jr/shotglass said:His basic premise has merit. You all don't like it because it has the name Phil Mushnick on it, and, to a more insidious degree, because the writer is (gasp) more than 55 years old.
It's a fact that gangs gravitate toward specific Yankees merchandise. Is that disputed here?
And one other thing. Younger people can roll their eyes until they fall out of their heads when older people bring up that some things were better 20, 30, 50 years ago. That doesn't make it wrong.
But hey, posting a photo of Grandpa Simpson is edgy.
Versatile said:There's a pretty big ****ing difference between red Yankee hats and Pro Combat jerseys. Which gang wears Oregon Ducks uniforms?
JimmyHoward33 said:Sometimes colors are just colors. The majority of people aren't in gangs, so without some marketing research indicating otherwise I think its safe to assume that the majority of jerseys sold aren't sold to gang members. To suggest that Nike or Under Armour are undertaking an entire operation, the cost of design and outfitting a school with new duds, just to sell to a gang, to me is drawing a line that's not there.
Are there really enough members in even the largest gangs to justify the evil marketing genius he suggests exists?
Versatile said:Mushnick fails to understand where that culture comes from and what it means, which makes him an entirely worthless commentator on it.