Dickheads (2015) • Hacker News Board

Re: Dickheads (2015)

#41

Post by ChrisMarshallNY » Sat, Sep 05, 2020, 11:44 AM UTC

PaulRobinson wrote: post #17

With this kind of analysis I can make the wearing of a t-shirt, jeans and trainers all about the penis too. If you’re obsessed with how clothes represent genitals and sexuality, you’re going to find all clothes represent genitals and sexuality to some degree. Why that collar around the neck? Why that hoodie concealing the precise shape of the torso? Why the bright white of those Jordan Airs? I wear a tie occasionally…

I seem to remember a fairly well-known psychologist, who had a thesis, stating that pretty much everything we do, at any time, for any reason, can be boiled down to the desire to bump uglies; sometimes, with our parents.

Not sure I completely agree with him, but it's an entertaining way to look at the world.

Re: Dickheads (2015)

#42

Post by scottlocklin » Sat, Sep 05, 2020, 12:02 PM UTC

He should do something on the "Silicon Valley Tuxedo" aka blue jeans, loafers, a sports coat, stripey or tattersall button down collar shirt open at the neck.

Also; something needs to be done about fleece vests.

Re: Dickheads (2015)

#43

Post by cafard » Sat, Sep 05, 2020, 12:04 PM UTC

bryanrasmussen wrote: post #24

I think this kind of Freudian viewpoint about the purpose of all sorts of things began to fall out of fashion at the turn of the century (with the dying off of committed Freudians from the last century), and it sounds sort of ludicrous now - much like if someone started spouting off theories based on phrenology. It reminds me of some book I was reading in the 80s that started off in the intro with the theory that roc…

I think that you are correct, but that the big fall-off happened between 1980 and 1990.

Re: Dickheads (2015)

#44

Post by the_jeremy » Sat, Sep 05, 2020, 1:08 PM UTC

scandox wrote: post #27

cassepipe wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"it’s about conformity." You just nailed it.

And yet it is the one piece of clothing where people get to display a small amount of distinctive style. So I think there is still something to be elucidated. If one gave a shit. Which one does not.

> the one piece

In what world? Shoes, belt buckle, cuff links, lapel pins, watches, and style and cut of the rest of the outfit allow "a small amount of distinctive style". Ignoring, of course, all the less formal, distinctive style choices.

Re: Dickheads (2015)

#45

Post by praptak » Sat, Sep 05, 2020, 1:17 PM UTC

searchableguy wrote: post #32

praptak wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It builds an interesting argument. It takes dick jokes and makes them quality humor.

I read the full article and this doesn't seem to have any focus. It vaguely mentions some interesting tid bits but doesn't articulate on them or back them up properly.

To me the appeal is similar to, dunno, maybe a basketball trick? The technique is interesting, not the end result and not adherence to the official rules of the game.

Re: Dickheads (2015)

#46

Post by 082349872349872 » Sat, Sep 05, 2020, 1:19 PM UTC

ChrisMarshallNY wrote: post #41

PaulRobinson wrote: post #17

With this kind of analysis I can make the wearing of a t-shirt, jeans and trainers all about the penis too. If you’re obsessed with how clothes represent genitals and sexuality, you’re going to find all clothes represent genitals and sexuality to some degree. Why that collar around the neck? Why that hoodie concealing the precise shape of the torso? Why the bright white of those Jordan Airs? I wear a tie occasionally…

I seem to remember a fairly well-known psychologist, who had a thesis, stating that pretty much everything we do, at any time, for any reason, can be boiled down to the desire to bump uglies; sometimes, with our parents. Not sure I completely agree with him, but it's an entertaining way to look at the world.

It's especially entertaining when the surface meaning[1] of the conversation is only a cover for one's desire to bump uglies[2] with the conversee. The standard strategy is to make slips and see if, as for a TCP ACK, one's interlocutor slips[3] in return. This strategy, as attested from folk song[4] to Shakespeare, existed well before[5] the Viennese psychologist[6], but he provided intellectual deniability.

[1] TFA, for instance, is probably less well framed as a logical argument, and better as a poetic conceit, a shaggy dog story transmuting the apparent street rudeness of the title to intellectual respectability. (compare Ovid, Metamorphōseōn librī)

[2] In the sorts of bars which play both kinds of music, there is a convention that a lady only ever touches a gentleman's cowboy hat if she has (or hopes soon to have) touched his tie-substitute. Needless to say, in ambiguous situations this provides a sartorial haptic channel, in addition to the common verbal channel, for conversation (or territoriality).

Compare https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24339584

[3] https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/71O-VXB7Q5L...

[4] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24130589

[5] https://books.google.ch/books?id=Q2gRtLLmZTAC&pg=PA178&lpg=P...

compare https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24373341

> "Nègue pòté maïs dans so lapoche pou volé poule;—milatt pòté cordon dans so lapoche pou volé choual;—nhomme blanc pòté larzan dans so lapoche pou trompé fille.

> (Le nègre porte du maïs dans sa poche pour voler des poules;—le mulâtre porte un cordon dans sa poche pour voler des chevaux;—l’homme blanc porte de l’argent dans sa poche pour tromper les filles.)

> The negro carries corn in his pocket to [help him to] steal chickens; the mulatto carries a rope in his pocket to steal horses; the white man carries money in his pocket to deceive girls."

[6] the opposite mating strategy is the Freudian Crash-and-Burn:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HSmkxy24iwc&t=180 (1975: might be NSFW for anglophones, for language?)

What do kids do these days? I guess phone intermediation would rule out much of the kinaesthetic?

Re: Dickheads (2015)

#47

Post by 082349872349872 » Sat, Sep 05, 2020, 1:37 PM UTC

the_jeremy wrote: post #44

scandox wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And yet it is the one piece of clothing where people get to display a small amount of distinctive style. So I think there is still something to be elucidated. If one gave a shit. Which one does not.

> the one piece In what world? Shoes, belt buckle, cuff links, lapel pins, watches, and style and cut of the rest of the outfit allow "a small amount of distinctive style". Ignoring, of course, all the less formal, distinctive style choices.

Depending upon matrimonial status, fit might be an important addition to the list.

My wife (as she is now) noticed, while we were dating, that the stripes on my shirts matched at the seams. I don't care about such details myself, but what are we to do when women are such visual creatures?

Re: Dickheads (2015)

#48

Post by zxcvbn4038 » Sat, Sep 05, 2020, 2:20 PM UTC

zepolen wrote: post #39

A person who wants to look powerful can wear a tie. A person who's actually powerful wears whatever the fuck they want.

Too true! Doing whatever you want is the ultimate symbol of power. I’ve been reading about Mohammed bin Salman a lot lately, I think he is pretty much the picture of power both in the means to do anything and the restraint not too.

Re: Dickheads (2015)

#49

Post by torben-friis » Sat, Sep 05, 2020, 6:14 PM UTC

082349872349872 wrote: post #34

bryanrasmussen wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am of course still somewhat sympathetic to a little less obsessive view that ties may function as phallic symbols, given that there is a difference between design and engineering - a rocket is shaped the way it is because of its engineering purpose, but a tie seems to have no purpose other than design (although I suppose the cravat and pre-modern ties had other purposes.) - I didn't think this observation should be…

The hunting stock (a more direct descendant of the cravat?) is said to have emergency uses (sling, tourniquet, etc.). That noted, I've practically used my belt numerous times, but never my neckwear. Well, hardly ever. At "The Oasis" (an infamous fictional dive), men's gimme caps slowly slide backwards on their heads until everyone knows the evening has sufficiently advanced to sing songs. At black tie affairs the gro…

> Well, hardly ever. At "The Oasis" (an infamous fictional dive), men's gimme caps slowly slide backwards on their heads until everyone knows the evening has sufficiently advanced to sing songs. At black tie affairs the growing prevalence of rakishly worn unknotted bow ties provides exactly the same signal.

I'm sorry, but I don't really understand anything at all in that paragraph. That's not a criticism of your way of writing, I'm not a native speaker, I'm just completely lost here.

What's a dive? What are gimme caps? is the singing songs part literal or is an euphemism, and if it's the former why do people need to signal discreetly that they're ready to sing? What's a black tie fair?

Re: Dickheads (2015)

#50

Post by bryanrasmussen » Sat, Sep 05, 2020, 6:58 PM UTC

torben-friis wrote: post #49

082349872349872 wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The hunting stock (a more direct descendant of the cravat?) is said to have emergency uses (sling, tourniquet, etc.). That noted, I've practically used my belt numerous times, but never my neckwear. Well, hardly ever. At "The Oasis" (an infamous fictional dive), men's gimme caps slowly slide backwards on their heads until everyone knows the evening has sufficiently advanced to sing songs. At black tie affairs the gro…

> Well, hardly ever. At "The Oasis" (an infamous fictional dive), men's gimme caps slowly slide backwards on their heads until everyone knows the evening has sufficiently advanced to sing songs. At black tie affairs the growing prevalence of rakishly worn unknotted bow ties provides exactly the same signal. I'm sorry, but I don't really understand anything at all in that paragraph. That's not a criticism of your way…

a dive is a place of low repute where hard liquor is available, I don't know what a gimme cap is - some sort of cap I suppose - and as the men at this dive get progressively more drunk they sort of lose control of their caps which slide backwards, of course they are not using it to signal they are ready to sing, it is amusing, observing these people with their caps all back you might think they had given the signal they were ready to sing as they all start singing, but instead they are singing for the same reason their caps are back - because they are drunk.

A black tie affair is a very fancy party of some sort, where people must dress up to attend, but as they get drunk at this fancy place their bow ties become unknotted and they show they are ready to sing, just as the people with the pushed back caps at the much less fancy dive do.