2 years ago: Fake authenticity and pretending not to use hair products

November 25, 2011, here on slacktivist: Fake authenticity and pretending not to use hair products

The expert also says this is all silly. There’s nothing morally wrong with using products to keep your hair in place and there’s nothing shameful about deciding to keep your hair the same color it was when you were younger. The expert feels its an insult to her profession that candidates tend to lie about this sort of thing.

Political candidates have to go before the cameras on television — that means lots of work on hair and makeup, lots of necessary product, just to appear normal under the lights in high-def. We never criticize a candidate for wearing a shirt that’s been ironed, or a suit that’s been tailored, or for otherwise looking more presentable than someone who’s just rolled out of bed. But after several election cycles of stupidity and silliness around candidates’ hairstyles, the current vogue requires them to lie for the sake of “authenticity.”

And let’s be clear that this is what we’re doing. We expect and require our candidates to appear presentable. And at the same time we expect and require them to tell us that they expend no money or time meeting this expectation.

"They were aware enough to try to allow for that in Trump's travel ban."

And his own received him not
"Hmm, the way I see it the series disavows *any* connection between magic ability and ..."

And his own received him not
"The rhetoric doesn't even seem to acknowledge that net immigration from Mexico is currently negative, ..."

And his own received him not
"After WW2, two german phrases were engraved in the collective memory of the Netherlands.One is ..."

And his own received him not

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Baby_Raptor

    That wasn’t a strawman. You have, several times in this very thread, dismissed evidence that would contradict your preferred beliefs.

    And you do it again when you insist on carrying on about people murdering “unborn baby.” There’s no such thing as an unborn baby, It’s a complete contradiction of terms. But for whatever reason, you can’t accept that fact. You need the lies because your belief is in no way based on truth.

    “It’s so sad that the country won’t buy into my lies and let me enslave people to their biology just so I’ll feel better.” Do you hear yourself? This is sick.

    You *do* realize that things that cause abortions have existed about as long as people have been getting pregnant, yes? God ordered abortions in the Old Testament. If Mary or Elizabeth hadn’t wanted their pregnancies, they could have aborted them. It has Fuck-all to do with whether abortion is legal now. That was some creative demonizing, though. In no way logical, but definitely creative.

    It says a lot that you believe that god would let his giant plan to redeem humankind from how he created them be undermined by one person and then simply give up. If one person deciding they didn’t want to be pregnant would make god give up on his ever-so-loved creation, isn’t that just still more proof your god isn’t worth worshiping? Leaving aside the fact that he had to rape a 14 year old to even start said plan.

  • See what’s-her-name in That Hideous Strength!

  • quietglow

    I don’t see how anyone’s going to trust you to help. It was never the job of anyone here to educate you, and you shouldn’t be turning around lecturing anyone here on the strength of speaking to a few unnamed individuals one morning.

    If you really want to help, you still have a wealth of learning to do before you try to jump into situations you’re not prepared for.

  • nolidad

    Only Thomas Jefferson said that in the Treaty of Tripoli and as for the rest sorry but that is just the history of the US in the time of the founders. In reality the revisionists you have read are the ones lying to you.

    Here are a few other historic documents



    (Maybe Yale Law is lying to?)


    How dare all these states give glory to God!!!!


    Even sCOTUS called America a christian nation!!!!!

  • nolidad

    R U shifters spokeperson now?

    How many of these Carefully planned moves did you witness or have read detailed reports about? I have been involved in 2.

  • nolidad

    No its punishment for rape. Do you know any eunuchs who have raped women?

  • nolidad

    so a b;log site and a ultra liberal site trump even the liberal mainstream media? Nop I will take their word for it over the beast and a blog site. If you want I think I can still find the interview done in jail with a guywho was involved in the “knockout game” several times. Sorry but you should just accept reality and watch the videos available.

  • nolidad

    Well you will meet HIm .Either in this life as Savior or after death as your and Judge. The chjoice is yours- He prefers you meet HIm as Savior.

  • Baby_Raptor

    The treaty of Tripoli was ratified by the then-current Congress and Signed by the then-President, who was one of the authors of the Constitution. If everyone else disagreed with it, it wouldn’t have been ratified.

    Sorry, you can’t explain that one away with your selective reading.

    As to what SCOTUS says…Well, SCOTUS was once okay with slaves, banning mixed race marriage, refusing women the right to vote and a myriad of other wrongs. SCOTUS isn’t only wrong when it’s something you disagree with.

    This is a secular country. It’s in the Constitution. If you want a theocracy, move to Iran…they’re perfectly fine with assholes like you who have no issue throwing other peoples’ rights under the bus for your personal opinions.

  • P J Evans

    Your opinion. Not mine. No evidence to back up either view.

  • P J Evans

    Better yet, Israel or Saudi Arabia, neither of which seems to be interested in the 21st century.

  • nolidad


  • nolidad

    So if it seems to better a society it is a good law?

  • nolidad

    Neither are you . But it is funny name me another country in the world that has an illegal immigration problem. Why do so many womewn risk so much to sneak in here? Because they know they’ll be treated like dogs? Or maybe that though we are far from a perfect nation we do much better than so many other nations.

  • Daniel

    “But it is funny name me another country in the world that has an illegal immigration problem.”
    If the media are to be believed: the UK. All the Scandinavian countries. Italy. France. Germany. In fact most of Europe. Australia. Just off the top of my head, and as I say, only if reports from their own (usually right wing) media are to be believed.

  • nolidad

    Well how He did it doesn’t say. Maybe He just held a giant mirror and refracted the rays. It is no big deal for as Jesus said: 26 But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.

  • nolidad

    Well then I shall pray for her and bring it to my church to prayer for her aid and comfort.

  • nolidad

    Only to those who have not met Him yet

  • P J Evans

    Many men come here, and leave their families behind, or wait to bring them in.
    Women come here because we don’t generally treat them as property.
    (Other countries do have illegal immigrants. Europe, particularly, has them. All you need are poor countries close to wealthier ones.)

  • P J Evans

    Troy was found because one man insisted that it was real. But he found nine Troys, stacked, and the one he believed was in Homer’s story wasn’t the one he thought it was.

  • P J Evans

    “In my father’s house are many rooms’ – doesn’t that suggest to you that there might be more than one way to get there?

  • Dr. Rocketscience

    What? OK, so the shoes thing is probably unfair. I mean, I couldn’t tell you what kind of shoes Patrick Stewart was wearing when I met him on the set of TNG 25 years ago. Though I do distinctly remember that he was shorter than I expected, only a few inches taller than my 5’7″. And his accent was less pronounced than on the show, I remember that. I also remember that he was very polite, though not particularly effusive, and that it was clear that he was in “work mode”.

    But can’t you give us anything? I mean, you could at least help us clear up the whole Megyn Kelly, “Santa and Jesus are white” thing. We’ve got Santa covered, but Jesus is a bit tougher.

  • nolidad

    Wow! You can travel in time and were there to witness every birth in Israel that was less than 40 weeks!! Maybe I should defer to your trans dimensional travel wisdom.

  • dpolicar

    If it betters society (or, more generally, if it creates more of what I value or less of what I don’t), it’s a good law. If it seems to better society, it seems like a good law.

  • Europe and Canada both do deal with sizable populations of immigrants entering without due process, yes.

  • Oh, for heaven’s sake, use your head. They didn’t have modern medical tech so by simple heuristic* reasoning it can be deduced that stillbirth rates were probably higher than today.

    * I use the term here to mean “reasoned without formally being justified”. a heuristic argument in science is one that is apparently valid but is not rigorously justifiied. One example is Bohr’s proof of quantized orbits in atoms, which was essentially based on the same kind of reasoning that Planck used to come up with why the “Ultraviolet catastrophe” didn’t happen. The theory was not fully proven until Schroedinger and Heisenberg showed that given a wave (or matrix) equation, you could derive from first principles that the orbits in atoms are indeed quantized.

    Of course we now call them orbitals.

  • Baby_Raptor

    No, Ross has a basic understanding of how pregnancy works. And how modern medicine intervenes.

    Neither of which you possess.

  • Have you even thought about how that would be physically possible?

    I am not an expert on General Relativity which is unfortunate, since Einstein’s field equations need to be used to work out the gravitational lensing needed to bend the light of the sun in such a way as to shine on the night side of earth.

    Suffice it to say that any mass of appreciable light-bending ability would also have had noticeable effects on the orbits of the planets in the solar system and would likely have been indirectly deduced from studies of the Earth and other planets in our solar system. (This effect can be calculated with pure Newtonian mechanics since it involves mass-mass interactions)

  • Baby_Raptor

    Is it bad that I saw “Have you even thought…” in the sidebar attached to your name and knew who you were talking to and that the answer is “No. No, he hasn’t”?

  • I will defend a womans right to have abortions in America as long as they remain legal

    Given the way you’ve talked – if you had your druthers you’d make abortion illegal – I’m gonna go ahead with this sarcastic reaction gif.

  • dpolicar

    Nor turn the contents of one Internet commenter’s brain into a reliable guide to the afterlife.

  • You must be quite sheltered if you haven’t heard of people using objects to rape others.

  • You just know me too well ;)

  • Baby_Raptor

    The point is to heroically MAKE A STAND! It’s not to actually save snowflake baybees.

  • dpolicar

    nolidad sez (http://www.patheos.com/blogs/slacktivist/2013/11/24/christians-have-not-been-reading-the-bible-this-way-for-2000-years/#comment-1166804780):

    If two gays wish to marry and lead a celibate life- I think(this is my opinion) that God would allow that.

    Well, God clearly allows it, in the sense that they are not prevented from doing so.

    I suppose what you mean here is that God would not subsequently punish it, if we choose to take advantage of the option.

    How confident are you in that opinion?

  • ‘All men are created equal,’ was about the holy Trinity.”

    WAT – I mean, the foundation of Christian doctrine, which is in line with the other Abrahamic religions, is that God is inherently NOT equal to humans, by definition. :O


  • As spake by nolidad:

    If a woman is under mental duress several states allow her to abort in
    late term after viability. Sorry unless you think Guttmacher is lying
    and courts are lying.

    This is a case of carving out “acceptable abortion” exceptions which satisfy the weasel-wordy moral consciences of “pro-lifers” who realize that caving in to allowing some abortions makes them look less heartless than they actually are.

    It’s also embedded in the Madonna-Whore paradigm commonly employed among those who hold socially conservative views, since it allows them to slice up the population of abortion-seekers the same way.

  • As spake by nolidad:

    Let me ask you– Which sex is designed to carry a baby and nurture it until it leaves the womb?

    I use the Bible as my reference that at conception that “thing” is a person in Gods eyes.

    I was morally bankrupt long before I met you. Got my account filled with His righteousness- mine couldn’t cut it.

    Before the ban here is a report


    They have been done and SCotus ruled they are constitutional


    Life here also means emotional health as I cited earlier so they are still being done if rare.

    As Baby_Raptor pointed out on the other thread, the term “partial birth abortion” is just something some numbnuts made up to score cheap emotional points with the electorate.

    Medically it comes under the heading of D&X, D&E, D&C, etc. The only reason it is even used is when the fetus would, if born, be what is commonly called a stillbirth (that is, the baby would be dead already), or if there are other serious issues that necessitate such an abortion.

    0.17% of all abortions fall under that category and it is not, contrary to your HALP HALP THE SKY IS FALLING IN pearl clutching, an epidemic among abortions.

    That said, I reiterate it isn’t any of your damn business who gets an abortion and for what reason they get one. Didn’t you ever learn busybodies get no respect?

  • nolidad pontificated:

    I do find it amazing that your side holds that even if a woman is in labor but the head isn’t crowned she has a right to snuff that life out! Even by the loose standards of the pro choice crowd. That baby is a person who will be viable and yet even though the woman is now in th eprocess of giving birth- she has the right to snuff that life out as a non person.

    You know, for someone who has repeatedly been told to mind their own business you spend a lot of time spinning emotion-laden OMGWTFPEARLCLUTCH horror stories about slavering masses of “pro-abortion” crowds lustily calling for the ending of pregnancies in any way possible.

    Even if you don’t ever SAY it, that’s what you imply every time you start rolling on in to a thread to discuss abortion.

    First, who gets an abortion and for what reason is none of your busybody little nosy self’s business.

    Second, I point out that quite frankly, ending a pregnancy that late in the game – that’s almost invariably a stage which becomes the best of a set of possibly really bad alternatives. It is the rankest absurdity to think that the day before a woman is due to give birth she goes, “Oh well just fuck a duck, I want an abortion!”

    It would probably be far more likely that a doctor would recommend inducing birth and placing the resulting baby for adoption, provided that the fetus is viable at that point.

  • nolidad bloviated:

    I do believe woman are human despite you rstraw man and I do believe she
    has the right to control her body. When she becomes pregnant she is
    now a steward for another life. And now she is responsible for 2 lives
    not one.

    And from an ethical perspective that is a knotty question.

    However, as I stated if one starts from the perspective of “do not harm someone else” as a first principle, one might conclude that abortion should be illegal.

    The problem with that is it is far too simplistic a treatment of pregnancy especially given modern medical understanding that it can cause problems for a pregnant individual that necessitates early ending of that pregnancy.

    And of course humans are capable of abstracting “harm” to more than just the physical, and indeed projecting into the future possible effects of things in the present.

    For example, it is perhaps harmful more generally for someone to have a child they are not emotionally or financially equipped for and which they cannot undertake the full ~9 months to adopt the resulting child out to someone else.

    In such a case the lesser harm is to permit the abortion.

    Given the obvious intrusiveness of a state apparatus designed to try and gauge cases of harm each time someone wants an abortion the simpler and more effective remedy (from a ZOMGFREEDOM!!1111 perspective, too, given the fetishization of individualism among some Americans) is to let each person seeking an abortion make their own decision, in consultation with a doctor and any other medically competent person, without the interference of anyone else.

  • Baby_Raptor

    Which is why the Constitution says specifically that we’re *not* founded on Christianity, that everyone (not just Christbots) has freedom of religion, that laws can’t be based on religion, that there can’t be any religious test for voting/holding office…

  • Baby_Raptor

    He’s really starting to make my head hurt.

  • As I said once to someone else, but which is applicable to nolidad, he could give a headache to an Aspirin :P

  • Baby_Raptor

    He probably could.

    Request received. If he replies to me again, I’ll move over to the other thread and find one of his comments to stick the reply on.

    Also, I finally got over the aforementioned communication issues. It only took a week of yelling at customer “help.” >.<

  • I do, in fact.