When you see people BUYING t-shirts which are blatant advertising of popular brands, then you reach that point where people identify themselves to a brand before all.

That has been the case for a LONG time already.

Some people buying branded t-shirts may simply prefer the fit and price of a shirt, and don't care what it says on it.

Somehow I find it very hard to believe. Remove the logo on the lacoste polo shirt and the Nike shoes and see if they would buy it still.

I'll use myself as a proof by counterexample. When I was buying my t-shirts from places I actually wanted to support, like ThinkGeek, or buying solid colored t-shirts with no logos, I found that the poor fit of the t-shirts was making me look bad and feel uncomfortable.

Eventually I was talked into going "shopping" by a couple of female friends (actually, I talked them into being my guide), and found that the only t-shirts I could find that made me look and feel good, with a wide range of prices, also happened to have well-designed corporate logos on them.

So, until it becomes technically possible and socially acceptable to have custom-tailored t-shirts that fit perfectly, have the right fabric, pattern, and seam/collar/hem, and are emblazoned with my family crest or personal corporate logo, I will continue to buy whatever looks and fits the best within my price range.

ThinkGeek apparently uses Gildan shirts, which are cheap, baggy shirts made out of thick cotton; you were probably buying shirts of similar quality when you bought plain shirts.

Since it seems you're spending more on shirts now, you're probably getting a better quality product. Plenty of stores from Target to Gap to American Apparel and so on have better-fitting shirts made out of lighter-weight material with no visible logos, likewise in a range of prices.

Nike Air Pegasus 2 are the best running shoes I've ever had for training, I went through a gait and foot impact test at a sport science clinic to match shoes to my running style. Their combat compression kit is also some of the best you can buy in terms of lasting the year even when used every day.

Now if you meant those ridiculous Airs with the spring shocks in them then yes, but brands that endure aren't built on nothing.

While I do agree with the side you are arguing for, last winter I bought a pair of brown Lacoste shoes that had wool inside them. I sought out the specific pair of shoes because they didn't have a single logo except in the rubber of the sole and I didn't want to be /that/ guy.

I can only speak for myself, but I find facts such as these interesting.

And perhaps there's something less negative than "consumer culture" at play… humans are generally curious about and interested in extraordinary things. e.g. Olympic athletes, inordinately successful businesses and business people, brilliant artists, robots landing on other planets, etc.

I think it has been like this for a long time.

Some people own stock.

Others just like stats. How much of the world's brain matter is used up by sports trivia?

Derail.

Can you actually tell me why identifying personally with the things we buy is a bad thing?

There is a difference between identifying with the things you buy, and the things you buy being your identity.

Identifying with Apple because you like x,y,z of their vision/products/services, etc. is one thing. The value of Apple as a public company having an effect on your identity is a completely different monster I think.

I wish I could put it into words why it feels so wrong, but hopefully somebody else here can explain the difference.

Yes.

Yet another mandatory XKCD: http://xkcd.com/922/