• FigMcLargeHuge@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    52
    ·
    11 months ago

    They might as well try banning fashion and individual choice. Just because you ban destroying clothing if it doesn’t sell doesn’t mean that people will automatically wear it. Just walk into any resale shop/goodwill store and see the amount of clothes there that are practically given away and people are still picky about it. “MEP Alessandra Moretti, who spearheaded the legislation through parliament, said: "It is time to end the model of ‘take, make, dispose’ that is so harmful to our planet, our health and our economy.” " Well I don’t know about her, but I have a simple set of shirts, pants, socks and underwear that I have just been rotating through for years (yes I wash them). Sounds like they need to work on the stigma of wearing clothes more than once…

    • davidgro@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      50
      ·
      11 months ago

      The issue is that some of the brands are intentionally destroying unsold clothing so ‘the poors’ can’t end up wearing their brand and I guess diluting the brand’s reputation or something.

      • Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        11 months ago

        They could just punch an eye hole in it somewhere and send it to some place that wants/needs clothes.

        • davidgro@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          edit-2
          11 months ago

          I’m not sure what you mean. They are (currently) explicitly making sure that the clothing never ends anywhere that wants/needs clothes - as in the goal is anti-charity.

          Under the new law, I hope they can’t take a hole puncher to it. If they are allowed, they’ll do as much damage as they legally can.

          • Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            11 months ago

            Because you aren’t likely to run into someone with a “fake” and they couldn’t just ship them back to western countries to resell and undercut. How is that worse then them currently destroying them?

            • davidgro@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              11 months ago

              Oh, interesting. I wasn’t aware of the reselling thing, and from the votes it seems a lot of others weren’t either. I guess if it’s just punched on something like the label/tag then that would be fine. Or maybe use permanent dye/bleach to blot it out.

    • ninjan@lemmy.mildgrim.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      24
      ·
      11 months ago

      Much better if they’re simply given away as charity as the end stop instead of literally sent into the incinerator to try and extract a fraction of the energy that went into making it. At least that way people who literally can’t afford clothes get to wear something new, clean and whole.

        • LavaPlanet@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          11 months ago

          The capitalism model doesn’t allow room for morals, so literally anything we want done morally or ethically has to be regulated.

    • Rob@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      11 months ago

      (yes I wash them)

      I had assumed as much, but you explicitly saying so just makes me doubt it.

      • FigMcLargeHuge@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        I was just trying to see if I could preempt the comments where people would ask if I ever washed my clothes. Evidently my entire comment was a disaster in people’s opinion. Oh well, just an old guy yelling at clouds over here.

    • Leela [it/its] @lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      the point and you are on a parallel path, separated by a thick wall. if only that wall hadn’t existed and you’d understand the fact Alessandra is proving your point.