Harry Styles decides to wear different clothes. Conservofascists freak out.

[Jimmy Higgins]

People are different from me, and that makes me feel bad.

 

[Politesse]

Also, does Mr Styles have a history or penchant for transvestitism? I honestly have no idea.
Tom

He always pushed things a little, in metrosexual sort of a way. He is, to clue you in, a popular British singer best known for his involvement in the atrociously talentless boy band One Direction. Heavy on the lipstick and big hair, but not usually seen in an actual dress. More, "bisexual chic moderne".

 

[TomC]

Also, does Mr Styles have a history or penchant for transvestitism? I honestly have no idea.
Tom

He always pushed things a little, in metrosexual sort of a way. He is, to clue you in, a popular British singer best known for his involvement in the atrociously talentless boy band One Direction. Heavy on the lipstick and big hair, but not usually seen in an actual dress. More, "bisexual chic moderne".

Oh.
He's British. Well, that also explains a good deal.
You know what those people are like.
Tom

 

[WAB]

Commenting negatively equates to a "conservofascist" "freaking out"?

Yes. A man in a dress falls far outside the narrow band of acceptable clothing and makes conservofascists scared.

No. The correct answer to Metaphor's question is: No.

And neither Shapiro nor Owens are fascists.

 

[Angry Floof]

Commenting negatively equates to a "conservofascist" "freaking out"?

Yes. A man in a dress falls far outside the narrow band of acceptable clothing and makes conservofascists scared.

No. The correct answer to Metaphor's question is: No.

And neither Shapiro nor Owens are fascists.

Right. They are authoritarian followers. Fascist leaders can't exist without people like this. And again, these words have definitions that you can look up. There is decades, almost a century, of research on right wing authoritarianism, as fascism is often called these days.

 

[southernhybrid]

I'm a very feminine woman, but I hate dresses and frilly things so I never wear them. But, why should anyone care how anyone else dresses? There is so much amusement to be gained by the way people dress, wear their hair, color their hair, etc. etc. Shit. I've seen people in grocery stores here in town wearing pajama bottoms and slippers. Do I care? No. Am I amused? Sometimes. If people dress in non traditional ways, be amused, don't be critical.

I may be amused at the person with the pink hair, the bedroom slippers, the leopard print dress and the 1950s hair style, but I would never tell that person how much amusement they offered me.

I didn't know who this guy was because I don't follow pop culture. His dress is ugly imo, but it's non of my concern. His outfit looks like a way to get attention, and he certainly got it, as evidenced by this thread.

 

[laughing dog]

Commenting negatively equates to a "conservofascist" "freaking out"?

Yes. A man in a dress falls far outside the narrow band of acceptable clothing and makes conservofascists scared.

No. The correct answer to Metaphor's question is: No.

And neither Shapiro nor Owens are fascists.

I agree, they are fuckwits' idea of a clever persons.

 

[WAB]

No. The correct answer to Metaphor's question is: No.

And neither Shapiro nor Owens are fascists.

I agree, they are fuckwits' idea of a clever persons.

That may well be so.

 

[WAB]

No. The correct answer to Metaphor's question is: No.

And neither Shapiro nor Owens are fascists.

Right. They are authoritarian followers. Fascist leaders can't exist without people like this. And again, these words have definitions that you can look up. There is decades, almost a century, of research on right wing authoritarianism, as fascism is often called these days.

I'm surprised they strike you as followers. They don't strike me as followers. They strike me as fiercely brave and independent thinkers. Doesn't mean I agree with them, or like them.

 

[Angry Floof]

No. The correct answer to Metaphor's question is: No.

And neither Shapiro nor Owens are fascists.

Right. They are authoritarian followers. Fascist leaders can't exist without people like this. And again, these words have definitions that you can look up. There is decades, almost a century, of research on right wing authoritarianism, as fascism is often called these days.

I'm surprised they strike you as followers. They don't strike me as followers. They strike me as fiercely brave and independent thinkers. Doesn't mean I agree with them, or like them.

It's not brave and independent to suck up to authorities and support authorities' abuse of the powerless. Shapiro is as authoritarian in his thinking as they come. At the moment, he is a follower in terms of larger society-wide authorities. He's just a little mouthpiece at the moment. But you are kind of right in that, given the opportunity, Ben Shapiro would easily step into a role of power and "rule" in a fascist manner. You can kind of see this in his fan group and how they submit to him and kowtow.

But then, you think a person has to have blood literally on their own hands before they can be criticized for what they support other people doing, so I would not expect you to agree with that.

As for Owens, it's not strong or independent to just go against the grain for the sake of it. Might as well just be a blind conformist for all the good that does. And I think she is delusional.

 

[fromderinside]

No. The correct answer to Metaphor's question is: No.

And neither Shapiro nor Owens are fascists.

Right. They are authoritarian followers. Fascist leaders can't exist without people like this. And again, these words have definitions that you can look up. There is decades, almost a century, of research on right wing authoritarianism, as fascism is often called these days.

I'm surprised they strike you as followers. They don't strike me as followers. They strike me as fiercely brave and independent thinkers. Doesn't mean I agree with them, or like them.

Apply ordinality test. Do these people work outside standardized parameters for being this or that.

My judgement based on their reactions is no they don't. Ergo they are followers.

Good work Angry Floof.

 

[TomC]

Commenting negatively equates to a "conservofascist" "freaking out"?

But they didn't just "comment negatively".
Somebody pointed out that the dress doesn't suit him. That's commenting negatively.

Owens and Shapiro described a magazine cover as an indictment of western freedom... to wear whatever you want. Why don't they just move to Saudi Arabia where dress codes are clear enough to be enforceable? By law?
Why don't they just go somewhere where men are men, and "freedom" is being free to follow local gender dress norms?
Tom

 

[Angry Floof]

Commenting negatively equates to a "conservofascist" "freaking out"?

But they didn't just "comment negatively".
Somebody pointed out that the dress doesn't suit him. That's commenting negatively.

Owens and Shapiro described a magazine cover as an indictment of western freedom... to wear whatever you want. Why don't they just move to Saudi Arabia where dress codes are clear enough to be enforceable? By law?
Why don't they just go somewhere where men are men, and "freedom" is being free to follow local gender dress norms?
Tom

It's just the typical small mindedness that is a hallmark of right wing mentality. In the past and in other places, pink was for boys and blue for girls. In the past and in other places, men wear dress like garments. In the past and in other places, all the arbitrary bullshit "norms" - that don't actually matter but right wing minds latch onto as some kind of standard on the level of morality - didn't exist or were broken without reaction, and this will continue in the future. Change is scary to right wing minds.

 

[Metaphor]

Thank God Trump's ban will keep him out of the U.S. military.

No, it won't. Harry Styles is not trans. Also he isn't American.

 

[TomC]

Thank God Trump's ban will keep him out of the U.S. military.

No, it won't. Harry Styles is not trans. Also he isn't American.

I can't tell whether you don't recognize severe sarcasm or are being severely sarcastic.
Tom

 

[Metaphor]

Commenting negatively equates to a "conservofascist" "freaking out"?

But they didn't just "comment negatively".
Somebody pointed out that the dress doesn't suit him. That's commenting negatively.

Owens and Shapiro described a magazine cover as an indictment of western freedom... to wear whatever you want. Why don't they just move to Saudi Arabia where dress codes are clear enough to be enforceable? By law?
Why don't they just go somewhere where men are men, and "freedom" is being free to follow local gender dress norms?
Tom

Bu they didn't indict western freedom. Neither of them said 'men ought be forbidden by law from wearing dresses'.

EDIT: They were, of course, indicting a subculture in the west that seeks to erase differences between men and women. The clothing choices are a symbol of that subculture, but not on their own the actual point of the criticism.

 

[Metaphor]

Thank God Trump's ban will keep him out of the U.S. military.

No, it won't. Harry Styles is not trans. Also he isn't American.

I can't tell whether you don't recognize severe sarcasm or are being severely sarcastic.
Tom

ideologyhunter's response was obviously sarcastic ("thank god") about Trump's military ban, but it isn't clear to me from what was said whether they understood what it means to be trans (although of course some trans advocates put 'cross dressing' and 'drag' under the 'trans' umbrella).

 

[Metaphor]

I'm surprised that Styles did not get criticism from transgender activists and "allies". At Hallowe'en, it was recently verboten to cross-dress for fun (see here for an example, but there are lots of others), because that was insensitive to trans people.

But of course if Harry Styles does it ("playing" with clothes for fun), it's okay, because as of November 2020, clothes are now not gendered signifiers, and he isn't cross-dressing.

 

[Metaphor]

Also, does Mr Styles have a history or penchant for transvestitism? I honestly have no idea.
Tom

He always pushed things a little, in metrosexual sort of a way. He is, to clue you in, a popular British singer best known for his involvement in the atrociously talentless boy band One Direction. Heavy on the lipstick and big hair, but not usually seen in an actual dress. More, "bisexual chic moderne".

Harry Styles is no more bisexual than David Bowie was. David Bowie affected an air of androgyny and sexual ambiguity because he thought it was edgy and transgressive, but he did it before Harry Styles was born and was much better at it.

 

[Politesse]

Also, does Mr Styles have a history or penchant for transvestitism? I honestly have no idea.
Tom

He always pushed things a little, in metrosexual sort of a way. He is, to clue you in, a popular British singer best known for his involvement in the atrociously talentless boy band One Direction. Heavy on the lipstick and big hair, but not usually seen in an actual dress. More, "bisexual chic moderne".

Harry Styles is no more bisexual than David Bowie was. David Bowie affected an air of androgyny and sexual ambiguity because he thought it was edgy and transgressive, but he did it before Harry Styles was born and was much better at it.

Hence "Bisexual chic", i.e. dressing in a way or talking in a manner that suggests sexual ambiguity and flexibility without necessarily engaging in it.