Bibby's Boycotting
- Thread starter macadocious
- Start date
Really? Please do tell. It never mattered in tribal societies and it still doesn't. It never mattered we you were born. you wern't born in a suit were you? It never mattered before civilisation. So please when it did matter.... that's right in matters in society.
And what responsibilty is that? You've just thrown out a bunch of words that don't make any sense to me. What action are you talking about?
And what responsibilty is that? You've just thrown out a bunch of words that don't make any sense to me. What action are you talking about?
I'm sorry, but that is just not true as a blanket statement. Most tribal societies are very structured and rigid. Don't assume that just because they don't dress in suits, that somehow they are free to dress however they want. That is making an assumption based on appearances. There is generally less individual freedom in tribal societies than "modern" society. Primarily, because conformity matters much more to the survival of the whole group. If you behaved or dressed drastically different, you risked being kicked out. Effectively a death sentence for many.
Last edited:
Actually in most tribal societies the leaders will wear tokens of office, even if they be nothing more than bones or pretty stones.
Clothes, or ANY adornment (tats, jewelery) are statements, statements about who you are and what you are. If nobody had ever invented clothing we would have just found some other way to explain the same concept -- hairdos maybe. Nor of course is wearing baggy jeans, bling, and caps pointing the wrong way any less being "dressed up". Its an alternate uniform, every bit as image conscious and pretentious as wearing a suit.
If you knew me at all, you'd think I "looked" very conformist. But I am hardly a person who doesn't question the status quo and and do so often. With age, however, I have learned to save my energy for things that matter a lot more than dress. I pick my battles more carefully. I still don't dress to the nines, but neither do I try and make the clothes I wear some big statement.
From my knowledge that is a myth; tribal societies do not have a specific dress code. If they dress a certain way they will not oucast from the tribe. They dress in order to survive. They wear ornaments as well, but I don't it means the more or less ornaments you wear implicates a certain stature. I do not have first hand knowledge of this, but I do have family members who have lived with tribes and ofcourse every tribe is different. It's something to look into.
Exactly. And within just about every subculture you see all these so-called "non-conformists" conforming to the uniform code of their peers. I have a very large number of friends who are heavily tattooed and the same images and themes repeat over and over. Hairstyles figure prominently into the uniform as well, I'm even guilty as charged on that one.
There is a lot more to most tribal dress than is what is necessary just for survival. There is usually esthetics and very often indicators of tribal status, position, wealth. Not to mention dressing in whatever is considered attractive to the opposite sex within your culture. Also, it differentiated your culture. In most tribal socities I've studied, there is little differentiation in what they wear outside of of that. That's why you can identify Cherokee dress, from Lakota dress, from Navajo dress. The same is true for Aztec or Incan or differences among african tribal groups before european colonization.
I come from the Scottish clan MacIntosh. Can you guess what the proper dress was amongst the highlanders? The style of clothing changed over time, but tartan has been a requisite pattern for centuries. Colorful folk, we Scots.
Roles and societal structures in true subsistence societies were fairly clearly defined and ordered, out of neccessity. The survival of the group was pretty much dependent upon everyone doing what they were supposed to do.
I come from the Scottish clan MacIntosh. Can you guess what the proper dress was amongst the highlanders? The style of clothing changed over time, but tartan has been a requisite pattern for centuries. Colorful folk, we Scots.
Roles and societal structures in true subsistence societies were fairly clearly defined and ordered, out of neccessity. The survival of the group was pretty much dependent upon everyone doing what they were supposed to do.
Last edited:
Well I was really speaking to everyone. That is anyone who is willing to be open minded on the subject. It's something to think about. I honestly didn't mean to target you by quoting you. I might seem a bit passionate about the subject because I've been doing quite a bit of reading about it.
http://users.tpg.com.au/users/jes999/14.htm
If anyone is interested here is a link I just found that somewhat pertains to the subject matter.
If anyone is interested here is a link I just found that somewhat pertains to the subject matter.
I guess I fit somewhere in between. When I worked in the legal field, ultra-conservative dress was a given. But I've been a computer scientist for a long time, and if I go to work in jeans, a t-shirt and flip-flops, with fluorescent blue hair, it's more than acceptable, it's almost expected.
So I'm not saying that the NBA should have no dress code, but I'm not sure what it should be. Rock stars don't dress like morticians (occasional goth bands excepted) or vice-versa, and I'm not positive what one should expect of pro athletes. I think it's a little weird for them to look like bank managers, though.
So I'm not saying that the NBA should have no dress code, but I'm not sure what it should be. Rock stars don't dress like morticians (occasional goth bands excepted) or vice-versa, and I'm not positive what one should expect of pro athletes. I think it's a little weird for them to look like bank managers, though.
Last edited:
Imagine you lived in a tribal society...
Most likely you would have no inclination whatsoever to dress in a different manner than your group. Your clothes would be made of the highest quality possible, from the best sustainable material available in the area, and would be based on the collective knowledge from your tribe's entire existence. Of course you would know this, not necessarily because you were taught it, but because you lived it - your entire way of life would be based around the group and communal living. Perhaps your language would not even contain the notion of "self" or "individual." It would indeed be a rarity for a member of the group to be able to conceive of individualism, and certainly, if they did, they would be promoting a way of life contrary to that of the community, and thus ostracized.
Western civilization is almost certainly considered infinitely more complex (which doesn't mean better!). I suppose that we have a dichotomy of sorts: we live in a culture of almost pathological individualism, void of empathy and compassion except for only the smallest of human units (the "nuclear family"), but we also crave conformity and acceptance - in fact, we condemn decent.
I don't know how much this is realized in our daily lives in America, as most of us freely walk the streets with our minds on our business (our money), but it is extremely evident by reading the comments for this thread: there are those who defend our culture, those who detest it, and those who are so burnt out from hearing the same damn thing over-and-over they don't know what to think (I guess that's me).
I think Mike looks great in a suit, and much more mature. However, it is obvious to me that he should be able to wear whatever he pleases - whenever he pleases. The only purpose of dressing formally is for people to judge you based on appearance - this should be limited to situations of convenience, for lack of any better information for which to judge. Such as in a job interview, employers must make judgements, for practicalities sake, based on things that they cannot gather from their interview. But we have no reason to judge Mike in any regards other than basketball - hell, The Maloof's were able to make a $110 million judgement on his skills.
WE are the employers of the players on OUR team, not the president or even the owner. WE pay their salaries. The team is public, maybe not in a corporate sense, but the team needs a city to host it, and the people of the city to support it - the franchise is a member of the community of which we all are, and so the players are.
The question is: why are WE still judging Mike?
We are judging ourselves.
Most likely you would have no inclination whatsoever to dress in a different manner than your group. Your clothes would be made of the highest quality possible, from the best sustainable material available in the area, and would be based on the collective knowledge from your tribe's entire existence. Of course you would know this, not necessarily because you were taught it, but because you lived it - your entire way of life would be based around the group and communal living. Perhaps your language would not even contain the notion of "self" or "individual." It would indeed be a rarity for a member of the group to be able to conceive of individualism, and certainly, if they did, they would be promoting a way of life contrary to that of the community, and thus ostracized.
Western civilization is almost certainly considered infinitely more complex (which doesn't mean better!). I suppose that we have a dichotomy of sorts: we live in a culture of almost pathological individualism, void of empathy and compassion except for only the smallest of human units (the "nuclear family"), but we also crave conformity and acceptance - in fact, we condemn decent.
I don't know how much this is realized in our daily lives in America, as most of us freely walk the streets with our minds on our business (our money), but it is extremely evident by reading the comments for this thread: there are those who defend our culture, those who detest it, and those who are so burnt out from hearing the same damn thing over-and-over they don't know what to think (I guess that's me).
I think Mike looks great in a suit, and much more mature. However, it is obvious to me that he should be able to wear whatever he pleases - whenever he pleases. The only purpose of dressing formally is for people to judge you based on appearance - this should be limited to situations of convenience, for lack of any better information for which to judge. Such as in a job interview, employers must make judgements, for practicalities sake, based on things that they cannot gather from their interview. But we have no reason to judge Mike in any regards other than basketball - hell, The Maloof's were able to make a $110 million judgement on his skills.
WE are the employers of the players on OUR team, not the president or even the owner. WE pay their salaries. The team is public, maybe not in a corporate sense, but the team needs a city to host it, and the people of the city to support it - the franchise is a member of the community of which we all are, and so the players are.
The question is: why are WE still judging Mike?
We are judging ourselves.
Last edited:
Extremely well said. I only wish I were as articulate.
The problem I see with pathological invidualism is that we are losing our humanity and ironically concurrently losing our individuality. In the culture of our society, we follow the norms and social mores without questioning it. I believe that humans are born existential. It’s what makes us different from every other species of our world; distinctive from our commonplace mammalian instincts. However, along our course, which we believe is “predetermined”; this thought of questioning our existence is lost. The very thing that makes us special is thrown out the window. Why should we question anything when we are so wise in the ways of the world? We can build skyscrapers, develop the latest gizmos; send man into space, and destroy entire nations with the press of a button. Yet we, the wise, cannot cure suffering, poverty, famine, overpopulation, racism etc, which are all problems that are at the heart of our society and our world. We become so absorbed by how we should live; and how were are perceived by others, that we forget to live altogether.
In our adolescence, we as children are like probing machines with tentacles trying to decipher the meaning of everything. We want to touch, taste, smell, and feel everything. We have an insatiable thirst for knowledge. The one recurring question asked (which is primordially existential in nature) is “why?” which is indubitably followed-up with another “why?”: “Why is our world like this?”, “why are we here?” and “what is the meaning of life?’ The world that surrounds us is mysterious and confusing and we need to make sense of it all. Of course it’s much the same for adults, but we would never concede such an absurd proposition.
A child is born free: free to think, free to dream, free to probe, and free to satiate their desires and most of all free live without fear. At such an age, we don’t even grasp such a concept as fear until we are imbued by it through culture. Children are not yet proselytized by societal mores, cultural norms, nationalism or religion; that’s something we can look forward to in “adulthood” and its many privileges. Needless to say, the child’s insatiable thirst is never really quenched; their dreams never fully realized and their existence never really free. From children we are then thrust into “adulthood” what we call “society” and made to believe that this is the “right” and “only” way to live.
And now at the advent of adulthood comes “great responsibility”. We are told to act, to dress, to think, to believe a certain way. We all conform for the “greater good” What is the “greater good?” Has anybody ever seen it? Now we are told not be free thinkers but rather to become believers. Do not question your existence or look for the meaning of life; this has already been answered: Believe in God; do not break rules; Go to school; do not break rules, Go to college; do not break rules. Choose a profession; do not break rules. Get married, have children and teach them exactly the same as you’ve been taught; and above all make sure that they do not break any rules. Obviously it's not that literal, but I hope you get the point. We are succumbed to a routinal process, a self-inflicted process nontheless; thereby creating fear; if we do not follow the rules there will be repercussions.
I'm not saying that we should start living in tribes (although somehting can be leaned from them). I'm certainly not saying we should reject all conventions of society; there is a lot of good that comes from society, or become total anarchists. Unfortunately, i'm not sure what the solution is or if there even is one at this point. But we cannot fix a problem (and some will question whether there is one at all) if we don't see it or try to understand it.
The problem I see with pathological invidualism is that we are losing our humanity and ironically concurrently losing our individuality. In the culture of our society, we follow the norms and social mores without questioning it. I believe that humans are born existential. It’s what makes us different from every other species of our world; distinctive from our commonplace mammalian instincts. However, along our course, which we believe is “predetermined”; this thought of questioning our existence is lost. The very thing that makes us special is thrown out the window. Why should we question anything when we are so wise in the ways of the world? We can build skyscrapers, develop the latest gizmos; send man into space, and destroy entire nations with the press of a button. Yet we, the wise, cannot cure suffering, poverty, famine, overpopulation, racism etc, which are all problems that are at the heart of our society and our world. We become so absorbed by how we should live; and how were are perceived by others, that we forget to live altogether.
In our adolescence, we as children are like probing machines with tentacles trying to decipher the meaning of everything. We want to touch, taste, smell, and feel everything. We have an insatiable thirst for knowledge. The one recurring question asked (which is primordially existential in nature) is “why?” which is indubitably followed-up with another “why?”: “Why is our world like this?”, “why are we here?” and “what is the meaning of life?’ The world that surrounds us is mysterious and confusing and we need to make sense of it all. Of course it’s much the same for adults, but we would never concede such an absurd proposition.
A child is born free: free to think, free to dream, free to probe, and free to satiate their desires and most of all free live without fear. At such an age, we don’t even grasp such a concept as fear until we are imbued by it through culture. Children are not yet proselytized by societal mores, cultural norms, nationalism or religion; that’s something we can look forward to in “adulthood” and its many privileges. Needless to say, the child’s insatiable thirst is never really quenched; their dreams never fully realized and their existence never really free. From children we are then thrust into “adulthood” what we call “society” and made to believe that this is the “right” and “only” way to live.
And now at the advent of adulthood comes “great responsibility”. We are told to act, to dress, to think, to believe a certain way. We all conform for the “greater good” What is the “greater good?” Has anybody ever seen it? Now we are told not be free thinkers but rather to become believers. Do not question your existence or look for the meaning of life; this has already been answered: Believe in God; do not break rules; Go to school; do not break rules, Go to college; do not break rules. Choose a profession; do not break rules. Get married, have children and teach them exactly the same as you’ve been taught; and above all make sure that they do not break any rules. Obviously it's not that literal, but I hope you get the point. We are succumbed to a routinal process, a self-inflicted process nontheless; thereby creating fear; if we do not follow the rules there will be repercussions.
I'm not saying that we should start living in tribes (although somehting can be leaned from them). I'm certainly not saying we should reject all conventions of society; there is a lot of good that comes from society, or become total anarchists. Unfortunately, i'm not sure what the solution is or if there even is one at this point. But we cannot fix a problem (and some will question whether there is one at all) if we don't see it or try to understand it.
Last edited:
Well shoot. No wonder I couldn't get guys to talk when I was younger. And I just thought they were to dumb to carry on a conversation.
We men are simple creatures. Think of almost all of the male's brain as a light switch with an on/off switch. Unfortuantely for most men, it's stuck in one position.
There's my sociological lesson on the male species.
I totally agreed. I've done a research for my psychology class by showing different picture of classmate and even my professor and ask what people thinks. People will judge you on how you dress whether you like it or not. Stereotyping is the only way everyone goes by when they don't know that person.
if its not one thing, such as bibby's dress, it will be another, like his "posse." people will always find something to say about anything, especially for people in high profile jobs. people nitpick at the type of tie the president wears. why keep proliferating this stereotyping?
theres numerous research done that shows a majority of people picking the black person as the more dangerous person, even though the accompanying picture of a white person is actually the criminal. why allow such behavior? why not challenge it? why say, its the only way? as long as we accept whatever society does, whatever the hegemonic race/religion/media/party what have you tells you what to believe, this world wont get better. weve got to take what is given, and think for ourselves.
when this uniform thing happened, i looked at the rules, and wondered if i wore a hideous looking suit, what would stern do? if i made sure its within the rules, would he fine me for having bad taste?
theres numerous research done that shows a majority of people picking the black person as the more dangerous person, even though the accompanying picture of a white person is actually the criminal. why allow such behavior? why not challenge it? why say, its the only way? as long as we accept whatever society does, whatever the hegemonic race/religion/media/party what have you tells you what to believe, this world wont get better. weve got to take what is given, and think for ourselves.
when this uniform thing happened, i looked at the rules, and wondered if i wore a hideous looking suit, what would stern do? if i made sure its within the rules, would he fine me for having bad taste?
Saying that the dress code is oppressive and indicative of things that are wrong with society is a REAL stretch. What does the black/white issue have to do with anything? If any player wants to make a real stand they can either quit or dress as they want to and accept the fines, or challenge the fines in court. My guess is that none will. Why? Because its not that big of a deal. It just isn't. And if you think players don't already wear hideous suits, then you haven't watched the NBA draft.
Bottom line. As with almost everything, this was a business decision at heart. The league sells a product which is the games on the court. The dress code is just one small part of the overall packaging of the product. One of the thousands of things the league does to maximize profits for the league, the owners, and in turn, the players.
Bottom line. As with almost everything, this was a business decision at heart. The league sells a product which is the games on the court. The dress code is just one small part of the overall packaging of the product. One of the thousands of things the league does to maximize profits for the league, the owners, and in turn, the players.
it is a stretch to say that, but i do believe that as it is today, there is a real issue with the way people use clothing to perceive others, and as a measuring stick.
the black white issue was brought up in response to the poster i quoted. rookie talked about his psych class and how clothing is used to categorize people. i may have inferred incorrectly, but when rookie said that "its gonna happen whether they like it or not," i brought in the black white analogy to point out that this line of thinking is partially what keeps us bound to black white stereotypes, and clothing stereotypes.
true, none have really challenged this change, and maybe its not that big of a deal. to you, definitely not. but to others, it may be perceived as part of the slippery slope. and about the draft, the players chose those outfits because they think they look good. who are you to say they dont? because of status quo, what is perceived as "correct dress." i meant outlandish suits, worn purposely because theyre hideous.
the bottom line is right. you are perfectly correct. i understand that dressing the players in suits, and striking them of their jewelry adds what we define today as "professionalism." i understand that stern is trying to "clean up" the image of the nba. and i understand hes trying to appeal to the people with money, people who wear suits as it is. im a management science and poli sci major, i get how money makes things go round. who wants to appeal to poor people who wear doo rags, fake chains, and large sized clothes that dont even go to games, when i can attract businessmen that pay top dollar for press boxes and the amenities that come with it? bottom line, this move was made to make more money, fine.
but im questioning the entire structure of it as a whole.
the black white issue was brought up in response to the poster i quoted. rookie talked about his psych class and how clothing is used to categorize people. i may have inferred incorrectly, but when rookie said that "its gonna happen whether they like it or not," i brought in the black white analogy to point out that this line of thinking is partially what keeps us bound to black white stereotypes, and clothing stereotypes.
true, none have really challenged this change, and maybe its not that big of a deal. to you, definitely not. but to others, it may be perceived as part of the slippery slope. and about the draft, the players chose those outfits because they think they look good. who are you to say they dont? because of status quo, what is perceived as "correct dress." i meant outlandish suits, worn purposely because theyre hideous.
the bottom line is right. you are perfectly correct. i understand that dressing the players in suits, and striking them of their jewelry adds what we define today as "professionalism." i understand that stern is trying to "clean up" the image of the nba. and i understand hes trying to appeal to the people with money, people who wear suits as it is. im a management science and poli sci major, i get how money makes things go round. who wants to appeal to poor people who wear doo rags, fake chains, and large sized clothes that dont even go to games, when i can attract businessmen that pay top dollar for press boxes and the amenities that come with it? bottom line, this move was made to make more money, fine.
but im questioning the entire structure of it as a whole.
The rule has been in place for almost a year and he's decided to boycott NOW.......because he's injured.
It's not like he hasn't worn a suit before (Last year's Wheel of Fortune-NBA Week for example) If he can wear a suit for a game show watched by millions of people, and it wasn't a rule, I'm not so sure what the issue is by not wearing one just because the NBA made it a rule.
Mike: All I can say is....at least it's not for a whole season, and boycotting isn't going to change the rule.
It's not like he hasn't worn a suit before (Last year's Wheel of Fortune-NBA Week for example) If he can wear a suit for a game show watched by millions of people, and it wasn't a rule, I'm not so sure what the issue is by not wearing one just because the NBA made it a rule.
Mike: All I can say is....at least it's not for a whole season, and boycotting isn't going to change the rule.
Teh "entire structure" has been there as long as there has been civilization, and permeates every inch of any society. It is, to all appearances, an inherent part of human nature. We operate in hierarchies, we are social creatures and social standing is important to us in 1000 ways. We buy clothes to say things about us, cars to say things about us, collect "nice" items, get "professional" or rebellious" haircuts, get tats to tell other people who we are, self identify with others who share our movie or music tastes, join professional or hobby societies -- it IS who we are. It was who we were in the middle ages when "dressing abve your station" was actually a crime. It is who we've been in every military that ever forced conformity and then slapped little stripes and stars on people as indicators of rank, it is who we are when we attend a funeral and do NOT go there dressed in ratty baggy clothes and dirty tennis shoes, it is why your waiter int eh nice restaraunt does not walk out with no shirt, nipple rings, and dirty dreads, its also on the flip side why you go down to a pickup court and you don't see guys running around in Polo shirts and Dockers. Business has its dress rules. Rap has its dress rules. MTV has its dress rules. Men wear only some clothes/clors, women others. Even if you walk out the door blatantly following no dress rules at all wearing a sportcoat with baggy shorts and then topping it off with high heels, the chances are extremely high that you are doing so preceisely to send the message wiht your clothing that you are a free spirit. Clothing + appearance has always mattered, and we are all very aware of it. We know when we look good, when we look bad, when we look inappropriate, know instantly what an opposing person is saying about themselves by their appearance, their suit, their low cut dress, their bling, their mohawk, their conformity to everyone around them, their lack thereof.
Mike Bibby is free to wear anything he wants at home. Anything he wants playing basketball on a pickup court. Now somebody pays him millions upon millions of dollars to bounce a ball, and then its time for him to wear what THEY ask him too, the same way a minimum wage kid puts on a McDonald's uniform and silly paper hat. Part of the job. The suit says nothing at all about who Mike Bibby is, it says everything about who the NBA is.
Mike Bibby is free to wear anything he wants at home. Anything he wants playing basketball on a pickup court. Now somebody pays him millions upon millions of dollars to bounce a ball, and then its time for him to wear what THEY ask him too, the same way a minimum wage kid puts on a McDonald's uniform and silly paper hat. Part of the job. The suit says nothing at all about who Mike Bibby is, it says everything about who the NBA is.
Last edited:
Rhythmless,
Fair enough. I just don't see it as a slippery slope or being part of a bigger-picture issue. Brick makes a good point too. What people choose to wear absolutely is done to send a message about who they are. So its tough for me to say that people shouldn't stereotype others based on how they dress. The people wearing the clothes WANT to send out a message about themself.
My roommate is a teacher at a high school and one of his friends was a girl who became a permanent substitute for the last half of last year after the other teacher went on leave. He says she was a good teacher, but she wasn't brought on to be a FT teacher. His guess was because she wore a nose ring which he found absurd and an outrage. I agreed that it sucks, but if she didn't see any other teachers wearing a nose ring, and she really wanted to work there then she shouldn't be wearing a nose ring. She isn't wearing the nose ring because its comfortable or serves a purpose, she wears it because she wants to say something about herself with it. The message is probly good in her social life, but it doesn't take a genius to figure out it could be negative in her professional life.
As always, anything can be taken too far. I just don't think the NBA dress code is an example of that.
Fair enough. I just don't see it as a slippery slope or being part of a bigger-picture issue. Brick makes a good point too. What people choose to wear absolutely is done to send a message about who they are. So its tough for me to say that people shouldn't stereotype others based on how they dress. The people wearing the clothes WANT to send out a message about themself.
My roommate is a teacher at a high school and one of his friends was a girl who became a permanent substitute for the last half of last year after the other teacher went on leave. He says she was a good teacher, but she wasn't brought on to be a FT teacher. His guess was because she wore a nose ring which he found absurd and an outrage. I agreed that it sucks, but if she didn't see any other teachers wearing a nose ring, and she really wanted to work there then she shouldn't be wearing a nose ring. She isn't wearing the nose ring because its comfortable or serves a purpose, she wears it because she wants to say something about herself with it. The message is probly good in her social life, but it doesn't take a genius to figure out it could be negative in her professional life.
As always, anything can be taken too far. I just don't think the NBA dress code is an example of that.
And what I'm saying is that this is generation upon generation of conditioning. We would never even know that things were not like this before the fertile crescent because "our history" only begins there. Nothing before that is recorded in history books. Before that we all lived on this earth in tribes where there was no hierachal system, Just because it exists in our society does not make it right. The same way that you say clothes have always mattered.... racism has always mattered in our society but it doesn't make it right.
It's not inherent in human nature, it's inherent in the human nature of our society. The hippie culture is a great exampe of how "we dress" has nothing to do with with appearences or perception. And when I say hippies I don't mean the hippies of the "sixties" in America. It's understandable that we think that this is the only way and it has always mattered, but we been inculcated to do so. Could you imagine if we were actually conditioned to think that nationalism is wrong, where I wouldn't look at you as an American or myself as an Indian, but instead human. do you think this world would be a better place to live in?
It's not inherent in human nature, it's inherent in the human nature of our society. The hippie culture is a great exampe of how "we dress" has nothing to do with with appearences or perception. And when I say hippies I don't mean the hippies of the "sixties" in America. It's understandable that we think that this is the only way and it has always mattered, but we been inculcated to do so. Could you imagine if we were actually conditioned to think that nationalism is wrong, where I wouldn't look at you as an American or myself as an Indian, but instead human. do you think this world would be a better place to live in?