Fashion

For $129, You Too Can Look Like a Victim of State Violence

|

Clothing chain Urban Outfitters is known for selling $85 versions of the kind of shirts you could find at a thrift store. But a new item offered on the retailer's website may put all previous Urban Outfitters absurdities to shame. The currently sold out, clearly-trolling-us garment? A faux-blood spattered, "vintage" Kent State sweatshirt: 

Yes, folks, for just $129, you can stylishly commemorate representatives of the U.S. government gunning down unarmed college demonstrators. Might we suggest ordering a few extra to ship to friends in Ferguson, Missouri? 

Update: The apparently one-of-a-kind sweatshirt was purchased and is now selling on ebay, with the starting bid set at $550. "Perfect for Halloween or whatever your deal is," the seller writes. "Also; I'm gonna give 50% of the profit to The Southern Poverty Law Center, who protect those who cannot protect themselves, often those who are victims of police brutality." 

NEXT: A.M. Links: Obama to Use Iraq War Authorization to Justify ISIS Airstrikes, U.S. to Deploy Troops in West Africa to Combat Ebola, Queen of England Warns Scotland About Voting for Independence

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Very cool indeed. I want one. Wow.

    http://www.Crypt-Tools.tk

    1. Anon bot is scaring me (even more than usual).

  2. “Also; I’m gonna give 50% of the profit to The Southern Poverty Law Center, who protect those who cannot protect themselves, often those who are victims of police brutality.”

    Makes me want an “I Survived Floyd Corkins” shirt.

  3. The SPLC is goddamn racket.

    1. The SPLC is just a full on leftist version of the Westboro Baptist Church. Both are just big trolling for dollars operations.

  4. The SPLC are great supporters of legitimized state violence.

    1. Yeah, there is a whole lot of irony going on here.

    2. But they’re supporters of legitimized state violence against the right people (the ones who think the wrong way). That makes it totally okay, right?

  5. Wait, what?… the fuck? The Southern Poverty Law Center needs your cheesy empathy like it needs another reason to hate on freedom, seller. Christ, talk about the pendulum swinging wildly hither on yon.

  6. Send one to Fauxcahontas to wear on the campaign trail.

  7. “Also; I’m gonna give 50% of the profit to The Southern Poverty Law Center, who protect those who cannot protect themselves, often those who are victims of police brutality.”

    P T Barnum would be proud.

  8. I hope diehipster finds whoever ends up with this shirt.

    1. It comes with its own portable LP player and ironic vintage headphones.

  9. That’s in bad taste, does it even matter any more?

  10. In all seriousness, there is someone out there whose brother or sister or son or daughter died at Kent State. This is no different than selling a “Martin Luther King memorial blood stained suit to benefit the NAACP legal defense fund”. You really can’t overstate what tasteless disgusting people whoever is selling this is.

    1. Meh it would be a good Halloween costume. pushing the line on tasteless and disgusting but humorous (I would chuckle anyway).

    2. you have to admit if you saw someone wearing that you would probably laugh.

      1. Maybe for a second, until I thought about it.

        1. Bad taste is so twentieth century, I guess.

          1. Do you even watch HGTV. It’s permeating throughout our culture.

            1. Blame the Kanukistanis for that.

              Nearly every damn hoose on that channel is above 54’40” …

          2. Bad taste isn’t Empty taste.

      2. Within a couple of years of the massacre, I remember hearing that students at KSU were wearing sweatshirts with the school’s name and logo on the front (as in the sweatshirt pictured here) and a bulls-eye on the back. That was tasteless too, but also funny.

    3. Tastelessness has to be based on motive I would argue.

    4. I think you are taking this wrong. The shirt is a protest of government.

      1. I read it as a mockery of hippie-culture self-importance.

        That’s the lesson I’ve always drawn from Kent State – or at least how it became The Defining Moment for so many boomer types.

    5. Has Jesse Jackson auctioned it off yet?

    6. Maybe they could sell raffle tickets for the JFK Lincoln convertible. That would bring in some serious cash.

    7. That’s never stopped anyone selling a Che Guevara shirt.

    8. *In all seriousness, there is someone out there whose brother or sister or son or daughter died at Kent State*

      Maybe not, I mean, after all there were only four. I know CSNY made such a racket you’d think the place was the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising Mark II, but that wasn’t the case.

  11. Yeah that looks like it would be really difficult to reproduce. Well worth 550. And yes the SPLC are statist scum.

  12. Little early on a Monday morning to be pummeling us with the reality of human stupidity, Liz. Can’t you just give us a meditation on a Hayek or Rothbard quote?

    Like we have to be reminded what a brilliant idea it was for ObamaNixon to start an unnecessary war in Iraq SyriaCambodia and what terrible consequences it had for the US domestically.

  13. How about a blood spattered Roe vs Wade hoodie? Percentage of profits to go to Planned parenthood.

    1. I think that is their vintage pants line.

      1. also this exists so….

        1. Since you used proper html formatting, you win.

          1. I ensured victory by posting it under my comment as well. It was a good race.

        2. Perfect for pregnant hamsters.

    2. Coat hanger pendant (it’s real)

      http://dcabortionfund.org/donate/

      1. Repellant. Nobody ever lost a dollar underestimating the taste of political actors.

      2. A coat hanger is just an immoral way to kill a fetus. Lemme show you the correct way.

        1. The John Holmes method?

      3. That’s amazing. Truly amazing. People donate money to those scumbags.

  14. When can I get my vintage Trayvon hoodie and skittles? Of course a small donation would go to the Brady fund.

  15. I like it. It’s hilarious.

  16. Neil Young should buy it.

  17. Should we all get together and have one made that says “I don’t worry about my sex life, I get screwed by the Government every day.”? Or does that imply the wearer is a bottom?

    Testeless-ness in mocking the government is pretty low on my concern list.
    Especially when it’s tasteless-ness in pointing out that the government murders its citizens.

    1. “Testeless-ness in mocking the government is pretty low on my concern list.”

      Yes… the motive here justifies the taste vacuum which can never be lower or more devoid of life than state violence committed on innocents.

  18. Getting outraged at this after living through decades of Che T Shirts is like getting offended at Shreek’s spelling mistakes.

    1. Seriously, people are so retarded.

      1. But how many legit thinking people are really offended by this shirt? I’d wager not too many.

        1. That’s because people are retarded and should be offended.

          1. I don’t think this is a black/white call.

          2. Should is a bastard stepchild. Nobody wants to hear it.

        2. I’d pay a helluva lot more than 129$ for a shirt that makes me NOT look like a victim of state violence. I’m guessing it’d be blue and have some kind of badge or something pinned to it.

  19. The Kent State massacre gave us Devo. So that’s something. Have you got the papers the Chinaman gave you?

  20. So, it’s wrong to point out the government is full of megalomaniacal shitbags willing to shoot college kids who don’t bow to their authority?

    I don’t get the outrage?

    1. Nostalgic hippies found a singular synapse in their memory telling them state power is oppressive. It flickers at times like an LSD flashback then dies out when looking at 2014.

    2. I’d object to a Kennedy head-exploding Halloween mask or a Nick Berg detachable-head halloween costume too.

      There’s a line between art/morbid humor and trivializing murder, and this is way over in the trivializing zone in my system of values and I’d hope most other people’s as well.

      1. The Soviets had a boatload of bad jokes about the brutality of the regime. Humor can be used to expose state brutality. Give you this though, if you wear this sweater, you should understand and explain why.

      2. Just say no to political correctness.

        I can sell and wear anything I fucking want. If someone doesn’t like it, they can suck my ass.

        How’s that for sensitivity?

        1. Confusing politics and aesthetics. Libertarianism does not necessitate moral nihilism.

          I reserve the right to call people distasteful assholes–and anyone who’d wear this is a distasteful asshole–and I reserve your right to do so as well, even if you choose to say nothing or even toss in with them.

          1. There is nothing “immoral” about wearing/producing this shirt.

            Libertarian principle is moral in and of itself. If no one was harmed, it’s moral.

            However, I agree that you have every right to find it distasteful, if you so choose. Much like I don’t like vanilla ice cream. But that doesn’t make vanilla ice cream immoral.

            1. There is nothing “immoral” about wearing/producing this shirt.

              Maybe, but that’s beyond the scope of libertarianism, and there are plenty of libertarians who’d disagree. Libertarians aren’t objectivists–we have a limited libertarian political ethic that we usually fight about, but questions of broad morality are beyond the movement.

              Anyway, this shirt will be bought by a hipster who will wear it on the days when he washes his el che t-shirt. He can have a swastika tattooed on his forehead if he wants, but I’m not going to socialize or trade with the horse’s ass.

              1. Maybe, but that’s beyond the scope of libertarianism, and there are plenty of libertarians who’d disagree.

                Well they’d be wrong. Bad taste is not immorality. Something that is understandably offensive is also not prima facie immoral.

                but questions of broad morality are beyond the movement.

                Libertarianism is rational morality. It certainly doesn’t include arbitrary religious proscriptions of morality, but libertarianism does discuss broad morality.

                Libertarianism isn’t merely a political philosophy, it is a general philosophy with political implications.

                1. I said libertarianism didn’t necessitate moral nihilism–meaning that there’s no libertarian injunction against passing moral judgment on other people for their voluntary choices–not that the shirt was immoral. Libertarians can make that decision for themselves.

                  Libertarianism is rational morality.

                  Nay, nay, a thousand times nay. What you are describing is an almost perfect Objectivism. Libertarianism is a political philosophy and an ethic that has nothing whatsoever to say about morality.

                  Libertarianism isn’t merely a political philosophy, it is a general philosophy with political implications.

                  No, and this is a big point about the nature of libertarian philosophy. Libertarianism is thin, thin, and thin, which is precisely why it permits a wide variety of people to live at peace with one another without devolving into an aesthetic, moral, and philosophical monoculture like Objectivism.

                  1. To clarify, I’m distinguishing between ethics as a limited set of behavioral norms, like medical ethics or parenting ethics, from morality, which is a broader and more universal category that we usually associate with metaphysics and religion. Libertarianism isn’t metaphysical.

                    When Rand talks about morality, she defines morality as the consistent application of reason to man’s life within objective reality, which is why Randians are so given to harsh judgment and condemnations in a manner that is basically identical to the way religious people judge and condemn.

                    Libertarianism as an ethic deals with how we relate to other people and their property wrt to physical aggression and contracts. Thus the contention that libertarianism says nothing about behavior that we usually judge to be moral or immoral (like slurring or ridiculing an innocent person, as with the NYT’s recent libel against Walter Block), which is better left to social conventions like shunning or refusal of service.

                    1. morality, which is a broader and more universal category that we usually associate with metaphysics and religion.

                      Well that’s your problem right there. Religious morality isn’t true morality because it’s arbitrary and irrational by definition. Morality is essentially the ‘right and wrong’ of human interaction and social cooperation. Humans being creatures of social dependence, require certain universally applicable rules to be discovered, in order to play nicely. Religious proscriptions like “kill all believers” and “rape the unclad women” aren’t universally applicable to say the least. Thus it’s not only an invalid moral principal, but the content of the proscription actually renders it immoral.

                      Randians are so given to harsh judgment and condemnations in a manner that is basically identical to the way religious people judge and condemn.

                      Randians aren’t the only deontological libertarians.

                      Thus the contention that libertarianism says nothing about behavior that we usually judge to be moral or immoral[…] which is better left to social conventions like shunning or refusal of service.

                      It certainly does deal with it. It just doesn’t universally proscribe coercive solutions that violate libertarian ethical principles.

                      I’m gathering here that you are a consequentialist. Not that there’s anything wrong with that, it looks good on you

                  2. Nay, nay, a thousand times nay. What you are describing is an almost perfect Objectivism. Libertarianism is a political philosophy and an ethic that has nothing whatsoever to say about morality.

                    I’ll raise you thousand nays with an order of magnitude more nays. Self-ownership and the Non-Aggression Principle are not limited describing the relationships of people to states, polities or any kind of political interaction. Murder is ‘immoral’ because it violates those aforementioned principles.

                    Libertarians stress those principles because they are moral, not because they are politically expedient. Nor is all libertarianism of the consequentialist brand.

                    No, and this is a big point about the nature of libertarian philosophy. Libertarianism is thin, thin, and thin, which is precisely why it permits a wide variety of people to live at peace with one another without devolving into an aesthetic, moral, and philosophical monoculture like Objectivism.

                    No it’s really not. The big tent aspect of libertarianism is by virtue of the moral principles that underpin it. Libertarian philosophy certainly recognizes fraud as fraud, murder as murder, rape as rape no? It is forced to define these things before it can even begin to describe moral interactions between people. If libertarianism did not take an accounting of human interaction in general, there would be no basis to say what is right and wrong in political interaction.

                  3. Thank you.

                    I’m glad at least someone else knows what they’re talking about, and might have even read core theory.

                    Libertarianism isn’t Whatever’s Popular With The LP These Days.

                    It’s mostly economics, and some politics that goes along with getting the economics to work, and some natural-rights stuff to make both of those have any point.

    3. I’m pretty sure the shooters were National Guardsmen under a great deal of stress, with no riot control training and incompetent leadership.

  21. The apparently one-of-a-kind sweatshirt was purchased and is now selling on ebay, with the starting bid set at $550.

    One of these stupid things will probably find its way into Rick Harrison’s pawn shop before too long.

    “How much do you want for it?”
    “I was hoping to get six hundred dollars.”
    “Not going to happen. I was thinking more like fifty bucks.”

    1. +1 Beard of Knowledge

    2. I hate pawnstars. What kind of person goes to a pawn shop expecting full value, jesus?

      1. “Well I WAS going to sell this piece of used scotch tape that my aunt assured me was used to repair Ben Franklin’s kite, but they had the audacity to only offer me 5 cents. So I’m taking my business elsewhere!” /every person who ever appeared on that show

  22. Fuck your streaming Purina and Verizon ads that play without any sort of stoppage or volume control. That shit also fucks up my typing with letters that disppar

  23. Fuck your streaming Purina and Verizon ads that play without any sort of stoppage or volume control. That shit also fucks up my typing with letters that disppar

    1. No shit. Reason has the nastiest adware of any site on the net. It is just vile.

      1. There might be a message in there about how little overlap there is between commenters and subscribers. Nah, couldn’t be.

        1. I wouldn’t pay for Reason.

          I say this – and this is maybe why they should listen a little – as someone who did pay for it in print for a few years, and then decided I was sick of paying actual money for sloppy reasoning [irony!] and editorials and print-level clickbait.

          Get someone like Postrel back in charge and up the intellectual ante and I’ll think about it, guys.

          Want my cash? Provide a level of intellectual rigor higher than that available here.

          (I’d rather pay money to disagree with someone on Buckley’s level than to half-agree with sloppy thinkers.)

  24. LIKE ABOVE, MOTHERFUCKERS.

  25. The people Che killed deserved it. Not like those noble martyrs to freedom at Kent State.

    1. I’m not exactly innocent, I have a Che shirt.
      A picture of him after he was killed, with the caption: your tax dollars at work.

      1. Would that all uses of tax funds were as noble.

  26. Classy!!!

    1. “Tasteless madman” just doesn’t have a ring to it.

  27. Grow a pair.

  28. At Kent State a bunch of witless protesters burned down the ROTC building and the. Interfered with firefighters on the scene. Doubtless they were thinking of the fire in purely symbolic terms. The local authorities didn’t have that luxury. A building sized fire is not really under anyone’s control, and it was just luck that it didn’t spread. The protesters had introduced lethal force to the equation. The protest had to be shut down, before the luck ran out.

    The authorities had already tried using the local police, who had failed to exercise any appreciable control. The other option was the state cops. The Ohio State Polce of that day were a bunch of blue-collar muscle boys who would have waded in and broken a lot of heads. Probably more than four students would have died. The authorities tried using the National Guard in the hope that the appearance of those uniforms would signal that playtime was over. The protesters didn’t get it.

    Four kids died because other kids thought it was cute to lay with fire.

    1. More people died in the Watts Riots than at Kent State, but Neil Young didn’t think those corpses would make any money.

  29. How about Penn State shirts with simulated cum stains on the back?

    1. Yeah, I did get laid a lot at PSU, so I have no problem with that.

      1. I guess that you were a bottom.

  30. When is Urban Outfitters going to offer a Minnehaha Viqueens jersey with BEATYERSON on the back?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.