Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

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

Options
24567…12

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    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.


  • Options
    #33
    joeguevara
    Registered Users Posts: 8,018 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #34
    Biker79
    Closed Accounts Posts: 794 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #35
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    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


  • Options
    #36
    joeguevara
    Registered Users Posts: 8,018 ✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    Dante7
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,543 ✭✭✭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


  • Options
    #38
    whisky_galore
    Registered Users Posts: 15,775 ✭✭✭✭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?


  • Options
    #39
    paw patrol
    Registered Users Posts: 2,314 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #40
    This is it
    Registered Users Posts: 5,189 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #41
    Gods Gift
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,713 ✭✭✭Gods Gift


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


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    joeguevara
    Registered Users Posts: 8,018 ✭✭✭joeguevara


    Gods Gift wrote: »
    Fake tan makes white people brown.
    Why isn’t that banned.

    Nothing has been banned.


  • Options
    #43
    Gods Gift
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,713 ✭✭✭Gods Gift


    joeguevara wrote: »
    Nothing has been banned.

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


  • Options
    #44
    Wibbs
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,074 Mod ✭✭✭✭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.

    Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.



  • Options
    #45
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 6,192 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    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


  • Options
    #46
    suicide_circus
    Registered Users Posts: 19,802 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #47
    Dante7
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,543 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #48
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    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...


  • Options
    #49
    Dante7
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,543 ✭✭✭Dante7


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


  • Options
    #50
    ExMachina1000
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,748 ✭✭✭ExMachina1000


    12 % of the world's population is white.


  • Options
    #51
    Gods Gift
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,713 ✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 6,192 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    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.

    I know...hence why fake tan is perferable


    But tanning is really bad for ya, burnt skin is repairing itself,whereas tanned is damaged/dead skin

    I never get burnt straight to tan and only started using suncream,when i found out the above


  • Options
    #53
    suicide_circus
    Registered Users Posts: 19,802 ✭✭✭✭suicide_circus


    Biker79 wrote: »
    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 worth repeating for the more cognitively challenged posters on the thread.

    To a man with a hammer, every problem looks like a nail. Some people see every facet of human activity through the prism of European oppression and racism. It gives them a buzz.

    You have Japanese geishas whitening their faces a thousand years before a European devil ever arrived on their shores and in any case a Venetian or Portuguese sailor after years sailing round Africa and the Indian ocean to reach the "orient" would have been very brown on arrival.


  • Options
    #54
    SEPT 23 1989
    Registered Users Posts: 43,024 ✭✭✭✭SEPT 23 1989


    L’Oreal's executive committee is extremely white


  • Options
    #55
    joeguevara
    Registered Users Posts: 8,018 ✭✭✭joeguevara


    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.

    Would you not agree that associating something that is stupid with a medical term that was commonly used for a person with an intellectual disability is offensive. Why would you want to use that word when you can choose from 100s of others. While I honestly think most of all this modern revisionism is bizarre and ridiculous, that word does not fall into that category.


  • Options
    #56
    joe40
    Registered Users Posts: 3,811 ✭✭✭joe40


    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.

    There are loads of examples like that, it is just how language develops and also how attitudes change.

    Some of the nonsense coming from corporations is just jumping on the bandwagon but words always evolve, it is not a big PC conspiracy.
    I'm sure you would refer to a person in a wheelchair as disabled as opposed to crippled.
    Cripple isn't a particularly offensive or verboten word as you put it, but most people wouldn't use it as much nowadays as in the past.


  • Options
    #57
    Gods Gift
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,713 ✭✭✭Gods Gift


    ExMachina1000 wrote: »
    12 % of the world's population is white.

    Yeah but someone has to be in charge. Otherwise nothing would get done.


  • Options
    #58
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    joe40 wrote: »
    Cripple isn't a particularly offensive or verboten word as you put it, but most people wouldn't use it as much nowadays as in the past.

    I'd use it as a verb, rather than seeking to stop complete usage of the word.

    Context should be important.

    At the end of the day though, for "most" words people should be able to choose for themselves. Some words should be considered particularly negative, but that negativity is all the stronger because so few words fall into the forbidden/negative category.


  • Options
    #59
    Pkiernan
    Registered Users Posts: 4,315 ✭✭✭Pkiernan


    I guess this means that Golly Bars will never make a comeback then?


  • Options
    #60
    silverharp
    Registered Users Posts: 17,840 ✭✭✭✭silverharp


    it would be terrible if millions of women around the world found their skin improving after not slapping on their chemical garbage for the last few months

    A belief in gender identity involves a level of faith as there is nothing tangible to prove its existence which, as something divorced from the physical body, is similar to the idea of a soul. - Colette Colfer



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    ExMachina1000
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,748 ✭✭✭ExMachina1000


    silverharp wrote: »
    it would be terrible if millions of women around the world found their skin improving after not slapping on their chemical garbage for the last few months

    Homer Simpsons make up shotgun comes to mind


Advertisement