I rocked long hair from grade school to my mid 20s.
Then, a lady friend (platonic) sat me down and had a talk with me.
The thinning, now seemingly always greasy, strands of hair was not a good look. Like, don’t visit a playground or I would be arrested on site lol.
So, being a metal head there are two main options, or at least were at the time. Long hair. Or take bare clippers to it.
So, I did.
That first winter fucking suuuucked. Still to this day, I tend to rock a hoody in cold weather, and toss my hood up to cover my head for warmth when outdoors.
Sometimes I let it grow out for about a month before taking clippers to it again, out of sheer laziness. A month of growth, from shaved, isn’t much in the way of hair, but temperature wise it is very noticeable.
If the topic is undesired head hair loss, “bad” appropriately describes the genes that may contribute to that. The discussion is limited by the context to avoiding hair loss, it isn’t a universal conversation on cosmetics
Yes if you 100% swallow the cultural requirement to have a full head of hair, then not having one is bad. But I don’t expect a journalist or academician to write from such a culturally specific point of view.
If scientists came up with a new treatment for multiple sclerosis, and an article mentioned “bad genetics” as one of the reasons people develop MS, that would be shitty, wouldn’t it? How is this different? Obviously in the context of that MS article, it’s “bad” to have MS and we want to cure it. But you wouldn’t shit on people who suffer from it by saying they have “bad genetics.” So how is it any different? It seems just as unnecessary and disrespectful here as it does there.
I mean if it’s a damaged or failed it’s a bad gene. It caused ms!
It’s not shitting on a person, it’s discussing a condition.
I can understand that discussion can lead to eugenics style thoughts.
“Oh that person has tons of bad genes, they therefore are bad”. That’s wrong though, a person can have a super fucked up body but it doesn’t change their value or goodness.
When discussing a condition, the genes that improve or cause that condition can be described as good or bad.
Oh the last resort of he with no other leg to stand on: the hurt feelings bullshit. I’m not bald and my
feelings are not hurt. I do care about quality writing though and this is not that. Your gyrations of justification have ceased being fun to watch. You believe you’re laying out some kind of hard logic progression but it amounts to: if one accepts a long string of assumptions, then naturally the word makes perfect sense. But that is not the tidy “if / then” mathematical proof you think it is but a bald declaration of your cultural values. I’m sorry that you think people suffering from diseases are bad. I’m not surprised to hear that you have eugenics notions in your head.
It’s not just cosmetic. Hair keeps the heat from escaping the head so quickly and, more importantly, it helps keep the head from getting sunburned and skin cancer.
You’re going to tell me that people are applying Rogaine so they don’t have to apply sunscreen? Hm yeah that is a well thought out argument when Rogaine is 10x more expensive.
No. The male hair loss remedy industry is entirely built around cosmetic vanity, not keeping warm.
I can sit here and tell you how hair can be host to different parasites or impair your vision while driving or get caught and pulled into power tools and is therefore a bad survival trait.
“Bad” genetics?! Damn, that’s a little fucking judgmental for what is ultimately just a cosmetic issue.
Better watch out, when the king of the US government is done with all the queers and chronically ill the baldies are next.
PUT ON THE WIG DEGENERATE
I think people forget that not all populations benifit from more hair
It just means you have too much testosterone.
When my head is freezing and I don’t have a hat handy I’m pretty sure that’s not a cosmetic issue.
Yeah that’s a you forgetting your hat issue. Poor memory due to bad genetics. Damn you have all kinds of problems.
LOL!!!
I rocked long hair from grade school to my mid 20s.
Then, a lady friend (platonic) sat me down and had a talk with me.
The thinning, now seemingly always greasy, strands of hair was not a good look. Like, don’t visit a playground or I would be arrested on site lol.
So, being a metal head there are two main options, or at least were at the time. Long hair. Or take bare clippers to it.
So, I did.
That first winter fucking suuuucked. Still to this day, I tend to rock a hoody in cold weather, and toss my hood up to cover my head for warmth when outdoors.
Sometimes I let it grow out for about a month before taking clippers to it again, out of sheer laziness. A month of growth, from shaved, isn’t much in the way of hair, but temperature wise it is very noticeable.
Same here, I had white boy dreads until one day you realize it looks better to cut it all off then trying to make it look like something it’s not.
If the topic is undesired head hair loss, “bad” appropriately describes the genes that may contribute to that. The discussion is limited by the context to avoiding hair loss, it isn’t a universal conversation on cosmetics
Yes if you 100% swallow the cultural requirement to have a full head of hair, then not having one is bad. But I don’t expect a journalist or academician to write from such a culturally specific point of view.
It’s an article about curing baldness, all context is pre determined.
Like sure, if we’re just bringing anything up, why care about baldness when I can’t breathe underwater, or if I can’t raise the dead?
If scientists came up with a new treatment for multiple sclerosis, and an article mentioned “bad genetics” as one of the reasons people develop MS, that would be shitty, wouldn’t it? How is this different? Obviously in the context of that MS article, it’s “bad” to have MS and we want to cure it. But you wouldn’t shit on people who suffer from it by saying they have “bad genetics.” So how is it any different? It seems just as unnecessary and disrespectful here as it does there.
I mean if it’s a damaged or failed it’s a bad gene. It caused ms!
It’s not shitting on a person, it’s discussing a condition.
I can understand that discussion can lead to eugenics style thoughts.
“Oh that person has tons of bad genes, they therefore are bad”. That’s wrong though, a person can have a super fucked up body but it doesn’t change their value or goodness.
When discussing a condition, the genes that improve or cause that condition can be described as good or bad.
Context matters.
It’s judgmental language and totally unnecessary.
It’s a bad gene. It’s literally the contextually appropriate description of a factor involved in a situation.
Sorry it hurts your feelings
We’ve both made our points and opinions known here.
Oh the last resort of he with no other leg to stand on: the hurt feelings bullshit. I’m not bald and my feelings are not hurt. I do care about quality writing though and this is not that. Your gyrations of justification have ceased being fun to watch. You believe you’re laying out some kind of hard logic progression but it amounts to: if one accepts a long string of assumptions, then naturally the word makes perfect sense. But that is not the tidy “if / then” mathematical proof you think it is but a bald declaration of your cultural values. I’m sorry that you think people suffering from diseases are bad. I’m not surprised to hear that you have eugenics notions in your head.
It’s not just cosmetic. Hair keeps the heat from escaping the head so quickly and, more importantly, it helps keep the head from getting sunburned and skin cancer.
You’re going to tell me that people are applying Rogaine so they don’t have to apply sunscreen? Hm yeah that is a well thought out argument when Rogaine is 10x more expensive.
No. The male hair loss remedy industry is entirely built around cosmetic vanity, not keeping warm.
I can sit here and tell you how hair can be host to different parasites or impair your vision while driving or get caught and pulled into power tools and is therefore a bad survival trait.
But let’s not be absolute morons.