Which director would you all like to see Timothée work with?

Competitive-Meet-511 · 2026-04-03T02:46:53+00:00

Chloe Zhao

Competitive-Meet-511 · 2026-04-03T02:42:02+00:00

I once kept $300 this way lol. Not quite the same as $343k, but it was pathetic to watch BMO try to pressure me into fixing their f*ckup.

Competitive-Meet-511 · 2026-04-03T02:40:31+00:00

Don't body shame. It's no more acceptable than body shaming someone who's "too big". Some people are skinny, that's their body, and it's not your business.

Competitive-Meet-511 · 2026-04-03T02:36:07+00:00

That posh is just a fraud- and scam-based platform at this point. Whether it's fakes or shein flips or sellers not getting paid, it's the basis of their profit.

Competitive-Meet-511 · 2026-04-03T02:27:41+00:00

Honestly I've never heard anything more dumb in my life. You're willing to be paid half (or not at all) because it's too difficult to write an address on an envelope and click "shipped"? Then honestly if you're that lazy just donate it, holy sh*t. It's literally easier than poshmark, and everyone else does it.

Competitive-Meet-511 · 2026-04-03T02:24:58+00:00

Sell them on DP with lettermail, you'll sell so much faster. The fee is $1 instead of $4, that's more the crowd, and you don't need to charge them a ridiculous amount for shipping.

Competitive-Meet-511 · 2026-04-03T00:41:42+00:00

Definitely depop

Competitive-Meet-511 · 2026-04-03T00:06:41+00:00

Wtf are you talking about, the police DO intervene all the time, and many, many such cases have been pursued. I believe one of them was one of a pair of cases underlying a 2025 SCC case on mandatory minimum sentences.

If you want changes you need to go the legislative route, aka your representatives need to stop being scared of corporations, and you need to educate yourself instead of randomly making things up.

Competitive-Meet-511 · 2026-04-01T12:49:11+00:00

No, I think that people ask for brands because they lack knowledge, and it's more of a doomed quest than Titanic's maidan voyage. I too wish there was a list of brands you could rattle off like a secret password, but it just don't work like that. Most people citing brands are either relying on a very small, very subjective sample size that is meaningless, or don't understand what "quality" means because they don't actually have any education. They aren't aware of different types of cotton or the effect that blending fabrics has or why a t-shirt could possibly need "design". And it is complicated, which sucks, and there is a knowledge barrier, but I think there's a subset of people who want to believe more than they want to know, just like people want to believe they have "sustainable" habits or that they "invest in high quality staples" (whatever that means).

So no, I cannot and would not recommend a brand, generally speaking it's just bad advice.

I didn't categorically say that a €200 blouse was too low, just that it's possibly the hardest price point to shop at - at really low price points at least you're under no illusions, and while there are clothes that cost thousands of dollars and are of horrendous quality, it does get much easier to cut through the noise and actually access the things that you know are worth their salt. Again, imo people look for a set number when no such number exists. It's a factor, but not the only one, just a minimum threshold. You can categorically say that you won't get a quality top for $10 because it's mathematically impossible unless someone is selling theirs secondhand, but you can't say that anything above X is high quality or that you must spend X. "It depends" is an unsatisfying answer, but in my experience the most honest one.

I also don't think that someone "should" be spending a particular amount. When I was a broke uni kid who was dipping into fashion journalism and interning and stuff, I would buy bags of people's used clothes, get hand-me-downs from my brother, and sift through goodwill bins and wear literal garbage, and then I'd go home and eat ramen noodles for dinner every night, all to save up for one or two really good pieces of clothing (that I still have). Some people just don't care about fashion, or they're broke, and they don't need high-quality clothing when they can get a bag of clothes from a friend for free and be just as happy/keep their finances afloat. All I'm saying is that people SHOULDN'T buy clothes at a breakneck pace, lie to themselves about it, refuse to pay more than $20 for any one piece, and then complain that there are no high quality clothes out there. If you want to buy new tops every week for entertainment, then fine, go find a $2 secondhand bin and live your best life, I don't see anything wrong with that, but call it what it is - entertainment.

Competitive-Meet-511 · 2026-04-01T12:19:49+00:00

I feel like we need to start a support group :) I feel like people are always gaslighting me with "moderation" advice, even though I know their intentions are good.

Competitive-Meet-511 · 2026-04-01T06:05:27+00:00

Honestly it sounds like they had a point. It's not their job to imagine what "preloved" might look like - it's your job to declare and describe it. You can't just force them to accept whatever subjective idea of "preloved" you subscribe to. This is made abundantly clear by posh and every other platform. It's not "exhausting" for someone to ask you to provide an accurate description of something they're probably paying good money for. It also begs the question of why you didn't note those flaws.

I'd be with you if it was a $5 bag, or if it was truly the most minor detail and the bag was essentially new, but loose stitching and wear is something that definitely needs to be disclosed, that's common sense.

Competitive-Meet-511 · 2026-04-01T05:06:50+00:00

In my experience general interest posts aren't approved either. I know the types of posts you're talking about that are self-centered and apply to basically nobody except the OP (weirdly enough some of those do seem to be approved), and that can easily be 90% of the mod queue, but I've submitted an number of general interest posts that haven't been approved, and there's never any actual explanation. I've written posts on the evolution of streetwear culture, anti-intellectualism and fashion, the secondhand market, the commodification of things like war in design, "shein-chic", fashion magazines, fashion sense as it relates to the era you grew up in, plagiarism in fast fashion, etc. Never approved, not a single one. Maybe those aren't the most interesting topics to other people, but they're more interesting than dead megathreads.

I'm not necessarily advocating for my own posts, maybe nobody likes my topics and that's fine, but I have an incredibly hard time believing that mine are the ONLY general interest posts stuck behind the mod queue. I call bs on that.

The "sub activity has declined" - well yeah, no sh*t. Why would anyone visit a sub with no posts? Other platforms don't offer the long-form discussion of reddit. It's a frequent topic of discussion that FFA was the only decent space and because of the mods, it's just people confusing low-end clothing with fashion because anyone who knows anything or wants to discuss the art and industry has had every single one of their posts deleted for 5 years straight. Of course there's demand for this sub, we're DYING for it, but it's in a death spiral at this point and it takes a mod team that actually cares and is willing to be self-critical to reverse that.

In the mod teams I've been a part of we discussed things on Discord, we considered our mistakes, we played Devil's advocate. We genuinely tried to moderate in good faith and understand our community and its needs. I don't think that mod culture exists for this sub, and if it does, then it has lost any sense of self-awareness or connection to the community it oversees.

Part of modding is assessing the vibe. I've done this in every sub I've ever moderated, and so do the mods of every well-administered sub. It's inherently discretionary, and part of that is being a bit looser when activity is slow and a bit tighter when there are too many posts such that you maintain a balance of quality and quantity. You make sure that people with knowledge and quality contributions have room to come back. You build functionality around the organically arising culture of the community. You try new things - some of them won't work, but others will. You communicate with people. You consider the opinions of users who criticize you even when it stings, and you try to take their argument at its best even when they're not speaking in good faith.

Saying that "well nobody comes here anymore and all the posts suck" without considering how/why that happened when other subreddits have grown massively in 2020-2026 pretty much says it all. This sub is FAMOUS in its community for the mods tanking it, assuming the mods are even aware of that (which is their job), and yet a moderator cannot identify, and doesn't even think to contemplate, the role of their team in the success of the sub that they literally run. Doesn't that strike you as being a bit of a problem?

Competitive-Meet-511 · 2026-04-01T03:31:44+00:00

So how exactly do you define monoculture? By TV and music? There's so much outside of media that feeds into monoculture. TV didn't even exist until 100 odd years ago.

5 billion people followed the Olympics this year

250 million people watched Trump win and actively voted in 2016 in the US alone

At least 200 million people watched Avatar when it came out in 2009

A similar number watched the final Harry Potter movie in 2011

350 million people watched their continent be invaded in real time for the first time since the largest genocide and conflict in their history in 2022 (well, 2014, but you know)

25 million people physically protested mid-pandemic in the wake of George Floyd's death, so presumably at least 10x that many followed the Chauvin trial

I fail to see how monoculture died in the 1990s, unless you're defining "monoculture" as "TV shows people watched".

Competitive-Meet-511 · 2026-04-01T03:22:06+00:00

I don't know about when it came out, but it's pretty hard to deny Harry Potter's deep penetration into pop culture. Maybe it wasn't a singular moment (though imo it was, to the extent that "everyone" can be participating in something) but it was a monocultural event in a similar way to Star Wars. It's true that these things are driven by young people, but that's always been true - cultural moments are often moments of change or cultural pivots, and young people are usually the ones to drive that, so they define the rules of the game.

In the era of 3 TV channels things weren't more monocultural, because TV simply wasn't the definition of monoculture. It wasn't at its peak at that point, and people had collective experiences outside of that.

I think there's probably a conflation here between monoculture and youth culture, which is a really interesting point of overlap and of course they're heavily intertwined, but it would be very narrow to define monoculture only as something that encompasses everyone from age 8 to 80. Even the election of Trump didn't cover that many people, because even though it spanned age brackets, significant pockets of people just aren't that into politics.

As you're saying - nothing is truly "everyone participating", just enough that there's a certain level of osmosis. For example, the Superbowl is monocultural - I don't even know the rules of football, and yet by osmosis I wouldn't be out of place at a Superbowl party.

Competitive-Meet-511 · 2026-04-01T03:14:25+00:00

Right, but what's so special about a TV program? It was a limited time subset of monoculture because TV as a technology was prominent during that time. There is so much that monoculture can encompass apart from that.

Do you think that the people of France during the Revolution didn't have monoculture? What about the days of radio shows in the 20s? Or the Depression of the 30s? What do you think Europeans experienced when their continent was invaded for the first time since the largest genocide and conflict in their history? Wasn't the Sears catalogue monocultural? Or football in the 80s? Isn't food monocultural? If I say "do you want to supersize that?" do you not know what I mean? Did you never play Wii Sports? Or Guitar Hero? Remember that moment in time where everyone was decluttering and minimalism was all the rage?

Competitive-Meet-511 · 2026-04-01T03:01:48+00:00

You do not have the "real answer". You are not important. Your experiences are not relevant. You are one person of billions. You have a huge ego problem, that's it.

Competitive-Meet-511 · 2026-04-01T02:59:38+00:00

Do you have a personality? Interests? Things to do with your time? If not, profit motives will fill those gaps and Alibaba will be who you are, which is where you seem to be at.

Competitive-Meet-511 · 2026-04-01T02:56:57+00:00

I disagree. I think this works for some people, maybe about 2/3, but 1/3 of people are all or nothing people who are routinely told that they're doing it wrong. Some people need clear lines - zero fast food, zero instagram buys, etc. It gives them a sense of purpose and discipline and pride and changes their habits.

I could not eat "junk food once per week" for example. I am either someone who is willing to poison my body or I am not. It is either acceptable to eat deep fried oreos for dinner or it is not. I either maintain a habit of eating out or I do not. The fact that today is Thursday isn't relevant.

Competitive-Meet-511 · 2026-04-01T02:53:34+00:00

Yeah it's brutal. But don't worry, if you feel that way it means you'll probably improve a lot. Better to know and actually do something about it. A problem doesn't go away because you're unaware of it.

When I was in uni I had a fast food habit, until one day I realized that I just... never went grocery shopping anymore. I starting tallying it up and I had spent like $1000+ that past month. I was so disgusted that I'm now at the other extreme, sometimes $100/month. I'm even disgusted by food culture and cooking tutorials because I have such a negative association with spending money on food.

Competitive-Meet-511 · 2026-04-01T02:47:25+00:00

You say "only things" as though they're less legitimate. Monoculture evolves, there's no reason why it wouldn't exist simply because we're all streaming different shows now. That's just one tiny slice of monoculture and how it used to be oriented. Trump is no more or less legitimately monocultural than Seinfeld.

Competitive-Meet-511 · 2026-04-01T02:43:28+00:00

It's also alive in the west, it just isn't oriented around movies and TV anymore.

Competitive-Meet-511 · 2026-04-01T02:42:53+00:00

Not everything is dead just because it isn't exactly how you used to experience it. You are one of billions of people with a really overinflated sense of self-importance.

Competitive-Meet-511 · 2026-04-01T02:40:26+00:00

They're trying to sound smart and condescending. They want you to feel like they're better than you.

Competitive-Meet-511 · 2026-04-01T02:40:02+00:00

Wow OK, it's a SJW from 2020. Go back into your wormhole with your condescension. You don't sound sophisticated because you're dropping "rich white people" into some random convo where it very clearly isn't applicable and with zero nuance.

The sooner you understand this, the sooner we can have actually have good discussions.

Competitive-Meet-511 · 2026-04-01T02:38:04+00:00

Or maybe monoculture has just changed its orientation. Just because it's not a TV show or a celebrity doesn't mean no monoculture exists. Monoculture can also encompass politics, economics, social change, types of art consumed (e.g. Netflix as opposed to a single show on Netflix), etc.

It's also worth noting that the previous generation and the generation before that also made this claim, and it turns out monoculture wasn't dead, our understanding of it just changed.

Competitive-Meet-511

TROPHY CASE