Derek Guy versus Vime's boot theory
https://twitter.com/dieworkwear/status/1735419250100363527
Looks like Derek dids the funny a few days ago.
Personally I enjoyed reading it, as I've always thought it was a bit meme-cringe to apply a "theory" from a book about magic & shit to the production of footwear in modern mass industrial economy.
18 Replies
Either you take the theory literally (breaks down) or you expand it to fit whatever someone is trying to say to support an argument. Which in itself is just moving the goalposts to somehow sound smarter. Which it doesn't... cause it's just an anecdote from a book about magic & shit
The discouse about terminally online fashion and Vime boot theory goes back a bit
The boots theory is meant to show the awful effects of capitalism and income inequality on low income households. Derek Guy is applying it to luxury goods. Think instead of the difference between LL Bean bean boots and alibaba bean boots
The actual theory is about things I don't like. Doesn't matter what the quote from a book says or the intent of a dead author
I feel like I’ve only ever heard about it through the terry pratchett? Book. Does it pre-date that?
Yeah it's from a book
I was unironically moving the goalposts
Suppose I should pick a better analogy next time. I was hoping quoting something from a Pratchett book would make me look smart
I mean given who Pratchett was it was almost certainly a criticism of capitalism. I do think Derek is being a little stupid applying it to luxury boots. Applying it to luxury boots instead of work boots completely misses the point.
That said I do think it doesn't really apply to modern boots, and it is more an abstract criticism than something that should be applied literally. You aren't wrong its only used to support things where it's true, and ignored when it's not.
Both the original concept and this critique are based on extremely specific circumstances and details that don’t actually hold up to scrutiny
Like smiles said, it only is meaningful as an abstract
i largely agree with dieworkwear's main thesis, which is debunking the idea that expensive clothes will put you ahead financially in the long run due to them lasting longer. i think it goes hand in hand with people obsessing over this abstract notion of "quality" in clothing because wanting expensive clothes just because they look or feel nice is seen as frivolous. the sam vine's theory kinda helps people trick themselves into thinking those really expensive boots they bought are really an investment and a fiscally responsible thing to do even though the real reason they bought them is because deep down, they just thought they looked cool.
i feel like that whole obsession with quality was massive like ~10 years ago which was when i first joined /r/mfa and i would see the vimes boot theory quote copy pasted on every thread, but thankfully i do believe that's lessening now
Wait you mean the double monks I bought from Sid mashburn in 2012 won’t be lifetime shoes that save me money and get passed down to my kids?
How to Talk to Girls at Parties lied!
Derek once again taking an L by earnestly engaging with internet bullshit that doesn’t deserve the air time to be debunked
The pics of the Alden restoration are dope tho
So disappointed to see Derek taking shit from the likes of Shaun. Dude is just into a niche hobby and getting hammered for making content for people into the same thing
There's a point of inflection that's being ignored, where $50 work boots usually aren't worth it given the quality and lifespan versus a $200-300 pair, but once you get past that there's a huge change in returns on your dollar. After like $500-600 (wesco, nicks, jk, etc) alot of it is a wash.
Nah fairly cheap shoes really aren’t that bad
Boots, specifically for work
Spend 8-10 hours a day on concrete for 5 days straight on cheap boots
They'll break down so fast if they're cheap, 1-3 months
This really depends on your bodyweight and amount of walking/standing in my experience
That's cool, but did TWITTER remove the character limit?
It's weird to me how many people insist on dying on this hill when there are so many real ways to point out how life is better for the rich than the poor. I feel like it's sufficient to say that if you're rich you can buy shoes that feel better, look better, generally last longer/age better, and aren't as big a relative expense vs what shoes some hypothetical poorer person would buy. It's okay to admit that rich people pay more for it, after all they have the money to afford it. Insisting that it's some universally true fact that the expensive boots have a cheaper amortized cost across every time period (both real and fiction) just detracts from all the real points about inequality.
Nowhere did he mention in his pedantic fantasy that the person would be barefoot while waiting for the shoes to arrive or while being resoled