>>18511983
I personally think shit like this looks cool, so will have to respectfully disagree with you regarding, "Try to fit in." I still dress like a chud, but would like to own something nice one day. Still, Walmart probably isn't the appropriate place to dress like a gay musketeer.

What zoomers understand and you probably don't is that life is very, very short. Yes, that sentiment is popular, but not everyone truly understands it. Many popular things are actually profoundly arcane and truly understood only by few.

Even the reason people don't wear suits these days is to avoid seeming "quirky." So the very thing you're being critical of is what caused people to begin dressing less sharply. It is more natural to put so little emphasis on appearance that we look unremarkable. The 20th century fascination with boring yet practical and aesthetic attire was a historical anomaly. People prior dressed either ornately or simply. Perhaps puritans had a similar emphasis on reserved grace, but they were far more flamboyant than any 1950s man or woman. The 1950s was like a cross between Rome and quaker New England.