L’Oreal to remove the word “white” and “whitening from product labels.

splashuum

Some strange decisions being over the past week. How can describing the color of the product be offensive?

https://twitter.com/skynews/status/1276964290529038337?s=21

Similar enough to another story I read tonight where The Simpsons will no longer allow white voiceover actors to voice black characters. Who are these decision makers trying to please with this carry on?

Fann Linn

splashuum wrote: »

Some strange decisions being over the past week. How can describing the color of the product be offensive?

https://twitter.com/skynews/status/1276964290529038337?s=21

Similar enough to another story I read tonight where The Simpsons will no longer allow white voiceover actors to voice black characters. Who are these decision makers trying to please with this carry on?

This world has gone mad.

sdanseo

Another example of liberal extortionism.

I was just thinking today how "liberal" culture has progressed.
Someone who had what was considered to be a fairly liberal viewpoint 10 years ago would today in some circles be viewed as a neo-fascist.

rapul

Where will it end, toothpaste has whitening on all of em nearly, won't be able to say white or black at all soon, pc ****ing madness

Richard Hillman

I bet they still use it for the Asian Market.

Purple Mountain

From my understanding, this relates to skin products that may 'whiten or lighten' the look of skin.
I can actually see how that might be seen as offensive.
On the other hand, my bed sheets are stained currently from the fake tan I use to darken my skin so who knows!

Atlantic Dawn

Cool, another brand for me to blacklist.

MeMen2_MoRi_

Atlantic Dawn wrote: »

Cool, another brand for me to blacklist.

"No colourlist" get with the times

ILoveYourVibes

It would be better if they stop selling products that bleach the skin at all they are very dangerous.

Those products are depressing anyway. The fact that we live in a world where people are made to feel that being lighter skinned is better, prettier, more acceptable is desperately sad. I hate to think of dark skinned women believing they are somehow less than and lightening their skin. Im also not a fan of fake tan. Can't we all just be happy with who we are and accept others for who they are. At least fake tan is harmless and temporary. The same cannot be said for skin whitening products.

And they should rename them. I mean they should ban them unless there's some good use for them I'm unaware of (which there may be) but in the absence of that.. Whitening suggests these products can be used to make yourself more white which isn't true. 'Lightening' is far more accurate.

And nobody's talking about toothpaste here ffs.

Tell me how

splashuum wrote: »

Some strange decisions being over the past week. How can describing the color of the product be offensive?

Similar enough to another story I read tonight where The Simpsons will no longer allow white voiceover actors to voice black characters. Who are these decision makers trying to please with this carry on?

Beauty products are associated with seeking to attain some form of aesthetic perfection, the fact that some people of darker skin would do so through using whitening products is probably significantly influenced by decades of marketing portrayals of the most beautiful women in the world being white skinned.
There is a subliminal message that if you do not look like that, you are less beautiful. They are now recognizing that that is tantamount to flat out saying dark skin is less attractive and therefore people with such complexion are less worthy than others.

Now, before you react with apoplectic outrage that the beauty industry is responsible for making people feel inferior or that this is the angle in which they are seeking to correct that in some way or that they are doing so having considered it from a marketing perspective, I know all that. Every single product, marketing angle, focus of the beauty industry starts out with making someone feel inferior.

And I reckon you probably know it yourself, but you've decided to go with the outraged angle to further project your view that the world is changing for the worse while ignoring what it has been, and continues to be for many.

I don't get the whole "whiter, paler" skin is most beautiful. To me, most beautiful is middle eastern, Mediterranean, South American, Native American, Indian.

I used to date a Chinese girl who was obsessed with being as pale as possible. I didn't have the heart to tell her, and because she was beautiful in many other ways, that I prefer darker skin.

In terms of products mentioning colour, I actually think most of it is an insecurity of white people.

Black lives matter, isnt about whitening toothpaste its about please stop shooting innocent Black people.

teddyhead

Im intrigued. Has there actually ever really been an advert campaign that proclaimed to produce 'whiter skin' or is this 1984/mandela effect ? Fake news maybe?Did such racist adverts actually ever exist? Why not post one?

Hercule Poirot

I'm assuming this is more to do with the Asian/Arabic markets where there is a "desire" or trend to have lighter, whiter, paler skintone


Probably the opposite of the fake tan phenomenon we see over here

Not sure what they're gonna call it now though but I'm sure they'll figure it out, these mega corporations are usually quite savvy when it comes to PR

Tell me how

teddyhead wrote: »

Im intrigued. Has there actually ever really been an advert campaign that proclaimed to produce 'whiter skin' or is this 1984/mandela effect ? Fake news maybe?Did such racist adverts actually ever exist? Why not post one?

Here is an article from 2014 on ad campaigns in India.

Fair & Lovely can launch your million-dollar career: A girl is derided for her skin colour at a job interview. She returns with fairer skin and loads of confidence.

Pond’s White Beauty can help you get you your dream man (who dumped you in the first place for being brown): In this mini-series, the girl (played by Bollywood superstar Priyanka Chopra) wins back the love of her life (played by actor Saif Ali Khan) by turning “pinkish-white.”

Clean and Dry Intimate Wash can change your sex life: A brown vagina, the color of coffee, can ruin your sex life. Whiter privates will keep your man happy.

Emami Fair and Handsome can make a man as desirable as Shah Rukh Khan: Why should girls have all the fun? Boys deserve dazzling whiteness too. This product promises to make men as appealing as Bollywood’s biggest superstar. The special dude-only cream saves darker men, who secretly used women’s fairness creams, the agony of emasculation.

Nivea deodorant will give you whiter armpits. Why not just add more body parts women should feel insecure about? In this commercial, Bollywood actor Anushka Sharma floors her lover with beautiful and bright armpits.

I've also included a link to an incredible invention which helps people to find some information about any topic they wish to know more about.

https://www.google.com/

teddyhead

Tell me how wrote: »

I've also included a link to an incredible invention which helps people to find some information about any topic they wish to know more about.

https://www.google.com/

Try googling the word 'context' then. You dont seem to understand the concept.India has some cultural/historical stuff going on that you seem unaware of. Equating it with 'western' style racism , is simply ignorant.Dare I say 'racist' even?

ILoveYourVibes

Deleted User wrote: »

I don't get the whole "whiter, paler" skin is most beautiful. To me, most beautiful is middle eastern, Mediterranean, South American, Native American, Indian.

.

Yes but darker women can use bleaching creams to get to the above level of darkness.

A darker indian can get to your idea of beauty. So can a black woman.

The creams are not used by by lighter skinned indians.

ILoveYourVibes

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

Yes but darker women can use bleaching creams to get to the above level of darkness.

A darker indian can get to your idea of beauty. So can a black woman.

The creams are not used by by lighter skinned indians.

The bleaching cream is used by all shades even already pale white Asians who want to be paler.

ronivek

teddyhead wrote: »

Try googling the word 'context' then. You dont seem to understand the concept.India has some cultural/historical stuff going on that you seem unaware of. Equating it with 'western' style racism , is simply ignorant.Dare I say 'racist' even?

So you're saying "western" style racism has nothing to do with cultural/historical "stuff"?

What about the significant amount of skin lightening and bleaching that goes on in Africa? Where does that fit with your "western" style "stuff"?

Statistics compiled by the World Health Organisation in 2011 showed that 40% of African women bleach their skin. In some countries the figure is higher: a staggering 77% of women in Nigeria, 59% in Togo, 35% in South Africa, 27% in Senegal and 25% in Mali use skin-lightening products.

Quantum Erasure

Happens in Japan as well, afaik

ThunbergsAreGo

Tell me how wrote: »

Beauty products are associated with seeking to attain some form of aesthetic perfection, the fact that some people of darker skin would do so through using whitening products is probably significantly influenced by decades of marketing portrayals of the most beautiful women in the world being white skinned.
There is a subliminal message that if you do not look like that, you are less beautiful. They are now recognizing that that is tantamount to flat out saying dark skin is less attractive and therefore people with such complexion are less worthy than others.

Is that why fake tan is such a seller? Seems its the Latin skin they are all after

joeguevara

So the only people who are offended by this are white people who have no use of the product? I never knew their ethnic identity was determined by a skin bleaching cosmetic. While I don’t see the point in L’Oréal actually carrying out this, apart from it being marketing genius, people being angry about it are morons.

It's all dumb as shlt. Everything in Asia has whitening written on it and it has absolutely nothing to do with white people. The same way tan is viewed as attractive in the West because you got out into the sun, pale skin is viewed as attractive in the east because it means you're not working the fields and you can actually escape the sun.

Asians don't give a shlt about white people. They idolise Korean and Japanese stars. And now the West is so up their own fùcking arses, they think it's about them.

Buying a product such as a whitening agent is a choice. A consumer choice. There is no requirement on people to buy it, so there should simply be alternative products with different names available. Which there are already.

It's virtue signalling and fear. The US has gone nuts, and nobody can really tell where the angry glare of the activists will focus on... Beauty products will probably be targeted at some stage.

However, it is retarded to change such a thing because black people are still a minority, especially when it comes to whitening products.

I really hope this blows up in the faces of L’Oreal. Hopefully the blowback with consumers will be the first sign that people are tired of this rubbish.

It's only a matter of time before they redesign their money. The notes are plastered with pictures of racists and slave owners.

Mister Vain

PC culture is out of control. The actor who voiced the character of Cleveland Brown for two decades on Family Guy said he is stepping down from the role, saying that persons of color should play characters of color. Madness.

Quantum Erasure

joeguevara wrote: »

So the only people who are offended by this are white people who have no use of the product?

Yeah, makes you wonder why they'd bother changing it at all...

joeguevara

Deleted User wrote: »

Buying a product such as a whitening agent is a choice. A consumer choice. There is no requirement on people to buy it, so there should simply be alternative products with different names available. Which there are already.

It's virtue signalling and fear. The US has gone nuts, and nobody can really tell where the angry glare of the activists will focus on... Beauty products will probably be targeted at some stage.

However, it is retarded to change such a thing because black people are still a minority, especially when it comes to whitening products.

I really hope this blows up in the faces of L’Oreal. Hopefully the blowback with consumers will be the first sign that people are tired of this rubbish.

I’d say the biggest minority of people using whitening products are white people. Notwithstanding that, what is your point regarding black people still being a minority? I might have misunderstood but it comes across as you saying that minority views have no importance.

Hoping that it will blow up in the face of L’Oreal cracks me up. Is changing the packaging of a product you will never use the powder keg ignition that you are suggesting? I’ve images of Neo -Nazis marching goose step down the champs eleysees chanting, ‘first they take our concealer, but they’ll never take our freedom’.

Equally ridiculous are people being offended that white people can no longer do bad accents on a cartoon of yellow characters. I never knew that its so important for us to imitate an Indian.

joeguevara

Quantum Erasure wrote: »

Yeah, makes you wonder why they'd bother changing it at all...

Usually when a brand changes their packaging it’s for free advertising. It’s marketing 101.

Maybe they thought they could increase market share in Latin America by not having literally the same word that historically was a policy of ethnic cleansing through immigration, social and economic means. Removing Blanqueamiento or Whitening from a product may be a good choice.

Are people so self absorbed that they are hoping for mass consumer agitation in the mistaken belief that changing the name of a product is a direct attack on their white heritage.

joeguevara

joeguevara wrote: »

I’d say the biggest minority of people using whitening products are white people. Notwithstanding that, what is your point regarding black people still being a minority? I might have misunderstood but it comes across as you saying that minority views have no importance.

Ahh well, that's one of my problems with the way things have gone. Unless you make a statement that promotes minorities and gives them special attention, then you're stating a negative. This need to make everything offensive.

I didn't say that a minority had no importance. I simply said they were a minority. The majority being Asian consumers and those white people who are borderline in their skin color, and want to be more white. I've never met a black woman who wanted to be white, or considered that becoming more white was possible.

Hoping that it will blow up in the face of L’Oreal cracks me up. Is changing the packaging of a product you will never use the powder keg ignition that you are suggesting? I’ve images of Neo -Nazis marching goose step down the champs eleysees chanting, ‘first they take our concealer, but they’ll never take our freedom’.

And another extreme interpretation. Seeing a trend here. Where is there anything in my post which would suggest anything even remotely... this?

It's about the perceived need to replace the word "white" from products. The product itself is not changing.

Equally ridiculous are people being offended that white people can no longer do bad accents on a cartoon of yellow characters. I never knew that its so important for us to imitate an Indian.

Dunno. It's not something I spoke of, but I'd say it's to do with freedom of expression. I've seen Black comedians imitate white people in plenty of sketches. Eddie Murphy's raw has many examples of him joking using a "white" voice, and nobody got outraged by him doing so.

So... yeah.. I'd consider your response to my post by going to extremes (making associations that weren't represented in the post) and seeking to make it more that it was, to be a pretty good case of virtue signalling.

joeguevara

Deleted User wrote: »

Ahh well, that's one of my problems with the way things have gone. Unless you make a statement that promotes minorities and gives them special attention, then you're stating a negative. This need to make everything offensive.

I didn't say that a minority had no importance. I simply said they were a minority. The majority being Asian consumers and those white people who are borderline in their skin color, and want to be more white. I've never met a black woman who wanted to be white, or considered that becoming more white was possible.



And another extreme interpretation. Seeing a trend here. Where is there anything in my post which would suggest anything even remotely... this?

It's about the perceived need to replace the word "white" from products. The product itself is not changing.



Dunno. It's not something I spoke of, but I'd say it's to do with freedom of expression. I've seen Black comedians imitate white people in plenty of sketches. Eddie Murphy's raw has many examples of him joking using a "white" voice, and nobody got outraged by him doing so.

So... yeah.. I'd consider your response to my post by going to extremes (making associations that weren't represented in the post) and seeking to make it more that it was, to be a pretty good case of virtue signalling.

By saying it’s retarded (a word that also shouldn’t be used) to remove the word whitening with the reason being blacks are a minority comes across as disregarding minority views.

I agree that i was having a bit of fun with the champs eleyses comment but you Saying that you hope that it blows up in L’Oréal’s face and that the blowback from consumers will show them is suggesting that whites boycott the brand. Add it to uncle bens as things not to use.

Using Eddie Murphy in a comedy show from the 80s May not be the best example to use when he himself has distanced himself from the homophobic and racial content. https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2019/09/30/eddie-murphy-cringes-ignorant-old-jokes-aids-homosexuality/

Hands up, I think it’s bizarre that L’Oreal are doing this. But jaysus be offended about something important.

I never quite got the put down of saying virtue signalling. saying virtue signalling is hypocritical. It’s often used to try to show that the accuser is above virtue signalling and that their own arguments really are sincere. Of course, this is really just another example of virtue signalling! This actually sums it up quite well

“ Dismissing other people’s false beliefs as virtue signalling means you won’t consider them properly and means they have every right to do the same to your beliefs, which as far as they’re concerned are also obviously false. Sometimes beliefs are honestly, sincerely held, however stupid they seem to you, and if there’s any value to debate at all it requires that we at least consider the possibility that we might be the stupid ones.

At best, virtue signalling is a pretentious way of saying 'showing off'. At worst, it is mental armour against self-doubt. People should stop saying it.”

joeguevara

joeguevara wrote: »

By saying it’s retarded (a word that also shouldn’t be used) to remove the word whitening with the reason being blacks are a minority comes across as disregarding minority views.

Nah, you're simply seeking reasons to be outraged and mount your ivory tower of moral superiority. Hence the need to police the words that people use, and inferring meaning into other peoples sentences, even when the sentence is lacking anything negative.

I agree that i was having a bit of fun with the champs eleyses comment but you Saying that you hope that it blows up in L’Oréal’s face and that the blowback from consumers will show them is suggesting that whites boycott the brand. Add it to uncle bens as things not to use.

Nope. I don't like this need to make associations between white and something negative. You did it yourself with your following post by linking it to "ethnic cleansing through immigration, social and economic means".

And I said nothing about "whites" boycotting the brand. You keep doing this. Perhaps deal with what's written?

Using Eddie Murphy in a comedy show from the 80s May not be the best example to use when he himself has distanced himself from the homophobic and racial content. https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2019/09/30/eddie-murphy-cringes-ignorant-old-jokes-aids-homosexuality/

But not the use of voice imitations which was your original point. One you introduced yourself without any connection to my quoted piece.

Hands up, I think it’s bizarre that L’Oreal are doing this. But jaysus be offended about something important.

Just because someone is against something, doesn't mean that they're offended or outraged. That tends to come out through the manner of their posts, and the use of particular vocabulary.

I'm not offended by what L’Oreal are doing. I don't agree with it, and I want this movement to virtue signal nipped in the bud before it expands into far more important areas.

joeguevara

Deleted User wrote: »

Nah, you're simply seeking reasons to be outraged and mount your ivory tower of moral superiority. Hence the need to police the words that people use, and inferring meaning into other peoples sentences, even when the sentence is lacking anything negative.



Nope. I don't like this need to make associations between white and something negative. You did it yourself with your following post by linking it to "ethnic cleansing through immigration, social and economic means".

And I said nothing about "whites" boycotting the brand. You keep doing this. Perhaps deal with what's written?



But not the use of voice imitations which was your original point. One you introduced yourself without any connection to my quoted piece.



Just because someone is against something, doesn't mean that they're offended or outraged. That tends to come out through the manner of their posts, and the use of particular vocabulary.

I'm not offended by what L’Oreal are doing. I don't agree with it, and I want this movement to virtue signal nipped in the bud before it expands into far more important areas.

I certainly don’t ever see myself as ever having the moral high ground, I’m not outraged at all. You have literally done to me what you accuse me a few paragraphs later. What I said about ethnic cleansing through immigration economic and social is the literal definition of whitening in Latin America. Of course whitening isn’t a negative term to the majority of people, but maybe to others it does.

As for boycotting, your splitting hairs here. How else would this blow up in their faces and blowback from consumers occur other than not buying their products? I’d be interested to know that.

As for the Simpsons thing, you’re right it had nothing to do with your post. It just came into my head beacause someone was calling it another example of PC gone mad a few posts after the OP.

But you do make good points and if I was reading it I’d probably side with you. I just get tired of everything seemingly having an agenda.not you.

Biker79

All over the tropical/ subtropical and parts of the temperate world...dark skin is associated with lower economic status because it means you have to work outside in the heat. Not inside where middle-class people get to work.

Lightening your skin means higher economic status for that reason, and nothing to do with white Europeans.

Ads By Google has already said this but it is worth repeating for the more cognitively challenged posters on the thread.

It's the same reason why most of us wouldn't be caught dead in a Penney's tracksuit drinking Lucozade with a daft walk because it suggests a lower welfare class type of person.

Yet again, its clear these Antifa/ BLM protestors are just a bunch of clueless fools.

joeguevara

joeguevara wrote: »

I certainly don’t ever see myself as ever having the moral high ground, I’m not outraged at all. You have literally done to me what you accuse me a few paragraphs later. What I said about ethnic cleansing through immigration economic and social is the literal definition of whitening in Latin America. Of course whitening isn’t a negative term to the majority of people, but maybe to others it does.

Then you should have been more specific, if it only related to Latin American perceptions of the word.

As for boycotting, your splitting hairs here. How else would this blow up in their faces and blowback from consumers occur other than not buying their products? I’d be interested to know that.

Consumer interest groups voice opinions on the quality and importance of consumer products within many groups. A blowback of criticism for vitue signalling doesn't need to involve boycotting of a product.

As for the Simpsons thing, you’re right it had nothing to do with your post. It just came into my head beacause someone was calling it another example of PC gone mad a few posts after the OP.

Again, be more specific. I didn't know it was a Simpsons thing, there was no reference to the Simpsons and you didn't state it as a joke in your post

And it is an example of PC gone mad.

Oh. nice edits btw. not going to modify my post in response though

joeguevara

Deleted User wrote: »

Then you should have been more specific, if it only related to Latin American perceptions of the word.



Consumer interest groups voice opinions on the quality and importance of consumer products within many groups. A blowback of criticism for vitue signalling doesn't need to involve boycotting of a product.



Again, be more specific. I didn't know it was a Simpsons thing, there was no reference to the Simpsons and you didn't state it as a joke in your post

And it is an example of PC gone mad.

Oh. nice edits btw. not going to modify my post in response though

The only edit I did was to include the last sentence where I said I’d probably agree with you. With regards to the Latin American perceptions of the word, i don’t think I could have been clearer. I said I’d they wanted to increase marker share in Latin America then remove information the word blanquimento which has the literal meaning of policy of ethnic cleansing would be a good idea.

I agree with you about PC gone mad.

Dante7

“Those who are determined to be ‘offended’ will discover a provocation somewhere. We cannot possibly adjust enough to please the fanatics, and it is degrading to make the attempt.”

― Christopher Hitchens

whisky_galore

Richard Hillman wrote: »

I bet they still use it for the Asian Market.

Yes, because they don't want to look like a peasant who's been working in the fields all day. For them brown = poor.

Besides if it's written on the package in Chinese, Thai, Vietnamese how will overly sensitive Westerners know?

paw patrol

this is weird stuff from the lobby that believe that men can be women and all that. They provided the platform for that horrible yolk Munroe Bergdor so perhaps we shouldn't be surprised.


It just smack of the righteous anti-white sh1te that is circulating at the moment. If they felt strongly on it , they could just change the name without fanfare but they just had to do the virtue signal.



They aren't stopping the products just an attack on the word "white" and associated words.


But there is no anti-white agenda. defo not.

This is it

Atlantic Dawn wrote: »

Cool, another brand for me to blacklist.

Not sure if you purposely used blacklist but anyway, Cisco Talos are removing whitelist and blacklist from systems, to be changed to "allowed list" and "blocked list". I can only presume that Cisco itself will follow.

Gods Gift

Fake tan makes white people brown.
Why isn’t that banned.

joeguevara

Gods Gift wrote: »

Fake tan makes white people brown.
Why isn’t that banned.

Nothing has been banned.

Gods Gift

joeguevara wrote: »

Nothing has been banned.

Well it should be.
Being of Latin decent and naturally gorgeous I’m offended by it.

Wibbs

joeguevara wrote: »

By saying it’s retarded (a word that also shouldn’t be used)

Retarded is a good example of how words can become verboten. Say "retarded" in a sentence and you get attacks of the vapours from many, say "imbecilic", or "cretinous" or "moronic" or "idiotic" and you have tumbleweed. Yet all are terms once used medically to describe various intellectual disabilities, but "retarded" alone has been marked out as the baddie that shouldn't be used.

Gods Gift

Gods Gift wrote: »

Fake tan makes white people brown.
Why isn’t that banned.

Because its healthier than tanning yourself in sun/sunbeds



Its horrendous with all knowledge available,that people still view tanned as healthy,and burnt as not

suicide_circus

Purple Mountain wrote: »

From my understanding, this relates to skin products that may 'whiten or lighten' the look of skin.
I can actually see how that might be seen as offensive.
On the other hand, my bed sheets are stained currently from the fake tan I use to darken my skin so who knows!

darkening is good, lightening is bad.
same goes for population movement.

Dante7

Deleted User wrote: »

Because its healthier than tanning yourself in sun/sunbeds



Its horrendous with all knowledge available,that people still view tanned as healthy,and burnt as not

It's hardwired in us to find tanned skin attractive and healthier. It hides blemishes and pock marks that would otherwise be viewed as unhealthy and not good mating material.

Wibbs

Wibbs wrote: »

Retarded is a good example of how words can become verboten. Say "retarded" in a sentence and you get attacks of the vapours from many, say "imbecilic", or "cretinous" or "moronic" or "idiotic" and you have tumbleweed. Yet all are terms once used medically to describe various intellectual disabilities, but "retarded" alone has been marked out as the baddie that shouldn't be used.

I grew up with the word being used commonly to indicate stupidity beyond the norm.

The difference being that my mother was a special needs teacher, and we knew many physically/mentally retarded children.

The problem is context, and intent. People want to ban words because they don't want to allow context to matter anymore. They want everything to be plain and simple (I expect I soon won't be "allowed" to say Black/White anymore).

I only use the word retarded in association with ideas. I never use the word about an actual person. Context. However, those who want to police language can't allow such flexibility...

Dante7

"You can't say coloured people anymore as that is offensive."
"What's the correct term?"
"People of colour."

ExMachina1000

12 % of the world's population is white.

Gods Gift

Dante7 wrote: »

It's hardwired in us to find tanned skin attractive and healthier. It hides blemishes and pock marks that would otherwise be viewed as unhealthy and not good mating material.

Well personally I’d prefer a good set of teeth.