> It's classist by definition to be against fast fashion because that's what class _is_. "We don't do that sort of thing".
It's not classist to question why people can't afford more quality clothes instead of that junk. It's not classist to care about the human, social and ecological consequence of the fast fashion industry and expose them. It's only conveniently "classist" according the the fast fashion industry itself to question their business model and record profits.
Remember that "classism" has a negative connotation, like racism, ageism, sexism, it's not a neutral term.
It doesn't have a negative connotation in my mind, class is an inherent part of the human experience as far as I'm concerned. It's just culture. Very different from immutable personal characteristics.
> class is an inherent part of the human experience as far as I'm concerned.
So is racism and sexism, it's still has a negative connotation. Not because of the "ism", but because of who use that word and what for, or we wouldn't be here having that discussion at first place since the context is the linked article.
> Classism isn't "discrimination" in the same sense because you're directly attacking a behaviour rather than ascribing group dynamics.
You can't make up a definition just to suit your argument either. There is an article and you can question its definition but within the context of that article, classism is deemed having a negative connotation, which it does anyway whether you claim it doesn't or not.
Classism is absolutely discriminatory, by the very definition of the word. Accusing somebody of classism is derogatory.
The whole point here revolves around the question of whether being against fast fashion is akin to shaming poor people for not being able to afford more expensive clothes thus classism.
You're defining "classist" to mean "anything that is about class", but that's not really right. A better definition of "classist" is "actions that enforce class systems", and by that definition being against fast fashion is not inherently classist.
However, one can advocate against fast fashion in a classist way.
People "don't do that sort of thing" because of class, because of nationality, because of religion, because of age, because of gender, because of marital status, and I've probably missed a few. You can't point to any specific "we don't do that sort of thing" and say definitively that it's class.
The headline seems needlessly provocative, really.
If class X thinks that it's OK to do Y, but I think Y is abhorrent, that might well be classist, and frankly I don't give a toss.
The real question is whether more sustainable materials are unaffordable to poor people. The answer is quite clearly no.