As a straight dude, my first internal knee-jerk reaction was “this is such a stupid solution to a stupid problem”, but then my mental “Don’t be an asshat because not everybody is like you” guard rail kicked in.
Clearly this is a product for a market of people that it works for and I’m happy for them. Enjoy your neat keyboard thing, long nailed peeps.
A lot of people in this thread knee-jerk hating on the nails don’t realise that it’s just culturally-entrenched misogyny. More people need a “Don’t be an asshat because not everybody is like you” guard rail.
you’re absolutely right. this is a stupid solution for a stupid problem. But you’re also right that this is a product for a special subset of people that need this and whom this works for.
Both can be true.
That’s the nice thing about capitalism (free market economics actually): You don’t have a authority that decides what is useful and useless, what gets produced and what doesn’t. Because in the End, everything is useless. I have a robotvac because I’m too lazy to vacuum myself. Stupid and Lazy. I have a Vacuum cleaner because I’m too lazy to use a Broom. Stupid and Lazy.
So yes, it’s both. Stupid solution to a stupid problem. But it’s also a great product that solves a problem that a subset of our population has and therefore useful.
People want this, they don’t need it. Because nobody needs to have nails like that - they choose to. If they want to look silly, that’s their prerogative, but let’s not call it anything other than a personal choice and not a necessity.
But if you have the nails, then you need something to make it easier to type, assuming your job involves a lot of typing. Just because the need was created by fulfilling a want doesn’t make it less of a need, because at the end of the day, anything could be reduced down to wants instead of needs, and that’s not helpful.
Except they don’t. Example, my fiancee is a fine dining chef, and as such has to keep her fingernails trimmed pretty short. If she decided to do the long nail thing, she’d be told to trim them. If you want to wear a party dress or beach attire to your office job, guess what, you can’t. If you wear metal jewelry and are an electrician, that stuff stays in your locker or home, same for food service.
Utility > vanity. If your aesthetic choices inhibit your ability to do your job, then you need to make different choices. This isn’t an accommodation for a disability or religious thing. If you want your appearance to get in the way of your work and it doesn’t impact your work, then you don’t need accommodation. If it’s uncomfortable then that’s your own damn fault.
You don’t have a authority that decides what is useful and useless, what gets produced and what doesn’t.
Well sort of, the “authority” in the case of a truly free market is The Market (or The People, if you will.) If it sells it sells, if it doesn’t it doesn’t, The Market will decide.
That said, I agree with the rest of your statement and realize that you meant authority in a truer sense, and I in more of a metaphorical sense.
Exactly. There are a ton of stupid products out there, and ecosystems around those stupid products, and I think that’s awesome. Variety is the spice of life after all. For example:
self-driving cars - if we had properly designed cities and infrastructure, we wouldn’t need cars in the first place
shampoos and conditioners for damaged hair - only needed because we wreck our hair with bleaches and dyes
waist trainers/corsets - only needed because we’re lethargic and eat too much
Yet each of those has facilitated variety. Cars are an expression of what we value, hair styles are a huge part of our identities, and plus-sized product lines can build confidence and have created a market all their own. I certainly won’t ever understand a ton of the products that exist, but I like that those products exist, because it means that there’s a ton of variety in how we live our lives.
So yeah, keep making weird solutions to unnecessary problems. But at the same time, let’s try to do it in a way that doesn’t destroy our planet.
As a straight dude, my first internal knee-jerk reaction was “this is such a stupid solution to a stupid problem”, but then my mental “Don’t be an asshat because not everybody is like you” guard rail kicked in.
Clearly this is a product for a market of people that it works for and I’m happy for them. Enjoy your neat keyboard thing, long nailed peeps.
A lot of people in this thread knee-jerk hating on the nails don’t realise that it’s just culturally-entrenched misogyny. More people need a “Don’t be an asshat because not everybody is like you” guard rail.
you’re absolutely right. this is a stupid solution for a stupid problem. But you’re also right that this is a product for a special subset of people that need this and whom this works for.
Both can be true.
That’s the nice thing about capitalism (free market economics actually): You don’t have a authority that decides what is useful and useless, what gets produced and what doesn’t. Because in the End, everything is useless. I have a robotvac because I’m too lazy to vacuum myself. Stupid and Lazy. I have a Vacuum cleaner because I’m too lazy to use a Broom. Stupid and Lazy.
So yes, it’s both. Stupid solution to a stupid problem. But it’s also a great product that solves a problem that a subset of our population has and therefore useful.
*want
People want this, they don’t need it. Because nobody needs to have nails like that - they choose to. If they want to look silly, that’s their prerogative, but let’s not call it anything other than a personal choice and not a necessity.
But if you have the nails, then you need something to make it easier to type, assuming your job involves a lot of typing. Just because the need was created by fulfilling a want doesn’t make it less of a need, because at the end of the day, anything could be reduced down to wants instead of needs, and that’s not helpful.
Except they don’t. Example, my fiancee is a fine dining chef, and as such has to keep her fingernails trimmed pretty short. If she decided to do the long nail thing, she’d be told to trim them. If you want to wear a party dress or beach attire to your office job, guess what, you can’t. If you wear metal jewelry and are an electrician, that stuff stays in your locker or home, same for food service.
Utility > vanity. If your aesthetic choices inhibit your ability to do your job, then you need to make different choices. This isn’t an accommodation for a disability or religious thing. If you want your appearance to get in the way of your work and it doesn’t impact your work, then you don’t need accommodation. If it’s uncomfortable then that’s your own damn fault.
no they need it look it up
Well sort of, the “authority” in the case of a truly free market is The Market (or The People, if you will.) If it sells it sells, if it doesn’t it doesn’t, The Market will decide.
That said, I agree with the rest of your statement and realize that you meant authority in a truer sense, and I in more of a metaphorical sense.
Exactly. There are a ton of stupid products out there, and ecosystems around those stupid products, and I think that’s awesome. Variety is the spice of life after all. For example:
Yet each of those has facilitated variety. Cars are an expression of what we value, hair styles are a huge part of our identities, and plus-sized product lines can build confidence and have created a market all their own. I certainly won’t ever understand a ton of the products that exist, but I like that those products exist, because it means that there’s a ton of variety in how we live our lives.
So yeah, keep making weird solutions to unnecessary problems. But at the same time, let’s try to do it in a way that doesn’t destroy our planet.
It’s a pink tax but if someone is rocking fake nails why not double dip. Practicality is not their deciding factor.
Good catch!
tippy taps!
The 🏳️🌈🇺🇦🇪🇺🏳️⚧️🇹🇼🇮🇱🏳️🌈 thought police have gotten to you, brother.
Ok bud. Sure thing.