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

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.

I bet they still use it for the Asian Market.

Cool, another brand for me to blacklist.

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

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.

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?

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/

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.

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.

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 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...

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.

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.”

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.

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.