Agreed.
I am sorry… it’s just that The Onion and its jokes are converging ever more with reality…
11 Likes
Fuck those guys. Cool people were wearing them first. I refuse to cede that part of American kitsch to those guys. I will not give in to terrorist fashion sense
6 Likes
Olive Drab
noun, plural olive drabs for 3.
-
a deep olive color.
-
woolen cloth of this color, used especially for U.S. Army uniforms.
-
a military uniform made from this cloth.
3 Likes
So, what have we decided, was it his fault?
1 Like
Just don’t wear a Hawaiian shirt at a demonstration or in any other situation where you might be mistaken for a Boogaloo Boy.
3 Likes
It’s also worth comparing current European hunters. Who mostly just wear functional clothes in earth tones, though there might be a bit of camo here and there.
And of course both in the US and Europe a number of traditional outfitters and hunting brands have become fashion classics. My grandfather and great uncles got all of their serious hunting wear from LL Bean.
The overall popularity of them currently seems to have kept the fascist connotations at bay. Except for, IRRC, very specific patterns or color combos.
Not so with Fred Perry shirts. Where the company actually discontinued one of their longest running patterns because of fascist associations after the Proud Boys picked it as their uniform.
Though it’s not the brand’s first run in with being a fascist symbol it is the first time it got broadly known enough for them to respond.
4 Likes
Yeah, I deliberately didn’t want to complicate the discussion with intercultural comparisons because hunters where I come from look like this
While where I live they’re a lot more Americanised
6 Likes
I find it worth pointing out because the rejoinder to this is usually about functionality, and how no one can kill animals without the magic of REAL TREE making them invisible.
The European hunters I’ve known often make fun of American hunters as unskilled, viewing all the camo as at best an ineffective crutch.
I don’t really think it matters to a deer whether you are in the latest digital pattern, or a big block of natural greens, browns and blues.
4 Likes
That is indeed a very good point. Just like it doesn’t matter to the deer whether your rifle is bolt-action or a semi-automatic AR variant if you’re actually skilled enough to hit it with the first shot. (And if you are a hunter in Europe you will have had to demonstrate that skill for your permit anyway). But apparently the argument for AR style rifles is that otherwise people couldn’t hunt.
6 Likes
That is a much bigger dodge. The calibers they come in are usually not allowed for hunting of medium (deer sized) game. And they’re too big for much that’s smaller, they’re too damaging to the meat. So the argument has devolved to pest control, and 50-70 feral hogs. And that is mostly the only hunting context you’ll see them in, killing large numbers of pest or invasive species on private land.
8 Likes
It doesn’t matter to a deer if you’re dressed all in orange like a traffic cone. In Wisconsin the law even requires that at least 50% of the clothing worn above the waist must be highly visible (e.g. “Blaze Orange”)
https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/29/IV/301
7 Likes
That’s not what we’re talking about. We’re talking about guys who wear the whole kit, top to bottom. They don’t wear shorts, they wear tactical pants with heavy boots. Camo or drab green or desert khaki shirt. Often some kind of tacticool vest. Camo hat, usually with a military or police- style insignia. Not a green samurai helmet. Not pikachu. That’s what these guys wear around town. We’ve all seen it, and pretending that’s not what we’re talking about is gaslighting.
6 Likes
I was responding to this:
If I took that a bit too far with my somewhat flippant reply that’s my bad, but it wasn’t an intentional attempt to gaslight or derail the thread. That’s not my MO.
4 Likes
Oh, I get that. It was in the context of this which is what prompted @Doctor_Faustus’s remark that you replied to.
In the context of this thread, that’s gaslighting.
5 Likes
Yeah, don’t worry. As @duketrout said I was making a wider point about the adoption of military symbolism in American civilian life, not accusing you of being associated with these people.
6 Likes
Most of the people who pay $100 a round are cartridge collectors who have no intention of firing them.
I guess you didn’t say baseball hat, but you did say “military caps” with a big velcro patch, which implies a regulation cap used in the military. Which I don’t believe there is one, baseball or otherwise. Not even the newly allowable cap you linked to has a front patch. Some of the patches are removable on the uniform. (I ran into an A-10 pilot at Target and geeked out for a minute, and she gave me her squadron patch. Super nice.) While the hat with a patch may be inspired by the military - but it isn’t a direct derivative. I did agree that the special forces “operator” look is what many styles are derivative of, and some of them had hats like that.
But anyway, we are getting a bit lost in the weeds.
The other poster called this guys dress “tacticool”. I do not find a ball hat (with or with out patch), t shirt, and cargo pants “tacticool”. Tacticool is impractical gear that one has just to have and doesn’t serve any real function other than to look cool - because they aren’t in a position where they will really need any of it. This would be a helmet, an IR rig, plate carriers with plates. If one is doing a course of fire a mag carrier might be useful, but if you’re just at the range, it does not. It is double tacticool if the gear is Chinese knockoffs and kludged on. See also Mall Ninja.
So tacticool or not - is it indicative of something else?
I don’t disagree that this aesthetic was party derived from being military-like and some of it being used by “operators”. Though, again, some of this existed before its use in the military.
I also don’t disagree that some of the look “is a social marker on the far right.” One can look at the Proud Boys and other groups to see examples.
But I don’t think one can accurately or fairly determine political ideology from aesthetics alone. For the example of Kentucky ballistics, I have probably seen a dozen of his videos ever, a third of them relating to this event and the after math. I haven’t heard him expose far right leanings, and none of the shirts offered come off as far right either - they are mostly inside jokes for the channel and channel promotion. It is clearly an entertainment channel. But I could be 100% wrong - if you dig deep maybe his is an asshole. No idea. I typically hold neutral opinions of people until presented with evidence to think other wise. Dress alone is not enough evidence for me to for an accurate opinion.
Anyone else dressed like that I wouldn’t automatically assume the are part of the far right. Just like I wouldn’t assume some one wearing a black hoodie is “antifa” or an anarchist.
Muted colors, camouflage, Velcro for patches, extra pockets, and other things part of this aesthetic have become so rooted in popular culture that even if it may have been derivative of military dress at one point, it is now its own thing. I just went to the grocery store for some chicken before the game, and the guy in front of me had a camo Royals hat with a white silk screened flag on the side, olive drab track pants (I think that is what you call them) and grey jacket. Does this guy want to be a solder? A baseball player? He was tall enough he might want to play basketball. Or maybe he is just a guy who likes sports and getting some food for the game, just like me.
Then I went to Quick Trip and the guy in line with me had a tight fitting Nike shirt with digital camo sleeves and a ball cap. Again, he wants to be a soldier too?
Are either person part of the far right?
Suggesting that pointing out the origins of certain popular fashions that have negative stereotypes is a dog whistle is an ad hominem. There are a lot of stereotypes based on dress. And just like some people wearing this aesthetic has some people adhering to the stereotype of being far right - for the most part stereotypes based on dress alone is bullshit.
To be clear, a “very specific hat” is a camo hat with an American flag? That is bullshit. I have American flag patches and Navy Jack flag, somewhere. The far-right may be huge flag waivers, but they certainly have not appropriated the American flag. I, for one, won’t let them, and that goes for millions of others.
My dude, you are way over thinking this. Boba Fett is literally a space cowboy, complete with jingling spurs. And the reason he is popular with older people like me is mainly because his action figure stood out so far above the other figures of the period, visually speaking. Look at this magnificent bastard.
I haven’t seen anything to suggest Scott with Kentucky Ballsticics is associated with hate groups. Maybe he is. I can’t tell that from a hat. None of the shirts given in the above examples, nor the ones I looked on his website suggest anything far right. So if you have something like dog whistle tweets, supporting Proud Boys or Jan 6th rioters, then I would concede your point. But even then, you just managed to find an example of someone who confirm your bias. There are plenty of people out there that look the look but don’t match stereotype.
I’d actually agree with you on that in some examples. Not this one with out more information.
Because even if it may have originated in the military, their use average day has nothing to do with the military.
High heeled shoes were originally for men to ride horses better, and later morphed into a sign of masculinity and high social status. Now they are almost universally seen as signs femininity. To suggest that current fashions can’t be separated from their origins is ridiculous.
Are you punk? Or maybe the biker culture. Or rock and roll. Is it vintage, maybe its hipster. And what does that signify? Do you live a punk life style? To what extent? Are you a banker in a suit most days, but tonight is the concert and you want to break out your punk threads and have some fun?
Costume and dress can be cultural cues, but they rarely tell the whole story.
Bad examples. Due to our ’ deep cultural disconnect between us". Let’s bridge that gap.
That men in red are deer hunters. They are wearing red to make themselves more visible and not get shot at by another hunter. This was before blaze orange was adopted. A modern dear hunter looks like this now.
Just like blaze orange was adopted due to new innovations, so has camouflage. Gone are the days of generic BDU, but now there are forest patterns that match the climes a hunter will be in. The hunter in your picture is hunting turkey with a shot gun. Which means he is going to use that little box he has to make turkey calls to get one to get with in hopefully 25-35 yards. In the “old days” they probably would be in a brown or possibly dark flannel jacket to help blend in to the forest better. But now with the advent of better camouflage, why not use the better tool available?
As for the last person, when I would hunt birds with my dad, that is how we dressed and how people typically do. You don’t need camouflage when hunting things like pheasants and quail. You are using dogs to find and flush out birds. You aren’t hiding from them like you would with turkey and some other animals.
I have to ask, what color/type of pants do you wear?
So you’re backing up my point that the Army doesn’t have a monopoly on “olive drab”. Thanks.
I am going to visit my kiddo. I will try to pop in one more time to spout off tomorrow. I know people get yelled out for going too far off topic, and we have gone to “was this guy an idiot or not” to “what can we tell by his clothes?” Which I think is an interesting discussion and maybe could be split off into its own topic.
So do the guys wearing fluorescent orange with camouflage underneath it want to be seen, or not? 
5 Likes
I just had a whole discussion with someone local about ammunition. My local, not yours, and I can tell you that he tells a very different story.
I’m astonished at the amount he and his buddies spend on both sporting and hunting ammunition. And they are all blue collar, not privileged weekend warriors.
2 Likes
I am not a hunter or a gun person, but I know a few. One has been known to wear his deer hunting jacket, and it is a camo pattern in black and fluorescent blaze orange.
It is highly visible to primates, but a blending-in camo pattern to deer, who are colourblind. Not exactly this, but this idea:
2 Likes
You are welcome.
If they had a monopoly this idiot (and others) couldn’t play dress up.
3 Likes
