.14135438]

>>14135417
so which is it? are you freely interacting with these people, or are you forcing yourself to do it.....because you are contradicting yourself. It can't be both at once.

Either you are choosing to interact with them, and choosing to go to these classes. Or some magic hand is forcing you to, and it's something you can't control.

You seem to be all too happy to go to these classes, but then malign the fact that you are FORCED to interact with these "brand-whores" whilst you are the lone "Authentic Mind" in this whole thing.

How do you know you are not actually buying into a "Brand" yourself... otherwise known as the "Anti-Brand", companies actually use this method of branding to attract consumers who think like you. Search Anti-Branding Strategy if you choose

[Anonymous No.14135454]

>>14132333
Taylor Swift is the perfect woman

[Anonymous No.14135464]

>>14135438
But who I interact with IS something I can't control.
I don't go to university for the sake of making friends, I go their to get a degree for future employment. Social interaction is not the motivation nor the purpose of my enrollment.
And I never claimed that I am the lone 'authentic mind' or special snowflake. I am describing a certain group of people. I have met plenty of authentic people, but none of them dress and behave in the ways I have described. I was never talking about EVERYONE I interact with.
And I am familiar with anti-branding, which isn't a factor here