Ha!

[sir_graeme]

Am I the only one who sees the irony in this?

Comments

[bluesleeper]

Ah, but you see, it's really an instance of meta-irony! The first level of irony is the disconnect between the shirt bearing a faded "Salvation Army" logo and its $34 price tag, but under that lie the deeper ironies: Is a person who buys the shirt supporting the Salvation Army and its cause? On the surface, it's an advertisement for the product, but spending $34 on a t-shirt because it's from Urban Outfitters clearly is at odds with the values of the Salvation Army. But what if the brand-loyalty is not to Urban Outfitters, but rather to the Salvation Army? After all, someone who buys this shirt is paying $34 to advertise for the SA, while the UO affiliation is visible only to those looking at the label inside the collar. And the person who buys the shirt, which looks kinda dingy and not fashionable, is clearly willing to sacrifice his or her fashionableness (despite being a person who shops at Urban Outfitters!) in order to display the large SA logo. On the other hand, could the purchase be simply a mean-spirited slap in the

[sir_graeme]

Or perhaps the intent is for the owners of the shirt to eventually chuck them over to the Salvation Army, which will make a profit equivalent to maybe 3% of what UO made, while the final wearer will be the only person completely removed from the cloud of irony.

Wow. I received this message at about 10 am, and it totally made my day. My hat off to you, Jason. :-)

[archgirl06]

I didn't click on the link so this has absolutely nothing to do with this entry, however, I ran into your comment(s) on newsbean's journal and you seem intriguing (plus we have friends in common), so... I thought I'd add you. Would appreciate it back. =)

[sir_graeme]

Hi Ivy,

Great! :-) I've seen your comments and posts in WJ and WJ2, along with your comments in our mutual friends' journals. From those and from your own journal, you definitely strike me as someone I'd like to know.

Cheers,

Graeme