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
13567…12

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    Wibbs
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,075 Mod ✭✭✭✭Wibbs


    joeguevara wrote: »
    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.
    annnnd... you missed the point entirely. I dunno how, it was pretty clear. Again; "imbecilic", or "cretinous" or "moronic" or "idiotic" are also "medical terms that were commonly used for a person with an intellectual disability", but are not apparently offensive and would be among the 100's of other words that are acceptable.

    Retarded has been jumped on - and quite recently too, mostly from the US and spread from there- as the bad word. Tropic Thunder's never go full retard scene is from 2008 and would never get a green light in Hollywood today. Never go full moron would likely pass muster, until someone somewhere had another attack of the vapours over that, and on we roll. I just find it interesting how infectious such shifts are and how quickly they become diktat, particularly on the internet.

    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
    #63
    nullzero
    Registered Users Posts: 16,370 ✭✭✭✭nullzero
    ****


    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.

    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.


    People in other parts of the world are obsessed with lightening their skin colour. In this part of the world people are obsessed with darkening their skin colour.

    I'm sure when you were writing the above post you were engaging with your usual zeal, but you forgot to employ occam's razor, the fact is that human beings always want what they can't have, or what is difficult to attain, what you see as some sort of structured racism is less Outrage worthy, it is the fact that the grass is always greener to the majority of people.

    These issues are in fact always fads of fashion.
    Queen Elizabeth the first supposedly poisoned herself over the course of her life by applying toxic make up to make her skin appear pure white as was the style at the time.

    Most white people will be jealous of another white person with a deep tan. Some people with darker skin long to have a lighter complexion. To me they're all mad, but that's just my opinion.

    While I can agree that the beauty industry makes people feel inferior, I have to laugh at the notion that it is based in racism.

    Glazers Out!



  • Options
    #64
    joeguevara
    Registered Users Posts: 8,018 ✭✭✭joeguevara


    Pkiernan wrote: »
    I guess this means that Golly Bars will never make a comeback then?

    You can still get them. Called giant bars. Plain vanilla ice cream doesn’t seem as popular anymore. Small red ice cream tubs were everywhere as a kid. Rarely see them now, don’t even know if they are still around.


  • Options
    #65
    joe40
    Registered Users Posts: 3,811 ✭✭✭joe40


    [Deleted User] wrote: »
    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.

    I would use it cripple as verb now as well.
    I think Words become tainted by association with something so then become offensive or derogatory. Language always develops, you have said in a previous post you work in University so I'm sure your knowledge of this will be greater than mine.
    A word like negro probably started out as a description of skin colour, but association with segregation and slavery means that is no longer widely used. Same with "coloured"

    I don't find that to be an problem, just language evolving.

    Queer is an example of a once derogatory term that the gay community deliberately claimed as their own acceptable term.


  • Options
    #66
    joeguevara
    Registered Users Posts: 8,018 ✭✭✭joeguevara


    Wibbs wrote: »
    annnnd... you missed the point entirely. I dunno how, it was pretty clear. Again; "imbecilic", or "cretinous" or "moronic" or "idiotic" are also "medical terms that were commonly used for a person with an intellectual disability", but are not apparently offensive and would be among the 100's of other words that are acceptable.

    Retarded has been jumped on - and quite recently too, mostly from the US and spread from there- as the bad word. Tropic Thunder's never go full retard scene is from 2008 and would never get a green light in Hollywood today. Never go full moron would likely pass muster, until someone somewhere had another attack of the vapours over that, and on we roll. I just find it interesting how infectious such shifts are and how quickly they become diktat, particularly on the internet.

    I didn’t miss the point. I understood it. I don’t know the reason. But I’ve never seen a video of a person with an intellectual disability break down crying and describe feelings of worthlessness and being unworthy when they hear the word moronic, but I have with with the word regarded. That’s good enough for me.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    iebamm2580
    Registered Users Posts: 1,610 ✭✭✭iebamm2580


    Am i missing something, would it not b better to stop producing products that whiten skin rather than renaming it.


  • Options
    #68
    joeguevara
    Registered Users Posts: 8,018 ✭✭✭joeguevara


    One that caught me by surprise was when someone explained to me that the word half caste is an offensive term. Not in a million years would I have thought that. Apparently caste is a term for pure and half caste means half pure.

    But I do get a kick out of this,

    https://youtu.be/LDFTPtOHRnc


  • Options
    #69
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 17,381 ✭ [Deleted User]


    iebamm2580 wrote: »
    Am i missing something, would it not b better to stop producing products that whiten skin rather than renaming it.

    Why should Vietnamese people not be able to buy their beauty products because the West has lost the plot?


  • Options
    #70
    iebamm2580
    Registered Users Posts: 1,610 ✭✭✭iebamm2580


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Why should Vietnamese people not be able to buy their beauty products because the West has lost the plot?

    If there serious about it being racist(which i dont believe) then renaming it doesn't change the fact.


  • Options
    #71
    joeguevara
    Registered Users Posts: 8,018 ✭✭✭joeguevara


    In 1962 when crayola changed the name of a crayon from flesh to peach, no one batted an eye lid, or in the 90s when they changed the name of a crayon from Indian red to chestnut, again no one batted an eyelid. When dulux dropped the description of n1gger brown as a description of a brown paint, again no one batted an eyelid. Removing terms associated with skin colour to describe something has been around for decades. Why is it considered PC gone mad now.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    Atlantic Dawn
    Registered Users Posts: 81,243 ✭✭✭✭Atlantic Dawn
    M


    Will someone be offended if you go in to a car showroom and ask for a black coloured car?


  • Options
    #73
    joe40
    Registered Users Posts: 3,811 ✭✭✭joe40


    Atlantic Dawn wrote: »
    Will someone be offended if you go in to a car showroom and ask for a black coloured car?

    No.


  • Options
    #74
    Outkast_IRE
    Registered Users Posts: 7,515 ✭✭✭Outkast_IRE


    Companies will realise sooner rather than later that it's a vocal tiny minority kicking up over alot of these issues. Thes rest of the majority is not sympathetic.

    The movie industry is one of the first to start learning this lesson " Go woke go broke " . Pandering to the few is not a business model


  • Options
    #75
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Oh dear, my Black & Decker drill needs to go in the skip as it could be construed as racist.

    All of this would be laughable if it wasn't so serious. Society is becoming more emasculated by the day. On second thought, I find it hilarious.


  • Options
    #76
    Wibbs
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,075 Mod ✭✭✭✭Wibbs


    joeguevara wrote: »
    In 1962 when crayola changed the name of a crayon from flesh to peach, no one batted an eye lid, or in the 90s when they changed the name of a crayon from Indian red to chestnut, again no one batted an eyelid.
    Well Americans changed it in those cases. Joke being that Indian red gets its name from an ochre pigment found in India, nada to do with Native Americans, which I assume is why the change. Then again the Washington Redskins team name remains. These changes particularly in the US are usually to do with money or the potential loss of it. So changing a pigment name costs little and might head off potential losses, but a big time football team could lose millions with a name change so it stays. This L'Oreal change is all about the potential loss of cash, with a large side order of self promotion. Not unlike the hamfisted "feminist" Gillette ad a while back. Cynical? Moi?

    "Flesh" colour has interested me from way back, even when I was a kid. 1) if you're skin is that colour you're in need of a doctor, 2) it was clearly flesh = Caucasian. Band aids were were I first copped it. They'd have flesh coloured written on the box, but I knew an Indian lad and they didn't quite fit when he scraped his knee. "Flesh" has largely gone, but in the open these days in fashion and the like is "nude" as a colour and it ain't tanned.

    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
    #77
    Wibbs
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,075 Mod ✭✭✭✭Wibbs


    Deleted User wrote: »
    All of this would be laughable if it wasn't so serious. Society is becoming more emasculated by the day.
    I would say much of this is down to America becoming more emasculated and less sure of itself by the day and spreading that contagion of self doubt elsewhere. Somewhere like China, or pretty much anywhere in the Far East are anything but emasculated and self conscious, or apologetic about their cultures and that's one reason why they're on the up and up.

    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
    #78
    KiKi III
    Registered Users Posts: 2,653 ✭✭✭KiKi III


    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?

    May all your troubles be little ones.

    It’s not going to effect your life in any way that L’Oreal stops using these words, or that the Simpsons is going to use an actual Indian guy to voice their Indian character.

    It’s mad how sensitive some white people can be to changes, however small, that are aimed at making people from different cultures feel less alienated.


  • Options
    #79
    Beechwoodspark
    Registered Users Posts: 15,288 ✭✭✭✭Beechwoodspark


    I’m totally new to this - can someone explain in basic language what this product is for? What does it achieve like?


  • Options
    #80
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    joeguevara wrote: »
    I didn’t miss the point. I understood it. I don’t know the reason. But I’ve never seen a video of a person with an intellectual disability break down crying and describe feelings of worthlessness and being unworthy when they hear the word moronic, but I have with with the word regarded. That’s good enough for me.

    If you did though, would you stop using the word?


  • Options
    #81
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    KiKi III wrote: »
    May all your troubles be little ones.

    It’s not going to effect your life in any way that L’Oreal stops using these words, or that the Simpsons is going to use an actual Indian guy to voice their Indian character.

    It’s mad how sensitive some white people can be to changes, however small, that are aimed at making people from different cultures feel less alienated.

    White people eh? They're the worst.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #82
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    joe40 wrote: »
    I would use it cripple as verb now as well.
    I think Words become tainted by association with something so then become offensive or derogatory. Language always develops, you have said in a previous post you work in University so I'm sure your knowledge of this will be greater than mine.

    I don't think working in a university makes my knowledge greater than yours. The longer I work at this level the less respect I have about those who are "experts".

    In any case, I teach Business Management, and Business English. I encourage knowing more words along with the subtleties of their meaning because it gives greater command over the language. With greater command of the language in choosing appropriate words for the situation you're in, you can avoid misunderstandings based around language.

    However, culture is different. There's no way to be completely accurate when it comes to language and culture because it shifts so much, and there are so many different cultures out there. How do you accommodate everyone, each of whom have their own perceptions of what a word means (often based on personal experience or their teachers in school rather than a dictionary meaning)? Then there's that dictionaries differ in how they define the meaning of words and different geographical areas have access to different dictionaries.

    With multiculturalism comes diversity, and with diversity, comes all manner of cultural backgrounds all of whom will have a myriad of expectations/beliefs. "Fixing" the English language to satisfy the needs/wants of every culture will destroy the effectiveness of the language in common use, because the subtleties or nuances will be gone. There will be no beauty to the language because everything needs to be sterilized to not risk offending someone.
    A word like negro probably started out as a description of skin colour, but association with segregation and slavery means that is no longer widely used. Same with "coloured"

    Ahh well, I have a special hangup with the use of Ni**** which is completely offensive for white people to use, but perfectly acceptable for black people to use. It's a blatant case of double standards... and the result of cultural excuses being allowed to dictate against logical reasoning.

    Excuses are found for Black people who use words like Ni**** or B*t*h. That's culture too.
    I don't find that to be an problem, just language evolving.

    A language should be fit for the purpose you're engaging it in. If it's not enough, then new words are added to give greater flexibility to cover the new situation. Words are generally not censored, which is what's happening with words considered to be "racial".
    Queer is an example of a once derogatory term that the gay community deliberately claimed as their own acceptable term.

    Except that Queer was originally used to describe someone who was strange or weird... and that use of the word is still around. Whereas Gay, in association with being happy, has been replaced... but the word is still allowed to be used. Fa*gg*t is a horrible word to use towards a person, but it's still used in many situations, because people know the difference when used.

    White, now, I'd consider that to be different because of the associations that many people are trying to create, to justify their making changes to language use.


  • Options
    #83
    joeguevara
    Registered Users Posts: 8,018 ✭✭✭joeguevara


    Wibbs wrote: »
    Well Americans changed it in those cases. Joke being that Indian red gets its name from an ochre pigment found in India, nada to do with Native Americans, which I assume is why the change. Then again the Washington Redskins team name remains. These changes particularly in the US are usually to do with money or the potential loss of it. So changing a pigment name costs little and might head off potential losses, but a big time football team could lose millions with a name change so it stays. This L'Oreal change is all about the potential loss of cash, with a large side order of self promotion. Not unlike the hamfisted "feminist" Gillette ad a while back. Cynical? Moi?

    "Flesh" colour has interested me from way back, even when I was a kid. 1) if you're skin is that colour you're in need of a doctor, 2) it was clearly flesh = Caucasian. Band aids were were I first copped it. They'd have flesh coloured written on the box, but I knew an Indian lad and they didn't quite fit when he scraped his knee. "Flesh" has largely gone, but in the open these days in fashion and the like is "nude" as a colour and it ain't tanned.

    I knew about the dukes colour because my mother told me about it. I only found out about crayola changing the names of crayons this morning. The changing of the colour flesh to peach was due to the civil rights movement and recognising that skin colour comes in many shades. The Indian red one was funny because of the misinterpretaion of the origin of the colour. But changing the names of colours from colours associated to skin to more benign descriptions is not a new concept of PC gone mad. It is also interesting that people say why not change the name fake tan because of a misunderstood concept of the word tan. Originally from a colour of an oak. It is not a description of a skin colour.

    I am constantly confused about what is appropriate to say or not. Calling someone coloured used to be a preferred term but now offensive. Calling someone brown was disgraceful now acceptable. I never know if black is appropriate or not. But my confusion is irrelevant I suppose.


  • Options
    #84
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    KiKi III wrote: »
    May all your troubles be little ones.

    It’s not going to effect your life in any way that L’Oreal stops using these words, or that the Simpsons is going to use an actual Indian guy to voice their Indian character.

    It’s mad how sensitive some white people can be to changes, however small, that are aimed at making people from different cultures feel less alienated.

    Because it won't stop with this single change. As long as nobody objects, those with these kinds of beliefs will have free rein to continue changing both what's acceptable in culture and in language.

    TBH I find it quite funny how the people who wish to downplay these kind of changes, fail to realise that most of us have seen how PC culture grew in the US. From small insignificant changes to becoming a response that allowed Trump to get into power. Such changes typically come in gradually, until there is a serious pushback of some sort...


  • Options
    #85
    TomTomTim
    Registered Users Posts: 2,837 ✭✭✭TomTomTim


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Because it won't stop with this single change. As long as nobody objects, those with these kinds of beliefs will have free rein to continue changing both what's acceptable in culture and in language.

    Said posters use of the term "white people" is a good example of that. It was a term hardly used in this country a few years ago, yet it's becoming more and more frequent. None of these things are just little changes, they are little changes that are happening with many other little changes, which add up to big changes. How anyone can look at the trajectory of the west, and claim that all of this stuff is insignificant is beyond me.

    “The man who lies to himself can be more easily offended than anyone else. You know it is sometimes very pleasant to take offense, isn't it? A man may know that nobody has insulted him, but that he has invented the insult for himself, has lied and exaggerated to make it picturesque, has caught at a word and made a mountain out of a molehill--he knows that himself, yet he will be the first to take offense, and will revel in his resentment till he feels great pleasure in it.”- ― Fyodor Dostoevsky, The Brothers Karamazov




  • Options
    #86
    KiKi III
    Registered Users Posts: 2,653 ✭✭✭KiKi III


    [Deleted User] wrote: »
    Because it won't stop with this single change. As long as nobody objects, those with these kinds of beliefs will have free rein to continue changing both what's acceptable in culture and in language.

    TBH I find it quite funny how the people who wish to downplay these kind of changes, fail to realise that most of us have seen how PC culture grew in the US. From small insignificant changes to becoming a response that allowed Trump to get into power. Such changes typically come in gradually, until there is a serious pushback of some sort...

    So you’re making a slippery slope argument? There’s nothing especially wrong with these changes but you foresee other potential PC changes? Like what?


  • Options
    #87
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    KiKi III wrote: »
    So you’re making a slippery slope argument? There’s nothing especially wrong with these changes but you foresee other potential PC changes? Like what?

    Altering movies and literature to make them more in line with modern sensibilities. Other moves to restrict word usage, limiting freedom of expression. probably demands of censorship for certain public events.

    Pretty much an extension of what PC culture began in the US.


  • Options
    #88
    joeguevara
    Registered Users Posts: 8,018 ✭✭✭joeguevara


    TomTomTim wrote: »
    Said posters use of the term "white people" is a good example of that. It was a term hardly used in this country a few years ago, yet it's becoming more and more frequent. None of these things are just little changes, they are little changes that are happening with many other little changes, which add up to big changes. How anyone can look at the trajectory of the west, and claim that all of this stuff is insignificant is beyond me.

    Quite rightly I have been challenged by posters who suggest that I misinterpreted what they had posted. I like learning from people. I especially like when people who have diametrically opposed opinions can have a good discussion. On that basis can I ask what do you mean when you say ‘trajectory of the west’.


  • Options
    #89
    joeguevara
    Registered Users Posts: 8,018 ✭✭✭joeguevara


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Altering movies and literature to make them more in line with modern sensibilities. Other moves to restrict word usage, limiting freedom of expression. probably demands of censorship for certain public events.

    Pretty much an extension of what PC culture began in the US.

    Have movies and literature actually been altered? I dont think that has happened.


  • Options
    #90
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    joeguevara wrote: »
    Have movies and literature actually been altered? I dont think that has happened.

    the question was about foresee... the future.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #91
    joe40
    Registered Users Posts: 3,811 ✭✭✭joe40


    [Deleted User] wrote: »
    Altering movies and literature to make them more in line with modern sensibilities. Other moves to restrict word usage, limiting freedom of expression. probably demands of censorship for certain public events.

    Pretty much an extension of what PC culture began in the US.

    That has always been the way, this is nothing new.

    John Wayne throwing the little lady over his shoulder, or dragging the woman through the village was perfectly acceptable at one time, now it is not. I'm not suggesting those movies should be banned or it is just the market for that type of movie doesn't exist.

    Societal norms change and evolve. Popular culture reflect these changes.

    People making a big fuss of so called "PC gone mad" really have little to worry about.
    It is just normal society in action. Civil liberties and personal freedom are stronger now than at any period in our history.


Advertisement