I am pro/for promoting the fad of Camouflage clothing due to the fact of financial reservation as well as forced-confrontation communication. I use the term, "forced" under the impression that most communication made by the impression of fashion is purely rhetorical/redundant and only opens up a person up to scrutiny if their own compliment or comment on another person's clothing was to or not to their liking; even in the scenario that a person only meant it as a distraction to bring about a more desired topic, I do not believe misdirection should be the initial impression in order to obtain one's true goal. If Camouflage clothing became a fad, for at least a decent few months/years, we would be as limited to use fashion sense as an ice-breaker as we are open to it; meaning, you can only truly comment on their clothing because it reminds you of something else (hence the definition of Camouflage) and even if it was misdirection, is was made on a slight of perception that no one can take offensive due to the original intent of camouflage clothing. This would result in an improvement of outward prejudgment as well as correction of inner self-prejudice due to the extra effort needed to filter out what you see versus what the camouflage is intended for.
I proposed this debate under the idea of a concept as opposed to the evidence of a current occurrence which would negate my need for specific evidence. As for whether it is desired by public appeal or not also holds no merit since the whole thing is just an unproven concept.