get shredded with this chris hemsworth

Americans tend to suffer from anchoring since many people buy dirt cheap, but also often ill fitting, clothes from Walmart, target, and so on, and as a result refuse to believe that in many cases, you get what you pay for. Then there the trend of sales (see Jcrew and Banana Republic). Most of this stuff is made in the cheapest possible ways using the cheapest materials in sweatshops all over the world.

(and of course, as habitat,Lebensraum is something you do occupy and not just dwell in) The question remains: how could this happen? Is it just a slightly embarrassing, but otherwise not very significant, instance of misplaced deification of German as the language of deep thought and of the lamentable but inconsequential fact that the ‘writings of this reactionary thinker [Heidegger] now have the status of sacred texts, which are the subject of much exegesis by scores of admiring acolytes.’ (Morris 1997: 323)? Or is it symptomatic for an overemphasis on immersion and dismissive disdain for professional distance, going hand in hand with a hypostasis of the rural and the wild and contempt for the urban that counteracts the cosmopolitan recognition of the continuity of culture that (for me) is the main attraction of Ingold’s approach? I can help thinking that in his (2008b) Heideggerisand proposal of an anthropology that is constituted by a as opposed to about runs the danger of denying the professional distance of the researcher (which is more than the occasional sideways glance he suggests as key to original insight) and risks deleting one crucial aspect of what enables the aimed for sociological imagination (he makes reference to C Wright Mills The autonomous imagination (Stephen/Suryani 2000) appealed to in form of Ojibwa dreaming (Ingold 2008b: 84) as paradigm for the sideways glance is forgetful about the fact that, commonly, the autonomous imagination from Sufis to shamans to hermeneutic social scientists does involve practices of distancing (retreat, travel, isolation) as well as immersion. In the end an anthropologist sitting in an armchair who is conscious of the continuity of culture may be in a preferable position compared to one indulging in a false intimacy of an immersion and who forgets their own non identity (as well as everybody else Doing your in the open can make you forgetful about the fact that you also belong to the privileged group of cosmopolitan travellers (Calhoun 2002) which induces false identifications along the lines of that one philosopher in the open who mistook himself for a Black Forest peasant. (Heidegger 1934) Calhoun, Craig (2002): Class Consciousness of Frequent Travellers: Towards a Critique of Actually Existing Cosmopolitanism in: Steven Vertovec/Robin Cohen (eds):Conceiving Cosmopolitanism: Theory, Context and Practice, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp.86 109.