Maybe not cancel, but more like making it out of fashion to imply or state that a full head of hair makes one more attractive/youthful etc. or that not having beautiful hair is unattractive. A Classic marketing technique, especially in beauty and fashion, being to make people feel lesser or like they are incomplete and then offer them a “solution” for that problem. Either by creating issues and traits like “large pores” as totems or by targeting known common insecurities.
Also- it’s worth noting that while like most personal care it is personal and some debate exists- in general many bald people do use shampoo and many experts recommend using shampoo even if you’re bald.
Even those that recommend not using shampoo if you’re bald still generally recommend not using any old regular body or hand soap on a bald head.
Men who are partially bald and shave completely bald to avoid having patches of hair and bald scalp for style of other reasons, and men who can grow full heads..
.. of hair but shave “bald” for whatever reasons should generally use shampoo as their follicles still secret the oils and such that shampoo is specialized to clean away.
Men who are completely or almost completely unable to grow hair on their heads should still wash their head as sweat, dirt, oils, dead skin etc. still collect there. Some say to use shampoo since most decent shampoo is formulated to be “scalp safe” on the often sensitive and thin skin of the scalp while others say to use specialized gentle products etc.
in general one should be mindful of their bathing habits to keep clean and hygienic while not over washing and drying skin or stripping away a beneficial amount of oil for healthy skin.
Regardless, it is the case that bald people often do use shampoo or have use for it, so the concept is flawed in the intended ideológica purpose but actually illustrates quite well how often the driving force behind so called “cancelation”
Is merely calls to think more about other people who are different than us in various ways and not view the world through our singular and narrow perception based on our own experience alone.
Of course some efforts overstep, especially when perhaps we’ll leaning people try to speak for others and what might offend them- but at the core of so called cancel culture are concepts of accountability for our words and actions, and the desire to see a more inclusive society that isn’t built upon the assumption that there is a singular majority in power which are “normal” and then everyone who is not and must find a way to fit in. Instead the concept is that it is our responsibility as members of a diverse society to create a place where a wide range of people can feel welcomed and enjoy the opportunities to have the quality of life as anyone else as much as is practical.
Lol. I both enjoy the reference to what Patrick Stewart was supposedly told on the subject of his baldness and the accuracy.
I think it is a combination of things. We may or may not be able to get to a place where people “don’t care” about various things that we discriminate or judge on in the modern day- funny enough we’ve seen some of the opposite as cosmetics and other things have advanced to allow many to look “younger” or “more attractive” and are often linked to socioeconomic status, it’s especially true in certain Income brackets that not being attractive is often seen as perplexing,
or it is a sign of low status/income/self respect- and that’s transferred some into other classes and created a boom in “middle class” and lower income bracket cosmetic procedures being normalized or almost required in some circles.
Any observation of young kids and babies who haven’t had the time or ability to learn social graces puts to bed the notion man is born without prejudice. Discernment and generalization are two critical parts of the decision making process, especially in absence of information.
But of course, near as we know, we can be more than instinct and nature. Wether we can break instinct or just redirect it is an open debate, but every potty trained adult that doesn’t do whatever they feel like at any given moment is an example that yes, we do not have to act on instinct and impulse alone.
So to me, start trek- the more optimistic idealistic older treks anyway- tended to put forward this idea for a product of its time that enlightened future folks just didn’t have these based urges or flaws, a notion that from time to time was contradicted and ultimately led to the more general cannon lesson that future folks do have the same instincts and often flaws as us but on the whole society is at least slightly better at controlling or hiding them- that it is less about our nature and more about how we choose to behave.
So that is where I see it like Star Trek- that “wokeness” in its non extreme forms is simply saying- what has been, what is tradition or what is natural” doesn’t have to be how things are going forward.
Where we see an opportunity to do better by others we can try to at least make an effort to be better. I doubt anyone alive hasn’t said something ignorant or offensive, problematic, whatever.
Anyone who has spent any time with any diverse group of LGBTQ+ POC etc. people is well aware that offensive humor, words used as slurs and insults, politically incorrect language and “problematic” acts and words and even bigotry or prejudice and discrimination exist among people in these groups too.
Your average gay man for the past 50 odd years isn’t walking around on egg shells when it comes to saying or doing the “politically incorrect,” and doesn’t generally sound like some exaggerated “snowflake” that thinks you shouldn't say things like “short on cash” because it may offend
“Those who feel vertically disinclined” or some poofty word for it. We’re a sentence anything like that to leave the lips of most gay men I’ve known, at least outside of a public audience, they’d be as likely to drop the “M-word” or some other less than sensitive descriptor as anyone else. Perhaps more so depending.
So it isn’t like this is all drive. By some central comity or the inability of individuals of various groups to cope. Respect does play in though.
At the simplest level the idea is that we’d respect each other enough to think of each other and to not use words that have gained a largely negative or insulting context when referring to each other, and self respect not to lower ourselves with that language yes- but also in that we want others to respect us.
And that’s where the puzzle comes together.
Where how we react to this stuff says who we really are.
When women say they don’t want to be called b*+**es, but over here is another group who gets called names that are disrespectful, so they say “don’t call me this name anymore,” and this becomes a sort of right of recognition. Until maybe 50 or 60 years ago referring to a black person as a n***** in America was maybe rude- like using “fuck,” but not exactly forbidden. “Negro” and similar were generally perfectly fine.
Until not so long ago, less than a generation even, an entire list of slurs for homosexuals and transsexuals were generally fine except perhaps at “Sunday dinner.” A children’s show or film could more likely get away with many of those words or usages than a word like Fuck or Dick or even Penis. An actual clinical word for a part of the human anatomy was considered more offensive to hear on television than slurs.
So we see this sort of symbolic transitions as women and various ethnic and other groups gain their mainstream recognition as having some concept of basic equality in society, and a change in language. As women’s lib became common “sweetie” and “broad” and all these words became off limits to those who didn’t want to show that they didn’t respect women openly.
As various ethnic groups went from being commonly and even academically referred to by offense titles or names imposed on the convenience of others with disregard to their existing titles and such, as we have seen various sexualities and gender identities and such in various measure gain success in changing those titles imposed on them and gaining the right to be referred to with respect- there is a link between those words and power.
Those groups that cannot change their labels, that can stand up and shout that they find a label offensive and yet no one listens or perhaps they are even mocked- those are groups lacking social currency and recognition. Their legitimacy is challenged in society unless their privilege is so absolute or overwhelming that their complaints simply seem comical or ludicrous in light of their privilege- which is itself in a way a form of loss of social recognition and legitimacy- when people stand up and say that regardless of power or other issues they refuse to cowtow.
But when women stop being called broads people will call them dimes or shorties or hunnies or b*+*** and the same is true for other groups often. And those words will often in tile be labeled offensive or offensive out of narrow context- because the point was never necessarily that the word itself was so hurtful but that the word was coming from a place and/or history that was generally emotionally hurtful but also could be harmful to a groups ability to be accepted and integrated with society.
So knowing this we come to two broad groups of people, those that see the recognition of those different from themselves as a good thing and those who see it as a threat.
At the end of the day it is simple truth- the more power given to other groups the less power your own has.
The more diverse the people are who are allowed to compete and take advantage of opportunity, the more competition you have and the less opportunity there is for your group. It’s basic playground stuff. If you are allowed to choose who gets pizza there is more pizza for you and the people you choose. If you must share equally there will be less for you and your people you’ve chosen.
If you’re allowed to choose who gets to go to recess and who isn’t allowed to, the less people you allow, the mote free you and your close group are to do what you want and enjoy your recess without comprimes or sharing or waiting your turn or competing for equipment and such.
Very few of us are “wired” to where we would give a stranger something we badly want or need to help them at an actual cost to us. Most are likely to give that which they don’t hold to be as precious, what they have abundance of of feel they can do without. So of course it is to a degree our specifies nature to care for self above almost all. If we didn’t, there wouldn’t be a species most likely or we’d exist in hives of some sort.
Instead we act in self interest first generally and to others after in order of how helping them might benefit us. Helping family or mates generally comes ahead of strangers and enemies regardless of the urgency or severity of the issue. Most people would help a friend move before they’d donate that time to feeding hungry strangers as a charity for example.
In that sense there is often a pragmatism to bigotry. When’s certain group can’t work most jobs, demand for workers tends to go up for groups who can. This tends to increase wages and decrease competition.
When the group that isn’t allowed to work most jobs isn’t allowed to participate in most schemes of wealth,
And especially when they are also not allowed to buy a home with Mmmmmm or at least not in certain areas, competition for those areas housing goes down. It is easier for other groups to get jobs or get the home they want at a decent price etc.
Sorry. I feel asleep mid thought. Perils of old age and log windedness.
My point isn’t to justify bigotry or prejudice etc- it is to say yes, it exists and some elements of it are rooted in human nature like discernment which can lead to discrimination-
But we make the choice.
People either choose to do right by others or do right by them.
If one’s reaction to put some thought or care towards others is either to assume it hurts themselves to do so or to choose to be rude, one must question if they belong in society at all unless they change. What we are basically talking about here is manners. A system of courtesies and customs evolved primarily to allow humans to coexist socially to our mutual benefit.
By the same token we must acknowledge the uncomfortable reality that babies certainly do exhibit bias and such- that there are pragmatic sides to certain behaviors or roots of problematic behaviors- we also must acknowledge the flip side of the coin- it isn’t 1800 or 1950 or even 1990. Trends are towards a continuing growth in density through population growth or shrinkage to desirable or habitable land or simply consolidation of wealth and services.
The closer us humans must live in proximity to each other and the more diverse those we interact with are, the less room there is for people who can’t play nice with others. It’s that simple.
Many of these behaviors shouldn’t be illegal per se, though but one needs to realize that if you’re the asshole on a submarine, everyone else will suffer for it for some duration but ultimately you’re the one who probably is in for a bad time stuck with all those people who are likely to make known they don’t appreciate being stuck with you.
Also- it’s worth noting that while like most personal care it is personal and some debate exists- in general many bald people do use shampoo and many experts recommend using shampoo even if you’re bald.
Even those that recommend not using shampoo if you’re bald still generally recommend not using any old regular body or hand soap on a bald head.
Men who are partially bald and shave completely bald to avoid having patches of hair and bald scalp for style of other reasons, and men who can grow full heads..
Men who are completely or almost completely unable to grow hair on their heads should still wash their head as sweat, dirt, oils, dead skin etc. still collect there. Some say to use shampoo since most decent shampoo is formulated to be “scalp safe” on the often sensitive and thin skin of the scalp while others say to use specialized gentle products etc.
in general one should be mindful of their bathing habits to keep clean and hygienic while not over washing and drying skin or stripping away a beneficial amount of oil for healthy skin.
Regardless, it is the case that bald people often do use shampoo or have use for it, so the concept is flawed in the intended ideológica purpose but actually illustrates quite well how often the driving force behind so called “cancelation”
Of course some efforts overstep, especially when perhaps we’ll leaning people try to speak for others and what might offend them- but at the core of so called cancel culture are concepts of accountability for our words and actions, and the desire to see a more inclusive society that isn’t built upon the assumption that there is a singular majority in power which are “normal” and then everyone who is not and must find a way to fit in. Instead the concept is that it is our responsibility as members of a diverse society to create a place where a wide range of people can feel welcomed and enjoy the opportunities to have the quality of life as anyone else as much as is practical.
I think it is a combination of things. We may or may not be able to get to a place where people “don’t care” about various things that we discriminate or judge on in the modern day- funny enough we’ve seen some of the opposite as cosmetics and other things have advanced to allow many to look “younger” or “more attractive” and are often linked to socioeconomic status, it’s especially true in certain Income brackets that not being attractive is often seen as perplexing,
or it is a sign of low status/income/self respect- and that’s transferred some into other classes and created a boom in “middle class” and lower income bracket cosmetic procedures being normalized or almost required in some circles.
But of course, near as we know, we can be more than instinct and nature. Wether we can break instinct or just redirect it is an open debate, but every potty trained adult that doesn’t do whatever they feel like at any given moment is an example that yes, we do not have to act on instinct and impulse alone.
Where we see an opportunity to do better by others we can try to at least make an effort to be better. I doubt anyone alive hasn’t said something ignorant or offensive, problematic, whatever.
Anyone who has spent any time with any diverse group of LGBTQ+ POC etc. people is well aware that offensive humor, words used as slurs and insults, politically incorrect language and “problematic” acts and words and even bigotry or prejudice and discrimination exist among people in these groups too.
Your average gay man for the past 50 odd years isn’t walking around on egg shells when it comes to saying or doing the “politically incorrect,” and doesn’t generally sound like some exaggerated “snowflake” that thinks you shouldn't say things like “short on cash” because it may offend
So it isn’t like this is all drive. By some central comity or the inability of individuals of various groups to cope. Respect does play in though.
And that’s where the puzzle comes together.
Where how we react to this stuff says who we really are.
When women say they don’t want to be called b*+**es, but over here is another group who gets called names that are disrespectful, so they say “don’t call me this name anymore,” and this becomes a sort of right of recognition. Until maybe 50 or 60 years ago referring to a black person as a n***** in America was maybe rude- like using “fuck,” but not exactly forbidden. “Negro” and similar were generally perfectly fine.
As various ethnic groups went from being commonly and even academically referred to by offense titles or names imposed on the convenience of others with disregard to their existing titles and such, as we have seen various sexualities and gender identities and such in various measure gain success in changing those titles imposed on them and gaining the right to be referred to with respect- there is a link between those words and power.
At the end of the day it is simple truth- the more power given to other groups the less power your own has.
The more diverse the people are who are allowed to compete and take advantage of opportunity, the more competition you have and the less opportunity there is for your group. It’s basic playground stuff. If you are allowed to choose who gets pizza there is more pizza for you and the people you choose. If you must share equally there will be less for you and your people you’ve chosen.
Instead we act in self interest first generally and to others after in order of how helping them might benefit us. Helping family or mates generally comes ahead of strangers and enemies regardless of the urgency or severity of the issue. Most people would help a friend move before they’d donate that time to feeding hungry strangers as a charity for example.
When the group that isn’t allowed to work most jobs isn’t allowed to participate in most schemes of wealth,
And especially when they are also not allowed to buy a home with Mmmmmm or at least not in certain areas, competition for those areas housing goes down. It is easier for other groups to get jobs or get the home they want at a decent price etc.
My point isn’t to justify bigotry or prejudice etc- it is to say yes, it exists and some elements of it are rooted in human nature like discernment which can lead to discrimination-
But we make the choice.
People either choose to do right by others or do right by them.
If one’s reaction to put some thought or care towards others is either to assume it hurts themselves to do so or to choose to be rude, one must question if they belong in society at all unless they change. What we are basically talking about here is manners. A system of courtesies and customs evolved primarily to allow humans to coexist socially to our mutual benefit.
The closer us humans must live in proximity to each other and the more diverse those we interact with are, the less room there is for people who can’t play nice with others. It’s that simple.
Many of these behaviors shouldn’t be illegal per se, though but one needs to realize that if you’re the asshole on a submarine, everyone else will suffer for it for some duration but ultimately you’re the one who probably is in for a bad time stuck with all those people who are likely to make known they don’t appreciate being stuck with you.