Overview

The language of fashion is tired. It promotes unsustainable fashion. This A.I. generated text seeks to revitalize the vocabulary by:

•  Reinterpreting existing terms: Drawing inspiration from regional variations, disciplines outside fashion (like manga), figurative language, and new words.

•  Shifting the focus: Emphasizing a sustainability interpretation of the fashion lexicon.

• Provoking argument and careful consideration of definitions.

Target Readership:

Sustainable fashion explorers keen to legitimately push, guide, or lead a fundamental change to their industry. 

Like satire, terms are literary devices so subtle and nuanced and confusing that only you fully understand them, leaving your teachers/audience bewildered and occasionally weeping in frustration. 

Cultural and Linguistic Diversity: 

We are extremely aware that terms have differerent interpretations in cultures and by different people.  We use English as the lingua franca as it's the one we are most conversant and possibly in the top five commonest fashion languages i.e. accessible. We have consciously tried to examine cultural differences in the "Cultural & Historical context" and "Figurative & Journalistic Language" sections, amongst others.

This is not a Sustainable Fashion Dictionary 

• It prioritises sustainable fashon’s agenda over practicality i.e. it’s more like a manifesto.

• It fails to meet the standards of a traditional dictionary. A dictionary has clear, concise, neutral definitions of terms. This work, however, often delves into philosophical musings and sweeping generalisations rather than focusing on accurate, precise definitions.

• Lack of standardization and evolving definitions. There's no universally agreed-upon standard for many sustainable fashion terms.

• Entries don't just define, they explain why you're wrong.

• Its irreverance and satire can mislead and can be extremly offensive to many people.

• It is all just subjective buzzwords.  So called "Sustainability terms" are a bunch of random, sustainability-appropriated, vague, feel-good terms that don't mean anything. 'Ethical,' 'eco-friendly,' are about marketing. This dictionary won't change that.

• It is a feel good project, with no real world application.

• It has too many opinions. It lacks balance and neutrality.

• Language requires rigor and responsibility.

• It is obviously AI generated and does not represent the views of most people. 

• It targets the most susceptable readership i.e students and those already believing in sustainable fashion.

• There is a lack of transparency and explainability.

• The use of AI in generating content raises ethical questions about authorship and accountability, particularly if AI-generated definitions are presented as factual without proper verification.

• It will be outdated in a year. Definitions are constantly evolving as new research and technologies emerge.  This text will quickly become outdated or reflect a specific, potentially biased, viewpoint.

• It often introduces confusion instead of clarity e.g. at least 13 definitions of greenwashing.

• Subjectivity and potential for bias. Defining terms like "ethical" or "fair trade" involves subjective judgments. One person's view of “ethical” differs greatly from another.

• It is just academic navel-gazing e.g. why is kissing related to fashion?

• Overemphasises critique rather than solutions. A dictionary alone is not sufficient to guide anybody to make fashion choices. It lacks the practical guidance and resources needed to implement sustainable practices.

• It neglects the broader context of fashion sustainability. Fashion is a complex and multi-dimensional industry, and sustainability efforts must be viewed in light of factors such as global economies, social movements, and technological advancements.

• It does not offer adequate context for diverse readers.

• The author’s approach seems to assume that all readers come from the same background and level of understanding of sustainability. 

• It has a strong opinion on things you didn’t ask about.

• It discourages engagement by focusing too much on its own morality.

• The power of language amplifies, not eliminates, risks.

• It's just virtue signaling.

• Who is going to read it anyway?

• It is a waste of time and resources. 

• Here is another thing for people to argue about.

• It often seems to consider itself a cultural critique, not a reference guide.

• It is more about the author's existential crisis than the words.

• It is very specific about things you didn’t know needed specificity.

• It is  too busy mocking the industry to actually help.