Reply
  • one thing i've seen a lot the last year or two especially on depop is people making some reference to sustainable fashion on their own stores. now obviously this is just marketing for the most part but i always think it's funny that this line is so regularly adopted in the media and by the wider public when so much of what i see there is either (a) hype new s*** that people wanna make a quick buck on or (b) stuff bought from fast fashion sites and resold after a wear or two for very low amounts. it just seems like if anything the majority of people using these sites are just trying to make quick money and if anything are actually adding to the footprint of the products they're selling.

    i know a few people on ktt will flip clothing on after a few years and it tends to be more high quality stuff so i was curious if people had a view on this do you think these sites are truly sustainable or at least in furtherance of that goal or is it just a gimmick for 95% of the userbase?

  • no

  • Jun 8
    ·
    1 reply

    buying existing clothing instead of new product is more sustainable by definition

    however the true way to be sustainable is to stop consuming product and thats just not happening ever so its more of a lesser of two evils type of problem

  • I just want to say that Stockx and GOAT are utter garbage and ruined everything.

  • Jun 8

    I don’t care

  • Shwin

    buying existing clothing instead of new product is more sustainable by definition

    however the true way to be sustainable is to stop consuming product and thats just not happening ever so its more of a lesser of two evils type of problem

  • Nothing is truly sustainable in this world.. except nature itself.

  • Jun 9
    ·
    1 reply

    Sustainable economically in that they have certainly lined the pockets of them who orchestrated their construction, yes. Sustainable in some environmental sense, no because immense resources are still being used to ship the garments to and fro, even though industrial expenditure in their manufacturing has ceased.
    Sustainable is one of those words which has been co-opted by the cultural hegemony to facilitate continued consumption in maintenance of the status quo. New clothes sold as sustainable are obviously not sustainable because they have been manufactured when the sustainable option would have been to not manufacture them in the first place. Used clothes sold under the guise of representing sustainable consumption that are pilfered from thrift stores by young entrepreneurs and shipped across the country or across the world, obviously not sustainable either.
    Sustainable consumption is only sustainable in that we must continue/sustain to consume to sustain the system of capital itself.

  • What the hell even is that

  • idc but sell on jawnflip cause f*** grailed for their high fees

  • empty buzzword

  • mythic

    Sustainable economically in that they have certainly lined the pockets of them who orchestrated their construction, yes. Sustainable in some environmental sense, no because immense resources are still being used to ship the garments to and fro, even though industrial expenditure in their manufacturing has ceased.
    Sustainable is one of those words which has been co-opted by the cultural hegemony to facilitate continued consumption in maintenance of the status quo. New clothes sold as sustainable are obviously not sustainable because they have been manufactured when the sustainable option would have been to not manufacture them in the first place. Used clothes sold under the guise of representing sustainable consumption that are pilfered from thrift stores by young entrepreneurs and shipped across the country or across the world, obviously not sustainable either.
    Sustainable consumption is only sustainable in that we must continue/sustain to consume to sustain the system of capital itself.

Write a reply...|