Video Demonstration Of An Automated, Laser-Distressing Jeans Machine

May 5, 2017


Seen here looking suspiciously like the machine they used to create Wolverine, this is a video demonstration of the 2,500-watt LaserSharp Denim HD Abrasion System doing its thing. Its thing being burning that well-worn look into a pair of jeans. You know, I remember a time before pre-distressed jeans. I remember a time when you bought a pair of crisp, new jeans and they got distressed through the process OF LIVING YOUR LIFE. I also remember a time growing up when we couldn't afford Sunny-D, so my mom would just add bleach to orange juice concentrate to give it that kick.

Keep going for the video.

Thanks to lizzy, for following up with the whole distressed fashion trend sweeping the nation.

  • Perpetual Pizza

    Dude what happened to your jeans?

  • TheQiwiMan

    Socialism: Wait in line for 12 hours to get half a loaf of stale bread because the ruling class have robbed all the wealth of the nation and divvied it up to their friends and cronies, (then get robbed of your bread on your way home, and there's nothing you can do about it, since you've had your guns confiscated and the police have stopped enforcing any laws). This is happening every single day in Venezuela right now.

    Capitalism: If somebody wants to, they can buy ugly jeans that have been shot with lasers to look like they are worn out.

    I wonder which economic system is better?

  • GeneralDisorder

    Pure capitalism leads people down a dark and dangerous path where people poison the environment to make a buck. Regulated capitalism can be good but then where do you draw the line? At what point is regulation hindering advancement?

    Pure socialism reduces incentive to innovate, makes it impossible to generate wealth and makes investment a challenge.

    What would work best, in theory anyway, would be a combination where anyone who needs support gets it (and we don't worry ourselves about fraud because we want to make sure our people are fed and safe first and foremost regardless whether they're able-bodied or drug dealers or who cares). But... we try to also have capitalist backbone to generate wealth and create a some kind of class mobility.

    The existence of class mobility means there's capitalist type incentive to generate wealth, invest in things, etc.

    We also need to make sure big businesses and small businesses won't be able to exploit their workers.

  • TheQiwiMan

    Free-Market Capitalism is the reason the poorest people living in any US ghetto is richer than all the kings and queens from about a hundred years ago all the way back to the first invertebrate.

    Have you ever asked yourself why you just immediately accept the claim that Capitalism needs to be "regulated" by a disinterested 3rd-party bureaucracy, rather than regulated by the market itself? (especially in the age of the Internet) Some worthless know-nothing Bureaucrat in Washington who's never worked an honest day in his life knows how to spend you, and your friends' and family's money better than you do?

    Google Voluntaryism and Anarcho-Capitalism, my friend. All of the benefits of our current system in much greater degree, none of the drawbacks. :-)

  • GeneralDisorder

    Are you implying that there are no regulations in place at this time? Because that would be incorrect.

    The problem with An-Cap nonsense is that the die hard believers think that the government shouldn't be taxing anyone and everyone will pay for their own stuff. Including but not limited to police forces. You cannot buy a police department because it's illegal to do so. You cannot build a prison and put prisoners to death on a whim (there are requirements for minimum human rights and due process).

    If you want to pay out of pocket for roads it's going to cost a huge amount of money to maintain infrastructure.

    The current situation in the US is the result of a great deal of struggle and hardship under a closer-to-free-market where people spent 80 hours a week working themselves to death and digging themselves into deeper and deeper debt by way of company stores and whatnot.

    I absolutely think that regulation reduces innovation. But I also think that without regulation you have rivers that catch fire (that happened), entire towns being poisoned by lead (that happened), entire cities become toxic dumps (that happened), economies collapse making the upper crust of society uber-rich and the bottom layers destitute (that happened) and no one answers for it.

    If you're not joking you're terribly misinformed about what regulation does.

  • TheQiwiMan

    I see you have no interest in learning anything. I hope that changes some day.

    Take care, brother. :-)

  • GeneralDisorder

    I'm not seeing much difference between Voluntaryism and Anarcho-capitalism. They both seem like the kind of gibberish that the uber-wealthy demand so they can more efficiently screw the proletariat.

    I'm not a communist. I find the idea of people existing to serve the state to be appalling at best. And the idea that private property is theft is complete nonsense (although private ownership of land and property has some negative consequences but it's far more positive than negative).

    Do you think it's possible to build roads without government scale tax collection? If you asked the top 1% of the world to fork over say... $1 million so you can build a highway do you think they'd oblige or would they just have their private police force shoot you and bury your body? I know which one I'd do if we were living in anarcho-capitalist system.

    For that matter who defines what money is? The vast majority of the money in the world right now is fiat currency (i.e. governments say it's money, ergo it is). How can a capitalist system work at all without some powerful governing body saying "this is money and that is not"?

  • TheQiwiMan

    While I'd hardly call wanting to abolish a system that legitimizes a monopoly of lethal force wholly reliant on extortion in order to live with a higher degree of moral and intellectual consistency "gibberish", (I would call it wanting to live in an *actual* civilized society) I am glad to hear you are familiar with some of the fundamental principles of self-ownership and basic economics. (And extra glad that you see through Proudon's asinine assertion that the mere owning of property is theft)

    So basically your assertions can be summed up like this: "We can't afford to pay for certain goods and services, but we somehow CAN pay for them along with layers and layers of bureaucracy to oversee these services"?

    Do you know how roads used to be built before government got involved? That's worth looking into, believe it or not we had roads, schools, the military, emergency services networks all before 1913 and the introduction of the Income Tax. One of the most fundamental principle of economics states "if there is a need or market desire, there is potential for a successful business." Capitalism excels because in a truly free market, the only way a company can survive is by pleasing enough people. If a company fails to make a good product, or acts shady, it goes out of business. Harmful successful businesses and monopolies can ONLY exist under Corporatism, where corporations can use government muscle to create and enforce Barriers to Entry, keeping competition from winning away all their customers. The more government is involved in the market, the less Free Market Capitalist the society, and the greater the stagnation and corruption. (Constantly having to win over customers and keep your own customer base happy is the best incentive to stay honest and beneficial, remove that incentive and watch the corruption and abuse skyrocket)

    As far as money goes, cryptocurrency looks like a perfect solution. Competing currencies will keep money honest, as users can decide which money to use, businesses can decide which currency to accept, and the house of cards that is fiat currency will quickly and quietly disappear. This is why Socialism always fails, by the way. Value is subjective, therefore it doesn't matter how smart the top mathematicians and economists are, no one can centrally plan an economy. This is why Socialist countries always end up with breadlines and starvation, with warehouses full of sporks.

    Of course all of this is nothing more than educated guesses, no one can truly know what kind of world we are capable of building once we evolve out of the current barbaric system. But 150 years ago, no one knew how our society could run without institutionalized slavery either. It was those crazy Abolitionists appealing for the end of an immoral system that brought forth such a leap forward in human civilization. When (cowardly, short-sighted, selfish) people asked "But who will pick the cotton?"- the Abolitionists said "I DON'T GIVE A F**K, SLAVERY IS IMMORAL AND NEEDS TO END". If you went back in time and tried to explain why we didn't need slavery, that pretty soon we'd have giant robot machines that run on the sludge of extinct flora from millions of years ago, and that these machines could pick more cotton in a day than their whole plantation could in an entire year, do you think that argument would win any of them over? Of course not, they'd throw you in the loony bin - EVEN THOUGH THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED.

    So yeah, I argue for an end to an immoral system that requires the complete lack of respect for the element of consent in all human interactions, that is funded on mafia-style extortion -"Pay us or we'll throw you in a rape dungeon (euphemistically called 'prison'), and if you resist enough we'll kill you".

    That's not civilized. That's barbaric. The solution is less government power, never more. If people can't be trusted with freedom, how the hell can they be trusted with lethal power over others?


  • GeneralDisorder

    I definitely agree with some of what you're saying. I just figure people can't be trusted to self-police. Sure, some people are pretty moral upstanding types. But not everyone has an honest honorable upbringing. And there needs to be limits.

    And... I do wish the US would be less punitive and more about actual reform for people who break the law. I say start by legalizing pretty much anything that doesn't hurt others directly (I'm very pro-drug). And... reduce military spending in favor of say... making education affordable (or fuck it, fix healthcare already).

  • TheQiwiMan

    A HA! I knew you had some secret AnCap leanings hidden under there! :-D

    Yeah I've kinda had my mind blown after studying Natural Law. Basically, if an action has no victim, it is categorically not a "crime". And if people can't be trusted to self-police, how the hell can we trust them to violently rule over others? It's no wonder so many of our politicians are legitimate sociopaths, power corrupts, and the most powerful positions will always attract the most corruptible. Until we make contact with some type of celestial benevolent aliens or angels or gods or whatever, we're stuck with our fellow untrustworthy humans, therefore NO ONE should be given the permission to impose their opinions onto others by pointing a gun at their face.

    All these peeps tryina' use Sauron's Ring of Power to wield it in defense of Gondor (oblivious to the inescapable corrupting influence of this evil part of Sauron's soul) and I'm just here like tryina' throw it into Mt. Doom... :-P

  • GeneralDisorder

    I'd be more anarcho-socialist than anarcho-capitalist. If people want to rule they have to prove they can serve. And there should also be limits to how long one can rule and how much power one can have.

  • Jason Christopher

    FFS, it was a stupid article about blue jeans.

  • The_Wretched

    And yet socialist Bolivia is doing just fine. Both had massive spikes in national income from the oil sector. V spent the funds willy nilly whereas Bolivia was more careful and set up better financial controls.

  • Jenness

    Bolivia is one of the poorest nations in that area of the world and while the crime is on par with the US it's been rising rather dramatically. I would not use the term 'fine'.

    Do want to add though Bolivians are some of the nicest people on the planet - so long as you are not GLBT and just visiting. It would be a very hard place to move to, but it is a beautiful country nonetheless.

  • TheQiwiMan

    Sweet! So when are you planning on moving to Bolivia then?

  • The_Wretched


  • reave

    Mmmmm, bleach juice.
    These trendy types would really love my collection of old, faded and generally fucked up jeans.

blog comments powered by Disqus
Previous Post
Next Post