Me, I'm considering going purple or at least burgundy. Anyone have advice on how that would work on my gray? What brand should I buy?

t swoops in like I've seen the bat signal

My fave haircolor brands these days are iroiro, Ion Brights, and Manic Panic Amplified. Any of them will cover gray if you bleach first (you don't need a lot of lift, but you do need to open up the pores). I like the Colorista bleach kits.

Those three are available on Amazon or at Sally's. For drugstore brands Splat is decent but will shed like crazy so if you have white pillowcases you might not want to risk it. DO NOT USE FERIA PASTELS.

For maintenance, Overtone daily conditioner and any sulfate-free shampoo - depending on how much you care about roots this combo buys me 8-12 weeks between dye jobs.

(This is my Overtone referral link - if you use it we both get a discount: [link]

So I got into a really intense conversation on voice with someone last night in Second Life about the current situation and I realize that I got so far away from my original issue I still am not sure where they stand on certain things.

It was so infuriating and of course at the end he was wanting to be friends still and leave in an ok way and I was tired and side tracked and kind of agreed.

His way of dealing with things is part of the problem (which made him agrny when I said that ) . There is nothing inherently wrong with what he was saying ( which was that you shouldn't judge an individual because of a group that they are a part of but he took it to such an extreme that basically he was saying unless you can talk to someone and know exactly their motivations you shouldn't judge them by a label you have for them or a group they are a part of.

And there is no way to do that.

Plus he literally would not say anything about the police attacking the press because there isn't a way to know the context of the videos and people who are reporting what happened have their own biases and will interject that into reporting.

I got caught up in trying to clarify what he was saying so much it ended up in an argument about schematics and because he would say something like that and then make some statement that did exactly what he said I shouldn't do and when I stopped to try and untangle the contradiction be got mad.

The biggest thing was him saying that people need to change but he doesn't believe that people should influence how someone thinks by telling them they are wrong or that they need to change. After over an hour of him telling me I was wrong and trying to get me to change the way I thought. But because he hadn't directly told me I needed to change but cautioned me that what I was doing could be a problem it wasn't... trying to influence me or telling I'm wrong since he was cautioning me that the way I thought about people wasn't the way to get people to change... And having a direct conversation is what needs to happen instead of people writing or taking to groups in general terms about how they should change. Except the walked back on that to clarify he wasn't telling to change but cautioning me that it would be more beneficial if I didn't do certain things.

For example I was saying the police are targeting the press. He would object because I'm ascribing motive to people without understanding their individual feelings and also I'm getting this info from video that doesn't show the ful context and reporting where people have an agenda.

And then he is telling me that Trump has for for black Americans than anyone else so he can't be racist. And then cited unemployment numbers as a reason and he knows this from articles he has read. When I asked him how he can trust what he read when the person writing it has an agenda then I'm being nit picky and unfair.

Actually I was bitchy and said something like "but I thought I shouldn't trust what I read because people who report on things have an agenda and want support their own beliefs rather than be objective".

Also that I try to draw too fine a line on things and making impossible standards and then went on to say the Civil War wasn't about slavery but about the state rights to own slavery and it wasn't saying that slavery was good but at the time it was legal and so the South was trying to protect their legal rights which just happened to be the right to own people. Even though slavery is morally wrong you have to look at the histoical context of things (I think he was trying to say that because slavery was still legal it is somehow ok to own slaves bit also morally wrong and the people at the time didn't know that even though there were more and more free states and abolition movement) And that Lee and others weren't really racist and that Stephens was super racist so his Cornerstone speech shouldn't be taken as a message about the Confederacy as a whole but as his individual beliefs. Even though he was giving the speech and VP of the CSA (continued...)

( continues...) . And he knows this because studies history and reads books and biographies about the Civil War.

Dude do you even hear yourself. (No he doesn't. And took about another half hour of back and forth for him to even come up with that convulated reasoning originally he was just saying states rights and I would add "to own slaves" and he would disagree and argue. In the end he kept insisting that technically both are correct and so when people say it's about states rights they are right they shouldn't be corrected to include slavery because they know it's about the states right to on slaves . Which would lead me back to ... I thought we shouldn't make assumptions about someone's beliefs if we don't know their personal beliefs. Which yes is bitchy and argumentative but come on.

Is this a friend, askye? In super stressful times like now I cannot see how having long drawn out convos with anyone but close friends or family can be good for you. You work and home life are already stressed enough.

you shouldn't judge an individual because of a group that they are a part of

If group membership is voluntary and based on a shared set of beliefs and actions? Sure you can!

then went on to say the Civil War wasn't about slavery

For example, I judge individuals belonging to this group to be pretty fucking racist!

Sorry you had to deal with that, askye.

Really, askye, the question about the origins of the Civil War has been answered, and it was answered by the Confederacy itself. The documents they wrote justifying secession stated that they were seceding in order to continue selling and treating human beings like objects.

That's not an argument I would want to continue, and I think you would be justified in not engaging with him on these things anymore, because I don't think he's arguing in good faith. And as msbelle says, you have enough going on.

I think you met a super troll.

Encouraging development on one of our 'Trump is just okay with me because he won't take my weaponry like those libtards will' relatives. DH often gets into debates with his cousin D. D's niece is the 11 year old that told DH he had no right to have a flag on the front of our house. When he mentioned this to D his response was, "Seriously dude, I love our debates, but I unfriended that wacko and her mother years ago. No good can come from any discussion with her." So, you know, still crazy, but at least recognizes the even more crazy.

I think you met a super troll.

Smells like troll to me. Even trolls can be nice. Especially if they want to draw you into their "controversial" conversations.

Plans to open to the public are ongoing here. Even though our cases doubled this week. Not that we have a lot, but with protests happening, bars open and summer tourists headed North, we are not peaking yet.

We're sort of opening up, although things are slowed down because of protests, curfew and street closures. The other evening I was thinking "I'd kill for a haircut" ... and then it occurred to me that, no, actually, I wouldn't, since that was a real possibility. I'll live with my messy hair until I can get a haircut without endangering anyone. Although, with the increasing humidity, it's going wild.