Samson's Wig

We're saying anyone who thinks they aren't susceptible to marketing is fucking delusional or in serious denial. This isn't complicated. The insistence of "I only buy based on quality" is complete bullshit. It's exactly what marketers for luxury brands have trained you to think, which is what makes this funny. "You're self reliant, an outdoorsman, you're smarter than other people, and you know quality when you see it. You care about the Earth and your community more than your own selfish interests. You can't be fooled." The only confusing thing on this thread is the really odd flex coming from those who can't accept the fact they pay extra not just for quality, but to send a message to others. I guess that's difficult to accept for some. A simple example: LL Bean has a lightweight pack-away jacket that is every bit as high quality as the Patagonia nano puff, except it costs $129 instead of $229. Lands End has one for $118. There are tons of other examples. You're paying that extra $100+ for the brand. Patagonia has sold you a message that resonates better with you than what others are pushing. If quality were the true driving factor in the decision, the Patagonia jacket makes no fucking sense whatsoever. Patagonia has masterfully utilized "demarketing", which ties in the "reduce, repair, reuse, recycle" concepts. It's little more than a form of greenwashing. Recall the "Don't Buy This Jacket" campaign? This resonated with lots of folks. It also increased their sales significantly. They preach this stuff because it makes certain people buy more of their products, if it didn't they wouldn't push it. It's no different than the mythology built around Chouinard (which he very carefully nurtures - what a kind and gentle billionaire he is), a narrative they are continuing to push with the story that started this thread. Greenwashing fucking works, and there are a handful on this thread that are clearly very susceptible to it - susceptible enough to pay way more for a jacket and still think they only buy it for the quality. Wear whatever the fuck you want, but acting like you are above marketing while walking around in an overpriced branded fleece or puff jacket is hilarious.

Bet the under. Both teams have decent defenses and little offense (especially Tech). Both will be rolling out back up QBs, but Card is serviceable. Smith is terrible, at least in that offense. Although it's another mediocre squad this year, the Horns should roll as Tech is in full rebuild mode with tons of youth on the field and the sideline. If Sark sticks with the run and just buries them, I can see the score getting out of hand, but no way it combines for that many points.

No, I didn't. At all. I know reading comprehension drops a few notches for everyone when on a message board, but you're arguing with a ghost.

Lame

Blaming refs is lame. Creating excuses before the losses even happen is as weak as it gets.

That's fair.

I hope you're passing what you're smoking. Not cool to Bogart the good stuff.

Longhorns should roll Tech easily, despite being a mediocre squad themselves (too many getting their hopes up after that Alabama game). Tech's in a straight rebuilding year with a young OC who doesn't know how to adjust to his backup QB, and a head coach who is experiencing big boy football for the first time. Shockingly, Tim DeRuyter has their defense looking really salty. Even with Ewers playing (who is still very green himself) scoring will not be easy in Lubbock. Fortunately, they have an offense that, at this point, is the worst in the conference. Run it down their throats, wear out their D, game over. Blitz their QB and they can't score. He can't handle it. If the game was later in the season, I could see their coaches getting things together and it being more of a matchup.

Because I'm just as big of a moron as you and everyone else is. Marketing works. Their fleeces are no better than what you can get at many places such as Lands End, for a third of the price and with no visible label. I've owned fleece jackets from both companies. There is no discernible difference in quality. Even their better products that don't have lower priced comps, like the nano puff, have comparable options from other overpriced outdoor brands that similarly put their label forward, but you choose Patagonia. Why? Because you're not above being manipulated by marketers. No one is. . Patagonia sells a message first and clothing second, and if that message resonates with you go for it. It's a big chunk of the sticker price you're paying. Our only difference is I'm not ashamed to admit it.

I'm glad you're a Patagonia fanboy. As noted above, I too own Patagonia products. I own YETI products as well, but I'm not so stupid as to think they're the only company that can make a good cooler.

Well, yeah. No one who purchases a single family home wants to live across the street from an ugly ass apartment building, and the noise, congestion, etc. that comes with it. Of course it's not all about property value, but the two go hand in hand. That corner appears to have been rezoned for commercial use, so the homeowner may have been able to leave with some cash. If it were just residential, they would have taken a bath. There's a zero % chance that property gained value as a straight single family home, I don't care what assessments were done. So developers make money on the apartment and the commercial development, and the homeowner is displaced. Maybe that's ultimately a good thing, but if the homeowner enjoyed living in that community they probably weren't thrilled about it. Claiming that homeowners should be happy that their property gains value as a commercial location is lunacy. No one buys a SFH hoping that their property may one day become a Walgreens. Unless I'm missing something, these pictures just reinforce the NIMBY argument. Apartments move in and before long the whole neighborhood has completely turned over into something else. That something else is a bunch of apartments owned by single real estate investment firm or individually purchased by a bunch of investors who don't live there, and a commercial property owned by what is likely another group of investors from somewhere else. What some see as a success for urban development, and the notion that more apartments somehow equate to lower housing costs, looks more like forcing locals out of their homes and funneling money out of the city to outside investors. Then we're left with apartments that cost too much to rent for most folks, and those who do are living the isolated and shit-tastic experience of an apartment in America. Awesome. In some circles this is a success. Hourly workers can spend 60% of their wages on rent in an apartment owned by people who don't live in the community and homeowners are displaced to the burbs. It's the wet dream of developers everywhere, but it's damaging to cities. I'm all for paving central Austin over and building a boatload of high rises if they are built for regular folks to live in and not with the intent to milk tax dollars and/or foreign investors by building complexes that only the insanely rich or insanely poor can live in. Austin has attempted mixed use developments that most cannot afford to live in (look at the Triangle for a prime example where they even tried to create something that would foster community and it fucking sucks - one bedrooms starting at $1600 isn't adding any value to Austin whatsoever). It's on a slow jog toward becoming an eye sore even though it still has that new smell. From a developer perspective it was a huge success. Downtown Austin is a bunch of condos owned by foreigners looking to launder their funny money, and no one lives in them other than the occasional rich kid living on daddy's dime. That shit is what is killing cities in this country. Austin need infill, and it needs more housing, but letting developers drive the bus is like letting the fox guard the henhouse. NIMBY homeowners suck in Austin, to be sure, but they're pushing back against an equally shitty attempt to milk the city by outside interests. As I wrote before, this is where strong local leadership is required, and we haven't had that in Austin, well, ever.

lol, no. I was either unclear or you just mistook my meaning. I don't give a shit what other people wear, and have my head so far up my own ass in general that I can't recall the last time I noticed what someone else was wearing. I can still acknowledge that lots of people make judgments based on brands and may think those things about me based on what I'm wearing. The postmodern world can't escape brands. You can't find a writer/screenwriter under the age of 40 who can even put together a story without using brands as shorthand to set tone and describe characters. It's sad, to me, but it's the world we live in. A dumber, shallower world. Just because most people are inured to it doesn't mean it isn't there. That's the goal of every company's branding, to make it ubiquitous to the point we simply expect to see it. As for avoiding labels, I just don't enjoy being a walking billboard. It's hard to avoid anymore, and I'm as susceptible to marketing as anyone else. If you don't think that the vast majority of people walking around wearing Patagonia, North Face, etc. etc. don't do so because they like being attached to the messaging of those brands and what it says about them, you're dreaming. They may not do it consciously, but there's a reason those folks bought a name brand fleece or puff jacket instead of picking up a generic one that works just as well. Non-branded clothing also sends a message in this nutto world we live in.

Moonbug Entertainment says thanks, Yanks! That does seem cruel, but if I were given the option of standing chained to a wall and listening to Baby Shark for 24 hours or going to prison for a year, I know which option I would take. Prison. I would choose prison.

Thanks for the link. It's the old density over individual rights argument. Politicians love it as it allows them to lay all blame at the feet of NIMBY homeowners. It's effective because it's largely true, but it also allows supposed progressive elected officials to get away with doing nothing. All they have to do is pass new zoning rules, but they can't seem to write anything up that isn't dripping with graft. Then when citizens fight it, they bring out the NIMBY excuse again. Rinse and repeat. However, I don't blame anybody who makes a serious investment in a residential home not wanting a giant development going in nearby with subsidized housing. Nobody likes crime, and nobody likes traffic. Adding a development like Mehra wants to do in that article will increase both. There's no way around it. His high minded talk about giving regular folks access to power in Austin is either insanely misguided or carefully considered self flagellation. Moving a poor or lower middle class family into a condo near downtown won't change a fucking thing in terms of their access to power or anything else. Mehra and those like him are no different than other developers, he's just using the feel-good play book to either assuage his own guilt or that of others. He will get paid whether it's by the government or wealthy homebuyers. Either way he's out the door with cash and it's the residents' problem to deal with the aftermath. I don't know what the solution is, ultimately, but finding a way to limit corporate investment of residential real estate, and completely ending foreign purchases of residential real estate, would go a whole lot farther than hoping corrupt elected officials and the spawn of satan (i.e. real estate developers) will magically sort things out. This quote from the article sums it up well, I think. Even people who agree that density should happen sure as hell don't want it on their block. And who can blame them? But we still have to figure out a way to get housing in this city. So the council will either have to nut up and pass zoning that actually fucking works, or maybe we say fuck it and just go full Houston. If they approve projects like this one, they should be paying off the homeowners on the block who will see major losses in home value. It's a form of imminent domain and should be treated as such. Otherwise, it's just theft of property without fair compensation.

There aren't really "both sides". They're all in on it together. All we get is theater. If there is one group who has no clue how to do anything to impact the cost of housing in Austin, it's the city council. And it's all a joke anyway, with developers in bed with local government (like most cities). They won't ever do a damn thing if it slows down the money train. If we continue to elect people with connections to real estate to public office, we'll continue to get nothing but grifting pieces of shit. The outlier on this may be fitlump, which is mind-numbing. I'm sure she'll be in bed with developers soon if she's not already.

Shirt tuckers. Must be aggy.

Has anyone actually named their kid Chad since sometime in the late 70s? I'm sure they exist, but I don't think I've met a Chad younger than 45. Kudos to the Patagonia folks for at least trying to do something with a net benefit. Whether or not such gestures actually result in a net positive is debatable, I suppose, but it's most likely better than doing nothing at all. And yes, if you wear Patagonia it says something about you whether you like it or not. Any clothing that puts its label forward is going to send a message to others and it will almost always be negative except to other douches wearing the same brand. I've tried, over the years, to never buy clothes with visible labels. It's a pathetic thing to do in general, with extreme examples being Euro-dude wearing Gucci/Prada/whatever labels. Nonetheless, I've got a Patagonia fleece that I enjoy in Texas winters, but I'm fully aware that I look like a complete douchebag when I wear it. I just don't care. The puff jackets are like a bright shining beacon announcing the arrival of an insufferable cunt, but they work really damn well. I haven't been able to pull that trigger, but I understand why some do. They're well made.

Better than being a whiny bitch, which is a common theme in threads like this one.

They also called two (one questionable) PI calls to give us a shot at a TD before half. This crew isn't any good, but some Longhorn fans whine about refs way more than is justified. It's like a doctor's kid whining that the free pills he steals from his parents aren't brand name.

Complaining about the refs when Bama has all the penalties takes some serious mental gymnastics.

Well, we all know who the safeties coach is.

Almost the exact same thing happened to me the first week of August. Was at a bar downtown and had 4-5 drinks over the course of a few hours - nothing to make even a lightweight sick. Have no memory of getting home. Wife found me on the bathroom floor unresponsive and called ambulance. All screening came back negative, BAC was nothing special, and I've come to the same conclusion that someone had to have spiked my drink. I couldn't eat for about a week, and I've never been more miserable. I was with a buddy which may have prevented someone from robbing me or whatever they were hoping to do.

Austin will never get its shit together. I guess that's part of the charm, but it's not as cute as it was when the town was small.

YGIFS touched on this, but a big part of the problem is that the killers and many of their victims are First Nations folks. Their own community members have come forward discussing how drugs played a role in all of this, and how drugs and alcohol are a huge problem in their community, which shouldn't be a surprise to anyone. I think these factors have left the Canadian press and the Canadian Government a bit squishy-brained in their response, as it opens up the discussion as to the underlying cause in a way that makes many Canadians squirm. Canada has been on a heavy hitting campaign for a few years now trying to formally apologize and make amends for the treatment of native people in Canada, but it has largely come in the form of window dressing (e.g. First Nations night on Hockey Night in Canada), as these things so often do. It will be interesting to see if this terrible incident leads to any meaningful action. But these underlying issues are also stymying the discussion to a degree, as no one wants to bring up the elephant in the room.

When the phrase "nurse fight" comes up, this isn't what immediately comes to mind. Carry on though, please, as this has potential.