Stop Focusing on Hair Colours, Focus on Corporate Agenda
Earlier today: The 'Corporate Neckbeard' is Not the "Good Guy" | The Nasty Smear (and Stereotype) of "Neckbeard" or "Greybeard" is Ageism
A couple of weeks ago I purchased 3 packs of blue hair colour. Nope. It was not for me. It was for my wife. See, hair colour says almost nothing about a person.
About 5 years ago I made a remark about the Linux Foundation and it mentioned hair colour. Someone then pointed out to me - quite politely - that mentioning the colour of someone's hair could be seen as intolerant, so I told her this was not what I meant. Just like pointing out someone is a man or someone is from China should not be a big deal. In the era of hair dye, hair colour is mostly a choice. People can even get rid of silver-ish, grey, or white hairs. By means of dyeing everything. It is not even expensive unless one goes to some "posh" hair salon.
The other day I mentioned how Microsoft Lunduke turned hair colours into a "dog whistle" or merely latched onto such a (preexisting) "dog whistle". It turned out that when he said pink hair he sort of meant trans. It wasn't obvious. He didn't use the latter word, he instead focused on the colours. He did the same in some of his memes about Wayland.
The real issue at hand isn't the colour of one's hair but one's allegiance, be it to the community or some dying monstrosity like Microsoft or I.C.B.M. (Red Hat).
I nowadays know it's wiser not to focus in any way on hair colours; those became like some kind of "codeword" for bigots, who try to paint groups with a broad, generalising paint brush. Sort of like saying "watermelons" (that already has a racist connotation).
If someone commits a crime, it does not matter if his or her hair was mostly white or there was no hair or a wig or whatever. What matters is the crime. █