Tommy Hilfiger chavvy?

Correct. Funny you should choose Polo and Armani, two of the chavviest brands in the UK.

Why do you think RL and Armani are chavvy?

Correct. Funny you should choose Polo and Armani, two of the chavviest brands in the UK.

Like I said before polo and Armani are not chavy, your whole argument on previous threads about wearing Ralph Lauren meaning all people assume you are from traveller community is frankly stereotypical and wrong. If you use your argument does that mean, that all people assume as someone is Muslim they are a terrorist?? Does it mean just because someone is Welsh, they have sex with sheep?? NO IT DOESNT, just because a minority of travellers wear Ralph Lauren does not mean everyone thinks you are a traveller for wearing it.

The other day I was talking to a friend and he said something about Tommy Hilfiger being a 'chavvy' brand. I proceeded to tell him that he was wrong and that I always thought that chavvy brands were the likes of McKenzie or sports brands like Nike etc. He seems to think that all brands like Tommy Hilfiger and Polo are chavvy. Does anyone have any opinion on this?

The fact that everyone thinks you are a traveller for wearing Ralph Lauren means that everyone thinks you are a traveller for wearing Ralph Lauren.

This is not a normative argument. I am not saying this is "right" or "wrong". I am simply relating the truth of the matter.

I'm sorry if you own lots of Ralph Lauren clothes, I know this isn't information you wish to hear

a) all brands are, by definition, chavvy. The definition of chav fashion is to visibly display the amount of money you spent on an item of clothing, or a pimped up car, or big gold jewellery. Non-chavs are neither interested in nor impressed by displays of conspicuous consumption.

a) all brands are, by definition, chavvy. The definition of chav fashion is to visibly display the amount of money you spent on an item of clothing, or a pimped up car, or big gold jewellery. Non-chavs are neither interested in nor impressed by displays of conspicuous consumption.

b) those two brands in particular are notoriously popular with the traveller community, in as much as you will be mistaken for a member of that community if you wear those branded items. Some pubs in Cambridge, for example, specifically ban RL Polo shirts in an effort to discourage travellers from entering.

You realise you're proceeding completely by fiat here, right? Many of the most middle class people I know wear polo RL. Not particularly to show anyone; it's just where they shop.

Socioeconomically "Middle class" people can still have chavvy taste in clothing.

I know a middle class guy who drives a suped up polo with nitro injectors.

Using your logic, that is no longer chavvy because a "middle class" person does it. Which is of course, nonsense.

Of course, that is entirely incorrect. The sociological definition of "chavvy" or "stereotypical working class" taste is based around a propensity towards conspicuous consumption.

I didn't say "a middle class person". I said "lots of middle class people". If it's popular amongst the middle classes you have to start questioning your definition.

I do not disagree with your assessment of the chav tendency towards showing everyone how much money they spend, but you presume that that's the only reason anyone would buy anything from polo rl. It's not.

In any event, you can't equate that with TH. TH's logos are much more discreet, and the logo even if you see it is much less of a universal symbol.

a) all brands are, by definition, chavvy. The definition of chav fashion is to visibly display the amount of money you spent on an item of clothing, or a pimped up car, or big gold jewellery. Non-chavs are neither interested in nor impressed by displays of conspicuous consumption.

b) those two brands in particular are notoriously popular with the traveller community, in as much as you will be mistaken for a member of that community if you wear those branded items. Some pubs in Cambridge, for example, specifically ban RL Polo shirts in an effort to discourage travellers from entering.

I understand the thinking behind a) but in fairness, it's not applicable to most RL as the small pony is pretty discreet. But yeah, I can see why, for example, big pony RL and tops with Armani emblazoned across the front can be deemed 'chavvy'.

I dunno where you're from (presumably Cambridge) but in London, Ralph Lauren is definitely not synonymous with travellers in the way it apparently is in Cambridge. Also, it is likely that travellers will be wearing fake garments which are obviously worn more as a status symbol of (perceived) wealth.

The definition is widely accepted, extremely well defined and based on detailed empirical evidence. Just because socio-economic status is less strongly correlated with taste strata than you personally previously suspected does not invalidate it, it just means you personally need to update your definition of what you consider to be "chavvy" and "middle class".

No. There is no widely accepted definition; "chavvy" means many different things depending upon whom you ask. And you cannot prove one use of language 'correct' empirically.

For all I know there may well be a widely accepted definition within academia, but that's not remotely what's in issue in this thread or in basically any discussion between regular people about "chavviness".

As I've said, you're doing nothing more than proceeding by fiat on what is "chavvy" and then appealing to some vague, undefined authority to prove your statements about your very specific conception of "chavvy" right.

i hope your moms a joke