How can companies get away with advertising such as pic related?

>>7942534
Probably should've mentioned I'm in 3rd year so I don't really have a degree yet lel. Rekt tho

Maybe it does bind fats slightly better than normal shampoo.

>>7942530
Scalps require oxygen for stronger hair. Caffeine's an excitatory molecule meaning more blood flow to the scalp. Jesus, OP, are you not knowledgeable? ;P

>>7942530
I work as a barista and I can tell you the caffeine does shit to your skin. It's skin trasmissible.

>>7942530
>I get a discount on everything in the store
that's why I buy all the crap on offer here

>>7942551
Okay, did a bit more research.

> It not only constricts blood vessels to reduce redness
http://thebeautybean.com/skin-2/caffeinated-skincare-perks-you-up-we-tell-you-how

Sorry, I guess it's good for the roots.

>>7942530
Daily reminder all you need to make your own soap is NaOH, KOH, some kind of oil/fat and pH papers.

If I ever get rich enough to have lots of time, I'll make my own shit.

Which words they get away with isn't a problem, the real problem is how many unregulated untested crap they put in soaps.

>>7942685
>unregulated untested crap
The industry is very highly regulated.

>>7942572
http://www.hindawi.com/journals/ijvm/2010/834060/
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2767280/
http://digitalcommons.wku.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1295&context=ijes
The "health and beauty" effects of caffeine are attributable to its action on vascular tissue. This occurs in tandem with systemic absorption, whether given topically or orally. Transdermal application of caffeine remains an inefficient route of administration, paling in comparison to oral use of readily available caffeine powder.

Caff in shampoo/shaving cream is more woo than substance. Alternately, use the smell test: If the absorption was effective enough to provide the claimed effects with proper use, overdose due to misuse would be a serious concern and the product would need to carry a warning.
Ever taken a gram of caffeine at once? Not fun.

>>7942685
If you're rich enough, why would you bother wasting your (evidently) valuable time on making your own soap?

>>7942530
My question is why do companies feel the need to make a "men's version of shampoo or soap. It's not that deep. Men can survive perfectly well on regular dove soap or shampoo or any other brand. All just unnecessary gender polarization.
>inb4 muh feminism
I'm just speaking practically.

>>7943757
I feel you, I want clean hair, I don't need branding, it's necessary and silly. I buy brand name when I can because it usually has the most generic labeling.

>>7943633
why learn anything in your free time? why use your hands to make something, you mongrel?

>>7943771
>projecting
I'm saying you could dedicate your time to more rewarding projects than making soap, it's cheap enough. You could learn more productive things with that time.

>>7942530
One of the most depressing things about getting a chemistry degree has been watching people believe things like 'organic' or 'oxygenated' or 'turbo-oxidizing' or 'nitrogen-containing formula' mean something.

>>7943779
Implying you didn't learn these things in 100 level classes

>>7943779
Its sad to see how many ppl take that bait

>>7943757
I like to use woman shampoos and soaps because they smell better

>>7943757
Unnecessary in the same sense as food photography at McDonalds. It doesn't make the food more appetizing or alter the nutritional value in any way, and smart people know to ignore it, but it does sell product and performs a definite social role.
>>7943789
I use Garnier Fructis shampoo whenever I have medium-length hair or longer because it's given me better results than anything else. That it's technically a "woman's product" doesn't really register.

Though women are more likely than men to have long hair and to value the specific effects it had for me, so the branding certainly makes sense from a business perspective. Trying to shame companies out of gendered marketing without bothering to address the competitive disadvantage is entitled and hubristic desu

>speaking practically

it's a man's soap because woman's soap is too delicate to deal with man grease (tm)

>>7943962
see>>7943959
>Unnecessary in the same sense as food photography at McDonalds. It doesn't make the food more appetizing or alter the nutritional value in any way, and smart people know to ignore it, but it does sell product and performs a definite social role.

>>7944010

the social role it serves is as testament to the precarious nature of upholding ones masculinity and the repercussions of transgression

>>7942685
>unregulated untested crap they put in soaps

Are you retarded? The cosmetic / beauty industry is highly regulated. I should know I work as a regulatory associate. The regulation might as well be up there with asbestos

>>7942536
>Probably should've mentioned I'm in 3rd year so I don't really have a degree yet lel
>>7942553
>I work as a barista
>>7943789
>I like to use woman shampoos
>>7943962
>it's a man's soap because woman's soap is too delicate to deal with man grease


>/sci/ - Science & Math

File: How+2+science+feel+free+to+mention+sciencexplain+in+this_f2a1a5_5862372.jpg (160KB, 601x4401px) Image search: [Google]

160KB, 601x4401px

>>7944018
The "precarious toxic masculinity" narrative fails to predict my feeling no shame in and facing no repercussions for using garnier fucking fructis shampoo and conditioner. Abort/Retry/Fail?

You can say "the fact that we don't fall off the earth is a testament to the goodness of the noodly appendages holding us down and the greatness of the FSM," but if your theory isn't predictive it is not useful and is hard to take seriously.

>>7944070

well a) that isnt toxic masculinity im talking about and b) gender presentation or the acting out of gender is not uniform but i dont think its unfair to say that gendered cosmetics etc existing is a reflection of the nature of how we perform gender in both public and private spaces, do you think thats unfair?

>>7944085
>i don't think it's unfair to say there's at least some relation...
>so this whole theory I just made up must be true

feminism

>>7944106

okay, well why do gendered toiletries exist then?

>>7944114
Marketing

>>7944116

but why not just market the existing feminine/flowery products to men? why does there have to be a "for men" version?

>>7944117
That's essentially what they're doing. There's really not much of a difference between the two products. A better question to ask would be why do they even bother making a distinction between the two and market it as Shampoo™ with different scents.

>>7942685
>falling for the soap meme
Detergents are better

>>7944085
>perform gender
Weasel words.

I'm saying that critical theory fails to predict a huge number of human behaviors. You seem to be retreating to an arbitrary category of behaviors defined simply as those in which your theory is indeed predictive and have no other unifying characteristic.

Is playing video games "performing gender"? Is entering science? Is showering?

>>7944117
"for men" sells better to men, "for women" sells better to women. you know, marketing.

>>7944106
You should read the photo you posted which highlights the difference between theory and truth. Top of the evening to you, fine gent'. :^)

>>7944129
Can't tell if you're being willingly vapid or if you're actually just dumb.

>>7944131
Not me. I'm >>7944128 >>7944070
He obviously means "is more predictive than competing theories" you pedantic sod

>>7944131
i didn't post any photo
and that's not the difference between theory and truth, it's a key difference between pseudoscience and science

>>7944129

so men are buying the mens version because its for men? thats it?

>>7944128

critical theory is a framework for understanding power relations, not individual behavior, so your argument only makes any sense if you consider society to be the sum of individual actions instead of an entity of analysis in and of its own right

>>7944134
>willingly vapid
I can tell you're dumb and also being willingly vapid. If you had asked nicely for a source I would have got you some studies. But no. Fuck off, look them up yourself.

>>7944139
>so men are buying the mens version because its for men? thats it?
and women are buying the women version because it's for women. yeah. that's marketing.

>your argument only makes any sense
anon is saying that your theory is not predictive in any way. that's the argument, not his examples to make it clearer. respond to the argument.

>>7944142
You're the one failing to address why that marketing technique is even effective. You're being willingly vapid by giving answers that imply anon doesn't know how marketing works and that's what he's asking about, which he clearly isn't.

>>7944147
>why
If you want to know why, ask, and I'll tell you we don't know. Instead of acting like a fucking brat and flinging insults. Claiming to know the "why" of social phenomena is retarded. We just know it happens.

>>7944139
>understanding power relations
Yeah, which are mediated by individual actions and drive the whole of society.
The point is it does a shit job of it. Privilege is not suited to study as the fundamental driver of societies because that would neglect several larger forms of coercion and oppression which are not gained by involuntary membership in a specific group. Critical theory also has a nasty tendency to dogmatically ignore privilege experienced by allegedly oppressed groups and fail to predict things like the experience of asian immigrants to the U.S.

Rejection of historical materialism and Marxist dialectics in favor of postmodernism and its rejection of objective truth crippled the left for bringing any serious beneficial social change. Case in point: >>7944150
>Claiming to know the "why" of social phenomena is retarded. We just know it happens.
I'd like to recommend you Zinn's book A Peoples' History of the United States and urge you to keep a solid eye throughout on how systemic advantage and cultural bias is, without the barest exception, cultivated as a device of class rule, and how far from the whole story it really is.

>>7944150
The context of the conversation was clearly on social theories of that particular phenomena in which it's profitable to market towards specific gender. You come in with "cuz it is" like you're some great fucking beam of enlightenment. Now you're pulling the "you can't know nuthin" when, again, we're discussing theories which are implicitly understood to be just that. You're being insulted because you're bringing intentionally disingenuous rhetoric to the conversation that does absolutely nothing to further the dialogue going on.

>>7944166
you're insulting me because you're immature. don't justify it.

someone claimed that product segmenting was because of an expression of gender or some idiotic shit like that. and no, it's because of marketing. we know companies segment their products because they sell better that way.

then you go asking for the "why". why do products sell better that way? we could draft up a thousand probable reasons, but I've no idea why it is. that's all.

>>7944164
what do you want me to get from the book exactly? this is a science and math board. you should know people around here don't believe in these kind of things. I imagine it reads like a novel with babble and handwaving. If it doesn't, and if it's actually a compendium of studies and careful conclusions, then color me surprised and i'll download it right away. otherwise...

>>7944186
>what do you want me to get from the book exactly?
That would be
>keep a solid eye throughout on how systemic advantage and cultural bias is, without the barest exception, cultivated as a device of class rule, and how far from the whole story it really is

>novel with babble and handwaving
It's a history textbook.

>this is a science and math board. you should know people around here don't believe in these kind of things.
Rejecting philosophy is a meme, especially when the whole of science is under assault by postmodernism. Materialism is uniquely scientific and dialectics are extremely useful, but it doesn't take a whole lot to be an attractive alternative to something that rejects the reductionist hypothesis.

Was I replying to two different people? The lrn2hegel-engels-marx was for our SJW friend

>>7944207
I'm the "case in point". I don't get what you want. I still don't get what you want me to get from the book. You can keep repeating it, but it registers in my mind as a blank, because it's a history textbook. Sorry.

I'll ignore all of the rest because it's you assuming things about my position. I can categorically throw out ridiculous overpowered theories without being against philosophy. The entirety of continental philosophy can disappear for all I care.

>>7944221
Yeah, then all that was for >>7944139

File: 1454804600308.jpg (32KB, 500x332px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 500x332px

Since this is kind of a chemistry thread, what do you guys think about job prospects with a BS in chemistry from a decent program?
I kind of wanted to go for a higher degree, but coming on time for graduation I realized my family needed another source of income so I really need to pull my weight and help them out.
Now I wish I'd minored in business instead of biology.

>>7944286
Where do you live, and what did you focus on during your degree?

>>7942530

There is literally nothing wrong with false advertising

[eqn] \color{red}{\bf{ \lower{0.125em}{ \unicode[arial,helvetica, sans-serif]{x28}} \unicode[arial,helvetica, sans-serif]{x55} \unicode[arial,helvetica, sans-serif]{x53} \unicode[arial,helvetica, sans-serif]{x45} \unicode[arial,helvetica, sans-serif]{x52} \unicode[arial,helvetica, sans-serif]{x20} \unicode[arial,helvetica, sans-serif]{x57} \unicode[arial,helvetica, sans-serif]{x41} \unicode[arial,helvetica, sans-serif]{x53} \unicode[arial,helvetica, sans-serif]{x20} \unicode[arial,helvetica, sans-serif]{x42} \unicode[arial,helvetica, sans-serif]{x41} \unicode[arial,helvetica, sans-serif]{x4e} \unicode[arial,helvetica, sans-serif]{x4e} \unicode[arial,helvetica, sans-serif]{x45} \unicode[arial,helvetica, sans-serif]{x44} \unicode[arial,helvetica, sans-serif]{x20} \unicode[arial,helvetica, sans-serif]{x46} \unicode[arial,helvetica, sans-serif]{x4f} \unicode[arial,helvetica, sans-serif]{x52} \unicode[arial,helvetica, sans-serif]{x20} \unicode[arial,helvetica, sans-serif]{x54} \unicode[arial,helvetica, sans-serif]{x48} \unicode[arial,helvetica, sans-serif]{x49} \unicode[arial,helvetica, sans-serif]{x53} \unicode[arial,helvetica, sans-serif]{x20} \unicode[arial,helvetica, sans-serif]{x50} \unicode[arial,helvetica, sans-serif]{x4f} \unicode[arial,helvetica, sans-serif]{x53} \unicode[arial,helvetica, sans-serif]{x54} \lower{0.125em}{ \unicode[arial,helvetica, sans-serif]{x29}}}} [/eqn]

>>7944302
Texas, probably gonna end up around Austin after graduation. Did a lot of forensic science stuff because I bought into the hype like a fucking idiot.
I'd say the thing I have most experience in is analytical since the trace evidence stuff focused on FTIR (mostly ATR), fluorescence, and a fuckton of mass spec (ICP-MS, tandem MS, MALDI, etc.).
My organic is decent and I've taken biochem plus a fair amount of biology so I was thinking biotech might be promising since its supposedly on the rise in Texas.

>>7944306
mods = gods

>>7944306

There is literally nothing wrong with false moderating

>>7944164

>The point is it does a shit job of it. Privilege is not suited to study as the fundamental driver of societies because that would neglect several larger forms of coercion and oppression which are not gained by involuntary membership in a specific group. Critical theory also has a nasty tendency to dogmatically ignore privilege experienced by allegedly oppressed groups and fail to predict things like the experience of asian immigrants to the U.S.

"Privilege" is like an entry level description of the ways in which power manifests in every day interactions and not even close to a foundational idea in critical theory.

And what do you mean by the "Asian immigrant" experience? That there are Asian Americans who make more money than white people, have better educational outcomes, etc.? Those families tend to be affluent East Asian immigrants like Taiwanese Americans who already have the resources to afford to put their kids through school and live in nice neighborhoods. If you contextualize things at a more granular level and understand that Asian Americans are not a singular group, you can see that there are lots of poorer Southeast Asian immigrants like Vietnamese Americans who don't have the same kind of wealth compared to say Taiwanese Americans.

Class reductionism is incredibly shortsighted, and without contextualization in the real lived lives of people in society, Marx's analysis falls woefully short.

File: dsadioasdjaiosd.png (23KB, 1901x191px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 1901x191px

>>7944306
When I refresh my page this is what his post shows up as for a second. I think this guy's just having a goof.

>>7944359
>Class reductionism is incredibly shortsighted
Maybe, if you don't understand what is meant by "class."

>Those families tend to be affluent East Asian immigrants like Taiwanese Americans who already have the resources to afford to put their kids through school and live in nice neighborhoods. If you contextualize things at a more granular level and understand that Asian Americans are not a singular group, you can see that there are lots of poorer Southeast Asian immigrants like Vietnamese Americans who don't have the same kind of wealth compared to say Taiwanese Americans.
This precisely. That opportunity and power are determined as completely as possible by the material circumstances of a given context. The parrot shrieking "racism!" is not able to explain why recent asian immigrants are so stratified or reconcile their higher median income (existence of a valued, high-earning professional clique) with the view of a society in which white powerholders create systems purely to give equal advantages to all and only white people as an end in itself.

So it contains an oxidizer?

>>7944335
>mods
Hello newfag

File: GIO-18004-3.jpg (251KB, 1600x1600px) Image search: [Google]

251KB, 1600x1600px

This has vectors on it and shit. I like it actually it works pretty good.

>>7944444

You could try considering both race and class in your analysis of the socioeconomic outcomes of Asian Americans. They aren't mutually exclusive.

Protip: white supremacy is a social scale phenomena, and its relation to individuals is (wait for it) dialectical. "White powerholders" don't consciously create and affect white supremacy, but rather enact it as an ideology.

>>7944457
I don't get the point of that, it'll go way over the head of anyone who believes their claims, and anyone who understands what the label depicts won't buy it.

>>7944460

it energizes u with magnets whats not to get

>>7944458
Racism, sexism and all other identity politics are emergent properties of class antagonism and material contradictions. I don't see them as mutually exclusive, rather that one completely explains (and is required to completely explain) the other.

>"White powerholders" don't consciously create and affect white supremacy, but rather enact it as an ideology.
Consciously enact it as an ideology?
Whether deliberate or mechanistic and involuntary, it needs some sort of material justification.

>>7944464
What is that dot after the B supposed to be? Never seen that notation.

>>7944481
Shit I hadn't noticed that /pol/ had invaded this thread.

>Race is the most important thing we have to talk about all the time, cause there's nothing more important than race and racial differences.

Right? Yeah, I've heard it..

>>7944488
You've either linked the wrong post or misunderstood something by about 180 degrees

>>7944488
> invaded
hi there redditard. still not getting the whole "SJW stays in reddit" concept are you ?

File: o-tinfoil-hat-facebook[1].jpg (228KB, 2000x1000px) Image search: [Google]

228KB, 2000x1000px

>>7944458
> muh white ebil reptilians control the world and keep the little man down

>>7944492
Yeah I didn't really read it very carefully, so nevermind. Please carry on with whatever you were talking about.

>>7944496
Never done Reddit, believe it or not. I have however been around here for.. way too long. Maybe that's the problem.

>>7943779
>implying you can activate almonds without turbo-oxidation

>>7944286
le thread within a thread meme xD

>french and english
you're from quebec aren't you

>>7942685
The only soap you ever need is Acetone.

>using shampoo at all

Man you guys really fell for the meme. I've been off of shampoo for three years now. My hair doesn't smell in the slightest (I have a gf, go figure), and it's thicker and healthier than ever before. Shampoo strips your hair of essential oils and fucks with your scalp. Then, when you're using shampoo regularly and go without it for 20 hours or so, your hair gets greasy as fuck.

Plain old water is all you need. Just scrub well.

>>7944501
>uh oh, that sounds like something I'm supposed to disagree with!
>better drown it out with memes and hastily googled images
>phew, that was close, almost let some people engage in critical discussion of relevant issues
I usually only lurk but I felt I had to point out your faggotry, because it's the bane of discourse across the whole internet and especially on /sci/

>>7944614
Nice meme bro