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

28-06-2020 10:13am

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

suicide_circus · 28-06-2020 10:14am

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.

SEPT 23 1989 · 28-06-2020 10:14am

L’Oreal's executive committee is extremely white

joeguevara · 28-06-2020 10:16am

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.

joe40 · 28-06-2020 10:16am

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.

Gods Gift · 28-06-2020 10:21am

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

12 % of the world's population is white.

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

28-06-2020 10:22am

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.

Pkiernan · 28-06-2020 10:25am

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

silverharp · 28-06-2020 10:26am

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

ExMachina1000 · 28-06-2020 10:28am

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

Wibbs · 28-06-2020 10:29am

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.

nullzero · 28-06-2020 10:30am

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.

joeguevara · 28-06-2020 10:33am

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.

joe40 · 28-06-2020 10:37am

[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.

joeguevara · 28-06-2020 10:45am

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.

iebamm2580 · 28-06-2020 10:50am

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

joeguevara · 28-06-2020 10:51am

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

28-06-2020 10:53am

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?

iebamm2580 · 28-06-2020 10:55am

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.

joeguevara · 28-06-2020 11:04am

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.

Atlantic Dawn · 28-06-2020 11:09am

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

joe40 · 28-06-2020 11:12am

Atlantic Dawn wrote: »

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

No.

Outkast_IRE · 28-06-2020 11:13am

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

28-06-2020 11:17am

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.

Wibbs · 28-06-2020 11:18am

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.

Wibbs · 28-06-2020 11:22am

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.

KiKi III · 28-06-2020 11:32am

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.

Beechwoodspark · 28-06-2020 11:34am

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

28-06-2020 11:39am

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?

28-06-2020 11:40am

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.

28-06-2020 11:44am

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.

joeguevara · 28-06-2020 11:44am

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.

28-06-2020 11:53am

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...

TomTomTim · 28-06-2020 12:27pm

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.

KiKi III · 28-06-2020 12:29pm

[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?

28-06-2020 12:37pm

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.

joeguevara · 28-06-2020 12:42pm

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’.

joeguevara · 28-06-2020 12:44pm

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.

28-06-2020 12:47pm

joeguevara wrote: »

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

the question was about foresee... the future.

joe40 · 28-06-2020 12:49pm

[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.

beachhead · 28-06-2020 12:54pm

Is white flour or castor sugar still available.I am running low on baking ingredients.

joeguevara · 28-06-2020 12:55pm

Deleted User wrote: »

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

Yes I would.

KiKi III · 28-06-2020 12:56pm

[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.

Hmmm. Finding it hard to see any strong links between the two.

I think we should take each move as it comes?

“We’re going to have the Indian character voiced by an Indian guy”. Okay, that sounds reasonable.

“We’re removing the n-word from To Kill a Mockingbird.” Hmmm, well that seems like it’s going to strip the text of its context.

28-06-2020 1:00pm

KiKi III wrote: »

Hmmm. Finding it hard to see any strong links between the two.

connection? you asked a question. I answered it.

joe40 · 28-06-2020 1:01pm

beachhead wrote: »

Is white flour or castor sugar still available.I am running low on baking ingredients.

Someone else asked about would black and decker be racist, another posed the question, would asking for black car be racist?

What is with people inventing nonsense hypothetical
Scenarios. Invent something ridiculous and then argue against it..

Gods Gift · 28-06-2020 1:05pm

Atlantic Dawn wrote: »

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

The white cars will.

TomTomTim · 28-06-2020 1:08pm

Gods Gift wrote: »

The white cars will.

What about the White House? Will we just call it the House going forward?

KiKi III · 28-06-2020 1:09pm

[Deleted User] wrote: »

connection? you asked a question. I answered it.

You did. And I think your answer was pretty weak...

28-06-2020 1:13pm

KiKi III wrote: »

You did. And I think your answer was pretty weak...

Oddly enough, you're entitled to your opinion.

28-06-2020 1:15pm

joe40 wrote: »

Someone else asked about would black and decker be racist, another posed the question, would asking for black car be racist?

What is with people inventing nonsense hypothetical
Scenarios. Invent something ridiculous and then argue against it..

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.

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

Comments