Ah yes, the classic HN hair splitting meta-argument. No.

I'm not sure you know what hairsplitting means, but I am sure "No." is an answer to some question, just not the completely reasonable one I asked.

What they’re getting at is not hairsplitting. Your argument presumes that the purpose of clothing is utilitarian in nature. That it exists merely to cover our bodies efficiently.

Clothing also has an anthropological function as fashion. That might not be something that you are personally interested in, but it is factually something that provides value to society.

You are certainly entitled to the opinion that fast fashion is not a good thing. But it’s just an opinion.