I felt like that too, but there are things that should always be called out and if it means being modded, so be it. Better to say something than sit mutely.
Sali Hughes #52 Been there, seen it, done it, knew about it first. Always done it.
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Sali Hughes Threads Wiki
- Status
New to Tattle Life? Click "Order Thread by Most Liked Posts" button below to get an idea of what the site is about:
I thought @GossipMongoose was criticising the show's cherry-picking and misreading of scientific studies, not attacking @Django?
I definitely wasn’t criticising @Django, melfish. You read my posts in the way they were intended
I read the crows feet comment as highlighting the unflattering adjacency you get when you buy yourself a smooth fod - natural lines round your eyes are suddenly more noticeable and look out of place. It'd be great if the self styled gurus could address these sorts of things with makeup tutorials instead of just here have another dull nude lip copper eye look.
The cherry-picking of data is a pet peeve of mine as well. It's rife in all media
I love Lab Muffin - she's so well qualified but never patronising. So unlike our heroine ...
She made a whole post in response to a question I asked her. She's a straight-talker and knows her tit. One of the few I trust
No offense taken at all, but I still buy into a lot of the series' take on the way the beauty industry in the US is open to abuse and how women of colour are more at risk. The fact that the US has banned 12 chemicals from make up while the EU has banned over 13,000 is still shocking.
It’s interesting, I work on this topic and we and our partners often use that stat. Recently a lot of beauty bloggers and influencers have been trying to attack ‘clean beauty’, not for greenwashing but for the very idea that chemicals can be harmful. They have attacked this very stat by saying, for example, that the chemicals the EU has banned are not actually harmful and the US only focuses on actually harmful ingredients. If you understand how the FDA works vs ECHA and other factors, you’d know this is total bs.
We think it’s a concerted effort by industry who are targeting beauty bloggers and influencers with this messaging ie; using the very messaging of advocacy groups against them.
As to the point of cherry picking data mentioned earlier, I haven’t watched the whole series yet nor have I seen the bloggers response but that certainly happens. I think one challenge is it is hard to prove a clear and direct path from exposure to say, parabens, and hormonal disruption. There are limitations on testing methods and research ethics, for example. But we do have enough supporting data to say there should be concern. Some might equally use this ambiguity to say that the research is weak without giving context on why it is or what we can reasonably prove with testing and research on human subjects.
Edited to add: wouldn’t it be wonderful if Sali, the award winning honorary degree touting journaliste (pronounced like crème), could delve into topics like these? Surface has depth and all.
Another one of Nez Hasans (she loves herself and is only interested in influencers like Sali also she only accepts cash)!!!
Title contender
Ok I’ve watched a few of labmuffin’s analyses. Not at all impressed, she sticks to the idea that you need to have direct proof of harm, without mentioning some of the factors that impede being able to gain that proof (that I mentioned above). From what I’ve seen, she provides a very industry biased view, rather than a scientifically objective one. I would not at all be surprised if she is linked or funded by industry groups. And it really irks me when people hide behind QUALIFICATIONS whilst doing that.
A necessary selfie that's definitely about new glasses
I'm not precious or anything but a toilet in full view in a selfie is so tacky. She was just desperate to capture the stylish tiled floor and lighted mirror along with her ickle self.
That hair. Part 847.
That hair. Part 847.
Last edited:
Is the friend whose bathroom that is going to be happy about her wearing outdoor shoes in a room where you often have bare feet? (It looks like a shower room, I mean.)
I think it's hers.
KJH influenced glasses there.
What do you think the scientifically objective perspective would be?
I wish she had been my chemistry teacher in sixth form.
thought this was an interesting take on the issue
Attachments
Isn’t she in New York?
That LabMuffin take is clearly a massive overgeneralisation. Many small companies’ starting point was wanting to avoid certain chemicals in their own lives, and were genuinely innovative. Big brands have definitely clean-washed, but that’s not the origin, that’s bandwagon-jumping. From that quote she sounds as ideologically driven as anyone else.
- Status