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

28-06-2020 1:24pm

Gods Gift wrote: »

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

As you well know 'whitening' cream is not being banned, it's being renamed.

Fake tan is not called 'blackening' cream. We all have the ability to tan despite our skin colour.

No you don't have to throw out your black and decker drill. Yes, you can still choose a black car. What ridiculous and completely offtopic nonsense.

It is inappropriate to use the name whitening because it implies to be whiter is better and it doesn't matter where that comes from. It's not ok to judge someone by the colour of their skin. It's not ok to look down on someone because they're darker, for any reason.

As pointed out some cultures judge others as lower class for having darker skin from working outdoor jobs. But the opposite of dark isn't white. It's light!! So in those cases the person wants to be lighter not white. So why the f*ck is a cream that lightens, not whitens, called whitening cream? Makes white seem the ideal.

I still think it's awful that those people are judged that way. I think it's awful that black African women (as well as women in other parts of the world) very often use skin 'whiteners' to try to conform to western beauty ideals.

But regardless of the intent behind the use, calling it whitening cream suggests being white is better. Concealer conceals with the suggesting that spots, undereye bags etc. should be hidden. Blush, gives you the illusion of blushing cheeks.
Whitener suggests you should be whiter, but it really just lightens. So it makes sense on every level to rename it.

the purple tin · 28-06-2020 1:25pm

Those skin lighteners are big in Japan.
Lots of young Japanese, mostly girls are obsessed with looking more western (American, really).
When McDonalds first started opening in Japan, they promoted themselves by telling people that eating McDs would make your skin whiter!

joe40 · 28-06-2020 1:36pm

[Deleted User] wrote: »

We are at a stage where white people are not even allowed voice a black character in a cartoon without being guilted into leaving their job.

We are at a stage where the acceptability of word usage can change at a whim.

We are at a stage where it is considered "phobic" to state biological sex is real.

We are at a stage where the horrific death of a, by all accounts, terrible person in the United States of America is enough to spark pandemic-ignoring mass rallies across Ireland.

We are at a stage where being against illegal immigration is considered racist by vast swathes of the public.

We are at a stage where criticisms of any culture apart from Christian culture is considered bigotry and intolerant.

It's not too ridiculous to wonder if the word black will be considered inappropriate.

Most of those things are simply not true or unimportant.

Whatever actor voices what character has no impact on my life.
BLM protests should not have happened during pandemic but apart from that people are entitled to protest.

Plenty of people are publicly against illegal immigration, and plenty of people publicly criticise other cultures.
I would have no time for fundamental Islamic practices, that doesn't make me a bigot.

There is a whole lot of made up victimhood.

How come I'm a 50 year old Irish male and I don't feel all this oppression in the modern PC world.

On the contrary I have far more freedom of expression than my Father did in terms of personal freedom.
People are still largely able to express their opinions and people regularly do.

The snowflakes aren't the young people anymore. There is a new cohort of perpetually outraged.

28-06-2020 1:37pm

Deleted User wrote: »

As you well know 'whitening' cream is not being banned, it's being renamed.

Fake tan is not called 'blackening' cream. We all have the ability to tan despite our skin colour.

No you don't have to throw out your black and decker drill. Yes, you can still choose a black car. What ridiculous and completely offtopic nonsense.

It is inappropriate to use the name whitening because it implies to be whiter is better and it doesn't matter where that comes from. It's not ok to judge someone by the colour of their skin. It's not ok to look down on someone because they're darker, for any reason.

As pointed out some cultures judge others as lower class for having darker skin from working outdoor jobs. But the opposite of dark isn't white. It's light!! So in those cases the person wants to be lighter not white. So why the f*ck is a cream that lightens, not whitens, called whitening cream? Makes white seem the ideal.

I still think it's awful that those people are judged that way. I think it's awful that black African women (as well as women in other parts of the world) very often use skin 'whiteners' to try to conform to western beauty ideals.

But regardless of the intent behind the use, calling it whitening cream suggests being white is better. Concealer conceals with the suggesting that spots, undereye bags etc. should be hidden. Blush, gives you the illusion of blushing cheeks.
Whitener suggests you should be whiter, but it really just lightens. So it makes sense on every level to rename it.

Absolute rubbish.

How does the name whitening cream suggest that white is better?

You also suggest that people are being forced to conform with beauty ideals? No they aren't. The choose to.

It's actually laughable that you mock and ridicule people for asking (in a tongue in cheek fashion) if black and decker will be acceptable word usage as if it is a ridiculous notion, then in the same breath state that the word whitening somehow implies some sort of racial superiority and is oppressive.

The lack of self awareness is astounding.

hatrickpatrick · 28-06-2020 1:43pm

sdanseo wrote: »

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.

Count me as one of them. I've been described as alt-right because I haven't abandoned the liberal principles I grew up with, cultural libertarianism. It was a firmly left wing belief when it was the right who were trying to censor everything on "family values" grounds, so I guess it just means that a lot of the people who claimed to actually believe in freedom of speech back in the day were just doing it because their enemies were against it at the time, not just because they actually believed in it.

28-06-2020 1:45pm

joe40 wrote: »

Most of those things are simply not true or unimportant.

Whatever actor voices what character has no impact on my life.
BLM protests should not have happened during pandemic but apart from that people are entitled to protest.

Plenty of people are publicly against illegal immigration, and plenty of people publicly criticise other cultures.
I would have no time for fundamental Islamic practices, that doesn't make me a bigot.

There is a whole lot of made up victim good.

How come I'm a 50 year old Irish male and I don't feel all this oppression in the modern PC world.

On the contrary I have far more freedom of expression than my Father did in terms of personal freedom.
People are still largely able to express their opinions and people regularly do.

The snowflakes aren't the young people anymore. There is a new cohort of perpetually outraged.

Whatever actor voices what character doesn't impact your life. It does impact theirs though.

You agree that BLM protests shouldn't have happened.

Plenty of people are against illegal immigration, yet it is Avery unpopular opinion to hold,especially on social media.

I accept that people are allowed to deride other cultures, yet it is absolutely true that being openly critical of the Catholic church is absolutely accepted and sometimes applauded, whereas even minor criticism of Judaism could be enough to get you labelled anti-Semitic, openly criticising islam could get you labelled islamaphobic (or worse)

Nothing I said was made up or me being outraged or a snowflake.

KiKi III · 28-06-2020 1:48pm

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Absolute rubbish.

How does the name whitening cream suggest that white is better?

You also suggest that people are being forced to conform with beauty ideals? No they aren't. The choose to.

It's actually laughable that you mock and ridicule people for asking (in a tongue in cheek fashion) if black and decker will be acceptable word usage as if it is a ridiculous notion, then in the same breath state that the word whitening somehow implies some sort of racial superiority and is oppressive.

The lack of self awareness is astounding.

Your confidence in expressing your views is impressive considering how little you seem to know about the history of light skin people being treated better than darker skinned people by colonial powers.

Biker79 · 28-06-2020 1:51pm

@builebeag

Your lack of understanding of these matters is astounding. Can I ask what age you are and have you been to third level? What courses did you take?

Genuinely interested to find out where things are going so wrong for people like yourself.

You seem to have an innate inability to think critically, like all of those other Antifa/ BLM people. Where does that come from I wonder? In the US, it appears to be from ideologies picked up at communist directed universities.

People of my generation and before didn't need third level for a well-rounded basic education and critical thinking abilities.

28-06-2020 1:53pm

KiKi III wrote: »

Your confidence in expressing your views is impressive considering how little you seem to know about the history of light skin people being treated better than darker skinned people by colonial powers.

What has that got to do with anything I said?

Biker79 · 28-06-2020 2:00pm

Deleted User wrote: »

What has that got to do with anything I said?

I don't think there's much point in engaging with these people. As soon as they're called out on inconsistencies, they move the goalposts to suit their narrative.

joeguevara · 28-06-2020 2:02pm

Deleted User wrote: »

Whatever actor voices what character doesn't impact your life. It does impact theirs though.

You agree that BLM protests shouldn't have happened.

Plenty of people are against illegal immigration, yet it is Avery unpopular opinion to hold,especially on social media.

I accept that people are allowed to deride other cultures, yet it is absolutely true that being openly critical of the Catholic church is absolutely accepted and sometimes applauded, whereas even minor criticism of Judaism could be enough to get you labelled anti-Semitic, openly criticising islam could get you labelled islamaphobic (or worse)

Nothing I said was made up or me being outraged or a snowflake.

Criticism of the actions of the hierarchy in covering up child abuse, moving paedophiles to new parishes when knowing they were predators, facilitating the trafficking of children, etc etc is the only criticism of Catholic Church that is prevalent. I have never seen anyone challenge Judaism being labelled an anti Semite. That is usually reserved for deniers of the holocaust. Incorrectly attributing the actions of terrorists to the teachings of Islam, without any basis is by its nature Islamophobia. Blame the people who misinterpret the writings in the Koran rather than the benign verses themselves.

28-06-2020 2:07pm

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Absolute rubbish.

How does the name whitening cream suggest that white is better?

Explained in my post.

[Deleted User] wrote: »

You also suggest that people are being forced to conform with

No I didn't.

[Deleted User] wrote: »

It's actually laughable that you mock and ridicule people for asking (in a tongue in cheek fashion) if black and decker will be acceptable word usage as if it is a ridiculous notion

I didn't mock them, I said their questions were ridiculous and off topic.

[Deleted User] wrote: »

then in the same breath state that the word whitening somehow implies some sort of racial superiority and is oppressive.

You'll have to quote that statement for me!

[Deleted User] wrote: »

The lack of self awareness is astounding.

It sure is.

Ficheall · 28-06-2020 2:08pm

So if an actor can't act as someone else, does that mean Nancy cartwright can't be voicing a ten(?) year old boy?
And homer should be voiced by a fat, bald guy?
And Marge should be voiced by a woman with extremely tall blue hair?

28-06-2020 2:09pm

Biker79 wrote: »

@builebeag

Your lack of understanding of these matters is astounding. Can I ask what age you are and have you been to third level? What courses did you take?

Genuinely interested to find out where things are going so wrong for people like yourself.

You seem to have an innate inability to think critically, like all of those other Antifa/ BLM people. Where does that come from I wonder? In the US, it appears to be from ideologies picked up at communist directed universities.

People of my generation and before didn't need third level for a well-rounded basic education and critical thinking abilities.

How about you tell me your age, your level of education, your qualification to speak on the matter?

28-06-2020 2:12pm

joeguevara wrote: »

Criticism of the actions of the hierarchy in covering up child abuse, moving paedophiles to new parishes when knowing they were predators, facilitating the trafficking of children, etc etc is the only criticism of Catholic Church that is prevalent. I have never seen anyone challenge Judaism being labelled an anti Semite. That is usually reserved for deniers of the holocaust. Incorrectly attributing the actions of terrorists to the teachings of Islam, without any basis is by its nature Islamophobia. Blame the people who misinterpret the writings in the Koran rather than the benign verses themselves.

During the gay marriage referendum the Catholic church's stance on homosexuality was lambasted. Mostly, these very same people are remarkably quiet in comparison about the traditional and much harsher Islamic view on homosexuality.

I'd also say the basis for people attributing the actions of Muslim terrorists to their religion is because the have a habit of screaming the name of their god while killing people. You can see why people may link them

joe40 · 28-06-2020 2:12pm

Biker79 wrote: »

@builebeag

Your lack of understanding of these matters is astounding. Can I ask what age you are and have you been to third level? What courses did you take?

Genuinely interested to find out where things are going so wrong for people like yourself.

You seem to have an innate inability to think critically, like all of those other Antifa/ BLM people. Where does that come from I wonder? In the US, it appears to be from ideologies picked up at communist directed universities.

People of my generation and before didn't need third level for a well-rounded basic education and critical thinking abilities.

When you talk about communist directed universities in the US I would seriously doubt your "critical thinking abilities"

28-06-2020 2:14pm

Ficheall wrote: »

So if an actor can't act as someone else, does that mean Nancy cartwright can't be voicing a ten(?) year old boy?
And homer should be voiced by a fat, bald guy?
And Marge should be voiced by a woman with extremely tall blue hair?

Only vampires can play vampires.

Only FBI agents can play FBI agents.

Only murderers can play murderers

joeguevara · 28-06-2020 2:18pm

Ficheall wrote: »

So if an actor can't act as someone else, does that mean Nancy cartwright can't be voicing a ten(?) year old boy?
And homer should be voiced by a fat, bald guy?
And Marge should be voiced by a woman with extremely tall blue hair?

The simpsons thing is being misinterpreted and misquoted. The character of Apu was retired because it is based on a racial stereotype. It was described by an Indian comedian as ‘a white man doing an impression of a white man doing a bad impression of his father’. To compare that to a woman voicing a child is clutching at straws. I know there are inconsistencies in that there seems to be no issue with Irish character being portrayed as drunk wife beaters, but i suppose we are more relaxed about stereotypes.

If South American characters are only portrayed as drug dealers or black men as absent fathers then there is an issue.

28-06-2020 2:20pm

Deleted User wrote: »

Explained in my post.

No I didn't.

I didn't mock them, I said their questions were ridiculous and off topic.

You'll have to quote that statement for me!

It sure is.

You didn't mock but you stated the questions they were asking was ridiculous? Well that's contradictory.

You also say you explained how whitening cream is suggesting white skin is better in your post....

Then you ask me to quote you to show that you suggested whitening is oppressive or shows superiority?

If you keep speaking in contradictory circles, your point will get lost.

StackSteevens · 28-06-2020 2:22pm

Deleted User wrote: »

Only vampires can play vampires.

Only FBI agents can play FBI agents.

Only murderers can play murderers

Only ordained priests can act as priests in Father Ted.

Only convicted criminals can act as criminals in TV dramas.

And you can forget about men being dressed as Cinderella's Ugly Sisters in this year's pantomimes!

Happy days.

joe40 · 28-06-2020 2:23pm

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Whatever actor voices what character doesn't impact your life. It does impact theirs though.

You agree that BLM protests shouldn't have happened.

Plenty of people are against illegal immigration, yet it is Avery unpopular opinion to hold,especially on social media.

I accept that people are allowed to deride other cultures, yet it is absolutely true that being openly critical of the Catholic church is absolutely accepted and sometimes applauded, whereas even minor criticism of Judaism could be enough to get you labelled anti-Semitic, openly criticising islam could get you labelled islamaphobic (or worse)

Nothing I said was made up or me being outraged or a snowflake.

Again been critical of Judaism is not anti-Semitic.
In fact the is a long history in Ireland with people been extremely anti Israel. Irish Republicanism would have found common ground with the Palestinians.

The Catholic Church is important because majority of Irish people are Catholic, maybe not practicing anymore but Catholic influence in Ireland is still widespread.

Judaism or Islam (purely as religons) don't affect our lives as much so criticism, either good or bad, is less widespread.

I just think a lot of the things that people attribute to PC culture, or PC gone mad are all over hyped.
Social change had taken place maybe it is just that social norms have shifted, but there is no radical change in personal freedom.

joe40 · 28-06-2020 2:27pm

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Only vampires can play vampires.

Only FBI agents can play FBI agents.

Only murderers can play murderers

That ridiculous, if this type of nonsense continues the thread will be ruined.

28-06-2020 2:28pm

[Deleted User] wrote: »

You didn't mock but you stated the questions they were asking was ridiculous? Well that's contradictory.

You also say you explained how whitening cream is suggesting white skin is better in your post....

Then you ask me to quote you to show that you suggested whitening is oppressive or shows superiority?

If you keep speaking in contradictory circles, your point will get lost.

I didn't mock the posters. I didn't even name them. I very clearly said their questions were ridiculous and off topic, which they were. I did not mock the poster. I did not call the poster ridiculous. There is nothing contradictory there.

Yes calling a skin care product whitening suggests white skin is the ideal. Just like calling toothpaste whitening suggests white teeth are the ideal. Now I'm not arguing that white teeth aren't the ideal, of course they are - clean, white teeth free of staining and plaque is nice and healthy. But a skincare product called whitening suggests that's the aim when it's not or at least it shouldn't be because there is nothing wrong with dark skin.

You said I "state that the word whitening somehow implies some sort of racial superiority and is oppressive"

I did not state that.

TomTomTim · 28-06-2020 2:31pm

joe40 wrote: »

I just think a lot of the things that people attribute to PC culture, or PC gone mad are all over hyped.
Social change had taken place maybe it is just that social norms have shifted, but there is no radical change in personal freedom.

I'd view issues surrounding speech as a great matter of personal freedom. Things haven't really changed in that regard though, we still live within repressive system that all but says you can only have certain opinions, much like Catholic Ireland. Anyone who is against said opinions is viewed as a modern day heretic. You'll deny that of course, but it doesn't make it any less true.

joe40 · 28-06-2020 2:43pm

TomTomTim wrote: »

I'd view issues surrounding speech as a great matter of personal freedom. Things haven't really changed in that regard though, we still live within repressive system that all but says you can only have certain opinions, much like Catholic Ireland. Anyone who is against said opinions is viewed as a modern day heretic. You'll deny that of course, but it doesn't make it any less true.

Can you give me specific examples.

In my everyday interactions with people I encounter a range of views, and people feel able to express these views.

joeguevara · 28-06-2020 2:43pm

Deleted User wrote: »

During the gay marriage referendum the Catholic church's stance on homosexuality was lambasted. Mostly, these very same people are remarkably quiet in comparison about the traditional and much harsher Islamic view on homosexuality.

I'd also say the basis for people attributing the actions of Muslim terrorists to their religion is because the have a habit of screaming the name of their god while killing people. You can see why people may link them

Were the Islamic churches in Ireland as vocal about same sex marriage as the Catholic Church is.

People should have a phobia of militant imams who radicalise people rather than a fear of Islam itself. Similarly people should have a phobia of paedophile priests rather than a phobia Catholicism. Religion is a tough one i agree. And I must admit that i have noticed that people are scared to speak out against imams but have no problem throwing vitriol at the parish priest.

I have a strange view on the treatment of the Australian Rugby player who posted that unless homosexuals repent they will burn in hell or something similar. As that is basically what is enshrined in canon law, I believe that unless you are going to make those teachings illegal, then someone who believes it shouldn’t be targeted.

joeguevara · 28-06-2020 2:50pm

TomTomTim wrote: »

I'd view issues surrounding speech as a great matter of personal freedom. Things haven't really changed in that regard though, we still live within repressive system that all but says you can only have certain opinions, much like Catholic Ireland. Anyone who is against said opinions is viewed as a modern day heretic. You'll deny that of course, but it doesn't make it any less true.

Can I ask you what personal freedom of yours is currently restricted in Ireland? What opinions do you (or not to personalise it) Irish hold that they free to openly talk about or publish in any form of media?

Cupatae · 28-06-2020 2:54pm

god i hate companies like this that pander to these crowds... and give there stupid ideology credence... bet L'Oreal really care for the movement...:rolleyes::rolleyes:

Such stupidity going after stuff like this... like really your offended by the word white on a make up bottle, whats next to go? whitening toothpaste? moronic SJW's..

mick087 · 28-06-2020 3:11pm

Ridiculous
People Kneeling, progammes taken off air or being reviewed, products names now offensive satues being pulled down.

And not one thing being done to change the injustices of wealth privallage nothing being done about education. health, housing equality.
Who ever it is making this ridiculous decisions should spend a bit more time in the real world. They should spend less time worrying about over priced coffee and should they or should they not have a Muffin or croissant with it.
If they was to look out there window and see the social injustices of the poorist then maybe just maybe we would see more equality.

joeguevara · 28-06-2020 3:16pm

Cupatae wrote: »

god i hate companies like this that pander to these crowds... and give there stupid ideology credence... bet L'Oreal really care for the movement...:rolleyes::rolleyes:

Such stupidity going after stuff like this... like really your offended by the word white on a make up bottle, whats next to go? whitening toothpaste? moronic SJW's..

Have you read L’Oréal’s report on Corporate responsibility? You assume that a large commercial corporate doesn’t care about equality, inclusion and improvement. By using terms such as pandering to crowds it belittles the good work that they do. I had a read of it and i was impressed. :

They have reduced co2 emissions across all of their plants by 77% while increasing production by 33%. Do you think that doing that is pandering to climate activists? Do you believe that the only reason they did it was to gain Kudos with public climate activists?

They are the only company in the world to have obtained,
for the third year running, a triple ‘A’, the highest possible rating, from CDP, the independent, international benchmarking organisation. A List names the world's most pioneering companies leading on environmental transparency and performance.

In the area of gender equality they have been classed as the most gender-equal company in Europe by Equileap, and are second globally, among more than
3,000 businesses. Lastly, for the first time, they have achieved first place
in the Covalence EthicalQuote ethical reputation index across all industries. This ranking covers the 581 largest listed companies in the world.

They have also been listed as one of the only companies of the world to be named as pioneering the United Nations Global Compact principles for the last 20 years. These include human rights abuses and racial discrimination.

So before you roll eyes, and question whether it’s ridiculous pandering or a defined principle in their corporate strategy which was published well before the BLM movement gained such publicity.

Ficheall · 28-06-2020 3:23pm

joeguevara wrote: »

The simpsons thing is being misinterpreted and misquoted. The character of Apu was retired because it is based on a racial stereotype. It was described by an Indian comedian as ‘a white man doing an impression of a white man doing a bad impression of his father’. To compare that to a woman voicing a child is clutching at straws.

And what about Carl and Dr. Hibbert, or Cleveland in Family Guy?

Strumms · 28-06-2020 3:26pm

Ficheall wrote: »

So if an actor can't act as someone else, does that mean Nancy cartwright can't be voicing a ten(?) year old boy?
And homer should be voiced by a fat, bald guy?
And Marge should be voiced by a woman with extremely tall blue hair?

This is the direction we are going in. The world is a pretty fûcked up sad place right now. A guy, who is a voice ‘actor’ is stepping down from playing a person (acting) of a different ethnicity and different culture to him.

Soon you’ll have somebody in a band, say himself, his four collage mates, who on the cusp of making it big, get refused from entering a studio to record an album, due to the fact that there are 5 white faces in the band...

They replace the drummer with a person of African ethnicity only to be told on tour that xx venue won’t accept their booking as there is ‘only’ one non white person, and hey, why is there nobody of Asian diaspora included ?

Cupatae · 28-06-2020 3:28pm

joeguevara wrote: »

Have you read L’Oréal’s report on Corporate responsibility? You assume that a large commercial corporate doesn’t care about equality, inclusion and improvement. By using terms such as pandering to crowds it belittles the good work that they do. I had a read of it and i was impressed. :

They have reduced co2 emissions across all of their plants by 77% while increasing production by 33%. Do you think that doing that is pandering to climate activists? Do you believe that the only reason they did it was to gain Kudos with public climate activists?

They are the only company in the world to have obtained,
for the third year running, a triple ‘A’, the highest possible rating, from CDP, the independent, international benchmarking organisation. A List names the world's most pioneering companies leading on environmental transparency and performance.

In the area of gender equality they have been classed as the most gender-equal company in Europe by Equileap, and are second globally, among more than
3,000 businesses. Lastly, for the first time, they have achieved first place
in the Covalence EthicalQuote ethical reputation index across all industries. This ranking covers the 581 largest listed companies in the world.

They have also been listed as one of the only companies of the world to be named as pioneering the United Nations Global Compact principles for the last 20 years. These include human rights abuses and racial discrimination.

So before you roll eyes, and question whether it’s ridiculous pandering or a defined principle in their corporate strategy which was published well before the BLM movement gained such publicity.

It is pandering removing the word white off something in this climate is pandering to the crowd, why didnt they do it before all this? because no one would have noticed! or was the idea of racism a sudden revelation for L'Oreal? (Never knew a make up bottle could be racist but such is the world we live in and anything is possible and anything can offend when the SJW are at the ready)

But that aside what was achieved by removing this word? nothing it's pandering.

Give the SJW a stick and they ll bang on about how great L'Oreal are for days free publicity

There a business profit before all else dont be codding yourself.

joeguevara · 28-06-2020 3:54pm

Ficheall wrote: »

And what about Carl and Dr. Hibbert, or Cleveland in Family Guy?

Well I gave my interpretation of the Apu character so maybe you give your opinion on these three.

Ficheall · 28-06-2020 4:05pm

joeguevara wrote: »

Well I gave my interpretation of the Apu character so maybe you give your opinion on these three.

I think it's completely ridiculous. That was the point.

joeguevara · 28-06-2020 4:09pm

Ficheall wrote: »

I think it's completely ridiculous. That was the point.

Whatever about those three characters, Apu was a poor portrayal and was similar to how Bernard Manning or Roy Chubby Brown depicted an Indian person. It probably is completely ridiculous but equally being offended at not allowing a white person to hurdy gurdy is equally as ridiculous.

Eric Cartman · 28-06-2020 4:12pm

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.

Its not though, ive heard that lie peddled by women to justify their unhealthy obsession with fake tan and sunbeds, theres nothing wrong with being white/paler , and this is a lesson we need to be teaching our young women, the tanning indistry is causing them harm

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts · 28-06-2020 4:13pm

joeguevara wrote: »

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

I grew up saying half caste too. It wasn’t used pejoratively in my corner of Ireland. Then I moved to Dublin for college...

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts · 28-06-2020 4:19pm

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...

The Labour party in the UK is going the same way. They have glommed onto niche identity politics in the misguided hopes that that will be turn around their fortunes. In reality, they have alienated a lot of women voters because of the identity politics and their traditional working class voter base by treating them with utter contempt post-Brexit referendum.

SouthWesterly · 28-06-2020 4:21pm

In all the black is good, white is bad debate there is one thing that society is forgetting as they pull down statues and want to compensate blacks for selling them.
It's that blacks sold other tribes into slavery.

whisky_galore · 28-06-2020 4:26pm

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Only vampires can play vampires.

Only FBI agents can play FBI agents.

Only murderers can play murderers

If it puts an end to Mrs Brown's Boys I'm all for it.

joeguevara · 28-06-2020 4:41pm

SouthWesterly wrote: »

In all the black is good, white is bad debate there is one thing that society is forgetting as they pull down statues and want to compensate blacks for selling them.
It's that blacks sold other tribes into slavery.

And if there are statues of them displayed in a public place as a memorial to them, they should be rehomed and put in an area with some acknowledgment of their cruel deeds. Why are the actions of others relevant to statues of Collson, Rhodes, leopold et al. Do you disagree about reparations for descendants of slaves as a restorative justice concept?

Ficheall · 28-06-2020 4:47pm

joeguevara wrote: »

Whatever about those three characters

Well, yes, those three being removed in response to the BLM movement is what I was referring to. There are no negative stereotypes portrayed by Carl or Dr Hibbert that I can think of. Don't really watch much Family Guy, so can't say on Cleveland.

Nozebleed · 28-06-2020 4:54pm

i assume they are goin to stop selling bronzer...fake tan etc..thats as racist as it gets. black face..all over!

SouthWesterly · 28-06-2020 4:56pm

joeguevara wrote: »

And if there are statues of them displayed in a public place as a memorial to them, they should be rehomed and put in an area with some acknowledgment of their cruel deeds. Why are the actions of others relevant to statues of Collson, Rhodes, leopold et al. Do you disagree about reparations for descendants of slaves as a restorative justice concept?

Can we get reparations for the things the English, Normans and Vikings did to us?

Leave the statues where they are and have a conversation about what these guys did. These things wouldn't have happened of course if there hadn't been a market among the general population to buy a workforce.

Can the descendants of those Irish sold into "indentured service" have reparations as well?
While I'm at it. I apologize for being white and being a descendant of an Irish landowner.

As for the actions of a particular group. They were all at it. Don't see anyone calling for reparations from the African nations for their part in it.

The whites wouldn't have had a source only for them.

LiquidZeb · 28-06-2020 5:01pm

SouthWesterly wrote: »

In all the black is good, white is bad debate there is one thing that society is forgetting as they pull down statues and want to compensate blacks for selling them.
It's that blacks sold other tribes into slavery.

And who was driving the demand for African slaves? Good old whitey raping and pillaging the world.

joe40 · 28-06-2020 5:09pm

SouthWesterly wrote: »

Can we get reparations for the things the English, Normans and Vikings did to us?

Leave the statues where they are and have a conversation about what these guys did. These things wouldn't have happened of course if there hadn't been a market among the general population to buy a workforce.

Can the descendants of those Irish sold into "indentured service" have reparations as well?
While I'm at it. I apologize for being white and being a descendant of an Irish landowner.

As for the actions of a particular group. They were all at it. Don't see anyone calling for reparations from the African nations for their part in it.

The whites wouldn't have had a source only for them.

I don't think reparations would be workable, and no serious person is looking for an apology.

I wouldn't want an apology from a British person about the famine, but I would like acknowledgement of Britain's involvement.
Plenty of modern Brits think the Irish famine was purely due to lazy Irish farming practices.

As for the statues I have zero issue with statues to slave traders been removed.

The sole purpose of a statue is to celebrate an individual.

Education can be achieved by museums, books etc. It is nonsense to suggest statues serve an educational purpose.

joeguevara · 28-06-2020 5:11pm

Ficheall wrote: »

Well, yes, those three being removed in response to the BLM movement is what I was referring to. There are no negative stereotypes portrayed by Carl or Dr Hibbert that I can think of. Don't really watch much Family Guy, so can't say on Cleveland.

You are probably right. Dr Hibbert especially portrays a successful professional. It does smack of a business who has fallen from the public zeitgeist in dramatic fashion, trying to do something to curry favour in the current climate. Carl is also a very highly qualified person who holds a masters degree in nuclear physics (in a cartoon), so the character is not what is stereotypically seen.

Apu is definitely on a different scale and this has been going on since 2015. They tried to make amends by Lisa calling it out but failed spectacularly.

Cleveland I think is trying to breathe life back in to a stale character. The spin off failed miserably and he offers nothing to the show as it stands. I don’t think it’s anything to do with respect.

TomTomTim · 28-06-2020 5:17pm

LiquidZeb wrote: »

Good old whitey raping and pillaging the world.

You're the type of poster to scream about the mods letting conversations you don't like exist, yet you don't seem to see the amount of leeway posters like yourself get. I'd get a straight ban if I said that about any other group.

28-06-2020 5:20pm

LiquidZeb wrote: »

And who was driving the demand for African slaves? Good old whitey raping and pillaging the world.

Really? The Egyptian empire through a variety of dynasties? How about the Ottoman empire? Both had large involvement in the slave trade before whitey got involved in any major way... As did African tribes who sold their captives into slavery long before Whitey came along... what were those markets for? After all, many accounts by European explorers refer to slavery being established before the European powers or companies gained any serious foothold there.

And I often wonder about Spanish people, would they be white? Considering they had the largest European empire that involved slavery.. but I guess it's just convenient to consider Spanish people as white while they're in Europe, but Hispanic when in the Americas.

In fact, if you're willing to actually consider those nations who actively engaged in the use of slaves, European/White nations likely fall behind in how long the trade was acted, and the actual numbers of slaves enslaved. Instead, the focus is on Europeans (sorry, "Whitey") because of their trading/transportation of slaves Even though, slavery (as a business and institution) was essentially ended by Whitey.

But, I know that this will be ignored, since we live in a world where historical facts are often inconvenient, and will be ignored in favor of maintaining a series of double standards, to enables minorities to feel entitled to their victim status.

(especially since Black owners of slaves was a thing... who was driving it? who cares as long as you can pass the blame on to white people)

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

Comments