Roughly, but there are lots of issues around hair other than “oily or dry” and “straight or curly.” And you can have an oily scalp and curly hair (the ends are likely to be dry for reasons mentioned). There are scalp conditions, allergies, shampoos for chemically treated hair, purple shampoos to keep your grey’s bright and your bleach blondes from yellowing. There are environmentally friendly shampoos, bar shampoos. Defrizzing shampoos and volumizing shampoos and ones that add shine. Conditioning shampoos. There are shampoos that are supposed to help with hair loss. There are gentle shampoos for kids. There are dry shampoos for “I need to get out of the house.”
From a pure marketing standpoint - taking race completely out of the equation - we’ve come a long way since you would run to the drugstore and pick up a bottle of Prell and a handful of shampoos had 90% plus of the market. Which one of these is “normal” shampoo.
Generally speaking, the curlier your hair is (even if you have white people curly hair) the harder it is for the oil to work its way from your scalp to the ends. Obviously length is another factor and so is texture, if your hair is course or fine. So if you have short straight hair, your scalp can usually do a lot of the work conditioning your hair all on its own. If you have hair like Merida from Disney’s Brave - you are going to be endless frizz and tangles if you don’t add moisture to it - and frizz is a fine look if that’s what you are going for - but if what you want is bouncy corkscrew curls, you’ll need to manage that with different products than if you want your curls to be more Gilda Radner. Also, curls like moisture - not only to tame frizz but to curl (which is why my hair is much curlier in humidity than it is in the Minnesota Winter).
I say tribalism is the biggest problem because it’s what led to ‘alternative facts’, fake news, people who honestly believe the election was rigged, and rioters invading the Capitol. Lots of people legit think all this is a threat to democracy, and what could be bigger than that?
As for the rest of your post, it’s so far away from what I was saying that I don’t even know where to start.
I find myself agreeing with you here (enjoy it, it doesn’t happen that often with me). My definition of ‘tribalism’ is that far too many people subconsciously are using it to identify who to disempower or kill, literally or figuratively.
Tribalism is real, and it’s a real problem. But there are two primary theories of its etiology.
According to one theory, there’s a robust political movement that we can trace back at least to the early 90s and the rise of Rush Limbaugh. (It has roots in earlier movements, e.g., Ralph Reed’s Christian Right, but is also a distinct movement). This movement mobilized a specific sort of media discourse, prioritizing loyalty to the Republican party and “culture war” issues and a general sneering and taunting at Democrats and liberals and a revanchist attitude toward gender and race issues. It trended apocalyptic whenever Democrats gained control. Fox News joined in, and Newt Gingrich took up the banner, and National Enquirer quietly carried water and crushed unfavorable news stories, and over a quarter century and change the movement gained steam until it culminated in Trump’s presidency. Even now it maintains itself with QAnon and vaccine denial and total shit-losing over so-called cancel-culture; and its dedication to “tribalism” (really to partisan loyalty over all) is an existential threat to our democracy.
So that’s one theory.
The other theory is that these fucking millennials and their zoomer undergrad kids are CANCELING US ALL.
The extreme partisanship in our country is a real problem. But fucking look at who’s making money off of it, who’s riding that particular hobby horse into power, and stop blaming college kids.
Can’t speak for all of us, but this non-white is very happy with the change.
Quite frankly, because of the open racism that was allowed, or in one specific case, were actively driven off for being too militant (in the one forum that should be OK in).
US progressives as a group are richer, whiter, and more educated than the average American, and so penalising posters (even just socially) for ideological non-conformity contributes to an overly-white message board. Lots of posters have left or been banned at least partly due to ideological disagreement, and I think POC are more likely to leave for this reason because fewer hold the one approved viewpoint™.
Kind of ironic since progressives are strongly opposed to racism.
It may just be the anti-recist in me talking, but I’d rather hang out at an almost* all-white board free of transphobia, than a diverse board full of transphobia. Because giving people an out on their bad behaviour just for their race would seem a little racist.
Don’t tell us why we leave. If I had left this board, racism would have been the reason, not the left-leaning ideology.
Maybe these progressives can recognize it when they see it, unlike you.
It would be anti-racist. But obviously you’re entitled to your opinion, and to hang out with whoever you prefer. I do think it impairs conversations on some issues to be missing that viewpoint. Wanting to help is good, but without a large input from the group concerned, that help is all too likely to be misplaced (and I don’t know why I’m telling you this, cause surely you’d say the same?)
I can tell you why Monstro and YWTF left, because YWTF told me. Obviously not everyone leaves for the same reason, and you don’t necessarily know any given person’s reason(s) either.
Why do you think there’re so few black people on the board?
FWIW, what MrDibble said tracks with how it’s seemed to me over the years. monstro and ywtf are the only Black posters I’m aware of who left because they weren’t allowed to spout vicious nonsense about transgender folks. Posts like yours, about how “woke” people are destroying America, appear to have driven more off; and the board’s longstanding (and somewhat over, thankfully) policy of allowing explicit racism sure did a number on the board’s ability to attract and maintain BIPOC posters.
No. It’s not like affirmative action, where you’re giving PoCs privileges for historic injustice. In this case you’re giving them just for the colour of their skin.
Alternatively, by your own logic, if it is anti-racist, then it at least “Strongly resembles” racism, anyway.
It’s quite a catch, that 22.
Gosh, why ever would any minority want to hang out at a place where they get attacked just for being who they are?
That works for trans posters, and it works for PoC posters on a board where “Why are Africans congenitally retarded” (paraphrased) was considered a valid Great Debate topic.
We all know why they left. They were not a majority of, or even a plurality of, the PoC on this board. You can’t extrapolate from them to other PoCs just to suit your tired argument.
I do know other PoCs’ reasons for leaving, or just only posting outside GD, because they told me.
Because, like I said, it had a lot of open racism that was tolerated by the mods at the time because it was politely worded. There’s less now, because of some GD rules changes and some bannings, but there are still quite a few outright racist posters tolerated here.
I can easily believe it was different in the past. But since I started posting regularly I’d say the great majority of posters are very opposed to racism. If you don’t count the woke sort, anyway.
And please don’t slander people who aren’t around to defend themselves.
Good thing you’re not the only one grading.
A one-line summary was about half a line more than needed. And if it was caricature, they’d have worked the words woke and leftist in there…
Oh, look, a self-caricature…
Truth is always a defense against the charge of slander.
Fortunately for me, nobody gives a shit what grade you’d give if you were in a position to do so.
The point is that the reason for increasing partisanship and hostility to a shared epistemology is extraordinarily well-documented, and I can name names of some of the most powerful people in our nation who have contributed to it. The alternative theory, the one you subscribe to, is absolutely ludicrous, and flies in the face of documented facts.
I’ll be happy to say directly to them what I’ve said here, if they ever come back. If you’re interested in not slandering people not on this messageboard, I’d genuinely love to see you adopt that position.
You brought them up, shoehorning your own sympathy with their transphobic views into this thread. You described the toxic transphobic views that they aggressively inserted into every thread touching on trans issues (and some that didn’t) euphemistically as “ideological non-conformity”. If you don’t want pushback against that, don’t raise the issue in such a misleading way.
Freedom of expression can never be absolute or completely abstract. When “ideological non-conformity” involves rejecting the dignity and humanity of a class of people, that creates an incredibly hostile environment for that class of people. If the SDMB tolerates the persistent airing of such views, it is condoning treating a class of people without respect, people who will then obviously feel no inclination to participate here. And that is far more antithetical to the free exchange of ideas.
This sounds vaguely reasonable, until we decode “ideological non-conformity” to its true meaning in the context of your other posts, hostile transphobia.
You appear to be arguing for an affirmative action program where if someone is a member of a historically marginalized group that has been the target of bigotry, we should adopt a patronizing double standard in which we cannot expect their moral standards with respect to other marginalized groups to be quite so robust as normal people.