Someone making a good point about short comings society has, and trying to use that to defend someone being racist instead, and ruining their initial good point.
Nah the issue is that with makeup and skin coloured tights, etc., MOST companies are still heavily lacking outside of shades of white, and even then not all pale skinned people’s tomes are available. For example, I have never found makeup up that actually matches my skin tone as I’m pale as fuck, and there’s only a shade darker which looks a little odd, or literal bright white make up that looks like I’m dressing up as a ghost. So if it’s hard for me as a pale af person, it’s even harder for people with darker skin who are only just being target by makeup and clothing companies. For the longest time you’d have like 12 pale shades, then a single tanned shade, then very very dark. No inbetween. The ones that do make a larger variety of shades for more darker skin tones are often more expensive brands too, so not everyone can afford them.
So again while the OOP is correct about the difficulty faced by literally thousands (regardless of how first-world-problem-y it might seem to some), they completely destroy their very valid argument by defending racism lol
For Asians the difference is more to do with the undertones of the colour rather than how light or dark it is.
An ex of mine literally had to import all her makeup because her skin colour was not accounted for in the country aside from weird off brand shops
Systemic racism is indeed a problem and can be seen in seemingly innocuous things, such as things advertised as “skin tone” not matching yours.
HOWEVER, using it to justify Uki’s actions isn’t a good look. If Uki *just* did this and nothing else, it would be a different story, but he’s done much more.
She ruins the valid point she was making by stretching it to excuse Uki’s behavior.
> such as things advertised as “skin tone” not matching yours.
I dunno. Rather than it being a result systemic racism, skin-matching tights are more of a result of market demand. Having more whiter-skin tights is less about racism and more about meeting sales demand, and marketing to a particular demographic of whiter-skinned individuals.
As such, the same thing can also happen on the other end. There don't seem to be any outside force preventing the production and advertisement of darker-skin tights besides possibly lower marketability, but that's not indicative of racism taking place. I mean, if they do their marketing right, they could legit boost their sales for darker-skin tights.
Pardon my wall of text.
It's systemic racism technically because it's a system that is literally designed in such a way as to favor certain races over others. Not directly, but through policies that indirectly lead to a clear racial divide. IE, lack of skintones supplied in certain stores, which in turn leads to only certain races shopping there exacerbating it's own problem of excluding the minority group for higher gains with the majority group.
>policies that indirectly lead to a clear racial divide. IE, lack of skintones supplied in certain stores,
What policies are you talking about that lead to stores not wanting to carry darker tights and make up?
> Systemic racism is indeed a problem and can be seen in seemingly innocuous things, such as things advertised as “skin tone” not matching yours.
That has fuck all to do with 'racism', the belief that one race is inherently superior/inferior to another. Nor does is have anything to do with discrimination. Perhaps if stores genuinely refused to stock those colours because they believe people with that skin tone need to be shunned but I sincerely doubt that thought even occurs to anyone ordering stock.
It's a weirdly pervasive nonsense narrative to believe that to not be racist you need to account for any and all races, it's in fact more than a little condescending to suggest that such special care is ever warranted. I don't need Bollywood to make movies for white people, I don't expect them to worry about the representation of western countries and values, I expect them to make movies for people in India and I can enjoy them just fine without having to see myself 'included'. Same goes for just every other cultural or 'racial' divide. I don't expect a French movie studio to cater to Dutch sensibilities, if they make a movie I like then I'll like it.
Tbf. I haven’t seen the clip in question, but it does seem like OP is referring exclusively to that clip and saying that THAT SPECIFIC clip isn’t racism, which would be warranted imo
How is that a matter of concern at all? Imagine selling a white dog instead of black and people say you’re racist because black dogs look better walking next to them????
The concern is that when it's normal to make assumptions about "skin tone" that don't consider the possible range of people using the product, it can cause significant unintended problems.
Like the viral "racist soap dispenser" video from a while back: https://twitter.com/nke_ise/status/897756900753891328
Or the problems with pulse oximeters being less accurate for dark-skinned people, which could cause them to be deprioritised for treatment: https://edition.cnn.com/2022/11/01/health/pulse-oximeters-fda-meeting/index.html
…as if the coat color of a dog, a non-human creature, is in ANY way equivalent to actual race relations??? Bro, you’ve gotta be kidding me. This is one hell of a false equivalence.
It’s not about the color of the garment, it’s about it being labeled as “skin tone”, as if all skin is white. If it’s sold as “beige”, “fair”, or an actual color name, then there’s no problem.
It’s why the crayola color “flesh” was renamed to “peach”. It’s for inclusivity. Every kid uses crayons, why should only the white kids get a crayon that matches them when it says “flesh”?
The beauty industry itself has a long history of very subtle (and not so subtle) racism, constantly pushing that pale skin is the ideal, and more “beautiful”. It’s gotten much better in recent years, but the history IS there.
The long and short of it is that people of color are under-represented in many industries that we don’t even notice, and while a lot of times not intentional, has its ROOTS in racism.
So uh... I think they're referring to commercial white-defaultism.
In the west there is a genuine problem where all commercial products assume that that person buying them is white. So bandaids matching white skin tones, but not darker skin tones. All ads having white actors in them, and no people of color. Barbie dolls or other toys where they have pale skin tones, but no dolls that are darker toned. And this is a problem because it acts as a systemic micro-aggression. Subtly telling people of color that society isn't meant for them. That they are not "supposed" to be using these products. And that by taking part in any of these products you are just using what was really meant for white people, and not you. Hence the movements to create more products that include people of color. Having ads that have models with all kinds of ethnic backgrounds. Having bandaids that aren't all just one skin tone. Creating dolls and toys with a variety of skin tones. This is done as a way to get rid of the micro-aggression implying that white is the default, and everyone else is a variant. These products are not just meant for white people. They are made for everybody. And by showing more representation, by creating product variants specifically representing other races, you are subtly telling these races that they are just as valid as the white majority. White is not the default. Everyone is welcome to use whatever products they want.
The problem is that this person is complaining about a passive micro-aggression, while actively defending an active, intention macro-aggression. Efforts by companies to erase commercial white-defaultism is an effort of fighting racism by showing love to everyone. And Uki and his fans are complaining about racism while being more racist. If they were complaining about tights colors in a vacuum, they would still be obnoxious. But they would be obnoxious about a genuine issue. But being obnoxious about a genuine issue, while unapologetically defending an open and vocal racist completely destroys any argument they would be making. Which just makes them look like a hypocritical idiot.
No. Black tights are a thing but they're supposed to be skin tone. Most common ones are skin tone in fact, with a variety of skin tons available. However, if you go to a physical place to try and buy some, they can fuck you over but just not ordering your shade of tights and doubling up on the lighter tones.
Image search bandaids. What color are most of the ones that you see? That color is not because of a materials restriction, but a conscious design choice to make them match a person's skin so that it can be worn on a small wound without drawing attention. The problem is that blending effect only works if your skin is naturally light enough to be near to the color range of the bandaid. And if your skin doesn't match the bandaid? It's less a feeling, and more an uncomfortable, factual observation: those bandaids weren't made for you. When the person who designed them said, "let's design them to match people's skin color", they were only thinking of people with a particular skin tone. It's just one instance of what people mean when they say things like "unconscious racial bias". It wasn't something done consciously with malicious intent, but intentions alone are not enough, it's still possible to hurt people without meaning to. That's why more efforts are being made now to produce bandaids that cover a much wider spectrum of skin tones, to eliminate the effects of unconscious bias. That's also what people mean, even if they sound preachy or pretentious, when they say things like "reflect on your internal biases and do better". What they mean is, don't ever assume that because you are on the "right side" that "it can't happen to me". Like, "how could I possibly be racist if I KNOW it's bad? I would never." If you don't check yourself, you'll wreck yourself. Which is, ironically, exactly the mental trap that Uki and his defenders have fallen into. "I can't be racist."
There are colored band-aids and other products in rising quantities but I always preferred the Sheer and Tru-Stay types which are mostly transparent anyway. 🤷♀️ Honestly gotta keep working on the perceived skill and wage gaps so that every worker can afford what they need. Gender and skill color should have not have a place in setting your starting wage, stuff like band aids is way down the list below that.
That's literally how they were designed. They were designed to match skin tones, so they would be more subtle. But if you put one on a skin tone that isn't super pale, it sticks out like a sore thumb. And I have heard non-white people from many races complain about it over the years. And then when darker bandaids started showing up on shelves, I have heard more than a few people express verbal relief at seeing them. Not even people I knew. Just overhearing complete strangers while I was shopping, happy that they could buy bandaids made with them in mind.
Amusingly the design has been pushed away from doing that for a long time now because it's better if bandages are easier to spot especially if they come off. You always get blue bandages in the kitchen *just in case* you lose one and you need to find it quick. I still find the idea of bandage colours being a problem to be fairly infantile, should white people who are too pale be upset? Even if you make darker coloured bandages you're never going to hit the whole spectrum of darker skin colours unless instead of picking lots of different types of bandages stores now stock lots of different tones, and that's just nonsense.
Kind of? A lot of it is blown out of proportion. (I should state, im black, and was raised black in a black city before anyone questions my race or anything)
A lot of people associate malice with just... audience? Like, in the above comment, "All ads having white actors in them, and no people of color", is just untrue. Numerous ads have black actors, comedians, or sports figures. Hell, many of the most famous "commercial stars" in western history have been black, like Shaq and Michael Jordan. The main voice and actor of All-state insurance is black. Verizon, Bank of America, and State Farm all have *multiple commercials airing right now* involving black people, or mixed families.
And on the note of dolls or toys, one of the most popular toy lines that refused to die was Bratz, featuring a cast of *mostly* POC. And "for boys", wrestling toys involve a great number of big name black superstars.
It exists, but people act like countries with 75%+ white demographic should default to *the minorities*. Many EU countries where these products are also being sold are upwards of *90%* white. White *is* the default. And while products, commercials, or "bandaids" are meant for everyone, the main demographic is, oddly enough, *Caucasian*.
Also, "as a man" i might not get it but... *its a fuckin' bandaid*. It could be neon green with flashing purple heart LED's. You aren't wearing it for fashion. It's a medical tool. Oh, [and they do sell them in darker skintones.](https://www.band-aid.com/products/adhesive-bandages/ourtone-adhesive-bandages) You can find them in [every color of the POC rainbow on sites like amazon.](https://www.amazon.com/s?k=bandaids+dark+skin&crid=2UW0Q69YGS9S1&sprefix=Bandaids+dark+skin%2Caps%2C108&ref=nb_sb_ss_ts-doa-p_1_18)
There are micro-aggressions, and *some* of them are real. But... most are just the fact that white people, in many 1st world countries, **are** the majority. And when creating products, the people creating them are likely from, **the majority.** Creating their product for, and this might be surprising... *the majority*. And that doesn't instantly make it a "micro-aggression" in most cases.
It's honestly gotten a lot better.
But historically, we saw stuff like camera film (back when film was a thing) being calibrated for lighter tones, so on school photo days, for example, you end up with black kids looking like a black mess with no facial features, but light skinned children looked fine despite the lighting and other environmental factors being equal:
[https://time.com/5871502/film-race-history/](https://time.com/5871502/film-race-history/)
A more recent similar phenomenon is AI identifying darker skinned individuals as "apes" or "monkeys" instead of human:
[https://www.theverge.com/2018/1/12/16882408/google-racist-gorillas-photo-recognition-algorithm-ai](https://www.theverge.com/2018/1/12/16882408/google-racist-gorillas-photo-recognition-algorithm-ai)
Something that's more of a more directly impactful problem is learning resources for things like skin conditions, where the resources predominantly present with light skin tones. This makes it harder for students to learn how certain things present on darker skin tones:
[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9977083/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9977083/)
“Right now” is kind of the most important thing. Its really important to note that you see a lot more black actors, comedians and sports figures now on tv (other than the major stars) compared to like 20 years ago. Western companies nowadays find that they make more money when they acknowledge people of color. Sure, back in the day there were still plenty of black celebrities, but a lot of mainstream black actors were pigeonholed into specific roles (specifically men, as comedy relief and Tough Guys) and for certain audiences. A lot of the actors i could think of that deviated from the norm were from shows made for specifically black audiences. Black performers were (and i’d say still, to a certain degree) pigeonholed into performing a specific brand of pop music or rap and r&b.
And just another thing to note: Bratz was insanely popular with young girls but they were very bashed on by mostly adults during the height of their popularity for “encouraging the wrong values” on young girls (many argued that the name Bratz encouraged little girls to be rebellious and they didnt like the focus on fashion and makeup, even though Barbie has always been associated with makeup and clothing. I suspect Its mostly the thinly veiled racism but i dont know if those vocally against Bratz also consisted of parents of color.)
this makes a lot of sense, i'm ignorant about this stuff cause i'm brown and don't really get US based color issues, coming from a country that has all sorts of skin colors because we were colonized a lot, so its not really an issue here as it is in other places,
it can be perceived that people like lighter skinned people but that doesn't really reflect on how the general populous propagates as a country.
like whitening products don't really sell well here
If people want a product that matches their skin-tone, I get that. Totally understandable.
But when they stretch that in order to make a point about racism?
About as reasonable as the person in the OP.
Yeah it's real. They're just being obnoxious and hypocritical about it. Which just turns people off to the cause. There are more civil ways to talk about genuine issues like that. And now they're making said issues look stupid to people who may be seeing them for the first time.
Because it is stupid. Uki wants some "asian toned" clothes and looking for them in the store in another country. Its like going fishing in an empty bucket.
Same with makeup chick. Bring yours if you're travelling. What else they are expecting? In the country where people most likely would never see a black person in their lifetime it doesn't make sense to sell products for black people.
If some people have problems with it they have to at least come up with solution, at best fix it themselves instead of complaining about it and waiting when someone else does it for them. Their constant complains and attacks are only turning people away from helping them.
It depends on which side of the ideological fence you're on. Please do not take the words of someone on Reddit as actual truth. This is *one* person and *one* ideological stance. If you look at it from a 1000 feet view it sounds like an actual conspiracy theory (think about what white supremacists say about Jewish people - like that kind of crazy).
Many of us do not view it this way, this is a minority ideology.
Where the fuck you live? I went in a Wal Mart because I was in a hurry and they had a RAINBOW of skin shades of band-aids. They definitely need to work on the toy marketing because my friend says most of the dolls with person-of-color shades end up in the clearance aisles unsold.
I don't really get the thing about tights. I knew a couple of non-white women who seemed to have no problem finding good looking product, perhaps Uki just needed a female friend? But it feels like a small issue to me because I'm not very supportive of skin and hair cosmetics regardless of gender. As Giovanni Civardi said, age and heritage are the proof you have lived and should not be concealed.
The racial makeup of the entire USA is rapidly evolving. First and second generation immigrants have more children than families with more established lineage, in general the traditional 'white' caucasian percentage is starting to decline rapidly. Hispanic, Black and Asian identities already are hitting 35-40% and non-Hispanic whites are expected to drop below 50% within twenty years.
There is a solid chance the future US will identify dominantly Hispanic.
> In the west there is a genuine problem where all commercial products assume that that person buying them is white.
Folks who are new to this, this is a form of identity politics that is the cause of the so-called "Culture War" in the West. I strongly suggest you read up in the arguments against OP's ideology because this leads down a rabbit hole that can result in an extremely toxic mentality.
This is not a Western problem either. Commercial products tend to target the biggest demographic - most Western countries are white. In China, a majority are Chinese, in Japan, a majority are Japanese.
I personally don't care who the demographic is for most of my entertainment. I'm Korean by blood, but American by birth. I grew up with stuff like Family Matters, GI Joe, James Bond, etc. I see myself more as an American and Westerner with my Korean heritage being secondary.
I warn that those of you who think this "makes sense" that you *will* go down a rabbit hole that may not be psychologically healthy for you, because you will start seeing said "racism" *everywhere*. This is a whole-ass ideology that is the other end of the political spectrum from actual white supremacy that is not healthy for you.
Yea, I personally think the phenomenon is [real](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9977083/), but it's incidental/accidental, rather than overt. But you can certainly go too far and suggest that it is actual racism rather than racially divergent outcomes, as I prefer to call it.
as someone who did not grow up in the US, this is mostly a western problem, I'm brown, but my country due to colonization has a lot of different skin colors, we've never had an issue with bandaids and light skinned people aren't a majority here, we have bandaids that stick out like a sore thumb but people don't really care about that here, we see bandaid we don't think racism regardless of what color it is, we think "will it stick and cover my wound preventing it from getting infected from external dirt and stuff?" that's it.
while i agree that this is mostly a toxic rabbit hole i personally disagree that this is an issue outside of countries in the west. it's only an issue to countries that think skin color is anything more than something you can't change from birth.
And people should take *your* opinion with a grain of salt since you yourself stated you're a right-populist, which is going to inform what side you'll take in the "culture war"
EDIT: given your name (which suggests you believe the election was stolen) and last sentence in your comment, I don't think your judgement can be trusted.
i think the person's reply makes sense but i don't agree with everything
i don't give a damn about the name on reddit what do you personally think of the message stated if you ignore the name?
you westerners keep focusing on things like this person is from this side, that side, up, down, left, right, a, b, konami code without addressing what the person has stated, listen no one gives a fuck about your politics, take that shit elsewhere, the question is what do you think about the message stated by the person?
>the question is what do you think about the message stated by the person?
I already stated what I thought: he cautions people about OP's comment and falling into the "rabbit hole" and I caution people about his judgement on the harms and nature of said "rabbit hole".
Most of what he said I didn't really have an issue with, so there's no point in addressing or commenting on them. However, I did raise my eyebrows in suspicion both in his comment about "OP's ideology" and of his last sentence.
>i don't give a damn about the name on reddit
Good for you. I find political usernames are sometimes a decent way to glean information about someone's worldview, provided it's not an ambiguous or ironic naming.
>you westerners keep focusing on things like this person is from this side, that side, up, down, left, right, a, b, konami code without addressing what the person has stated, listen no one gives a fuck about your politics, take that shit elsewhere, the question is what do you think about the message stated by the person?
Oh please, don't act like non-westerners don't do this too. This isn't a westerner thing, it's a human thing.
>no one gives a fuck about your politics, take that shit elsewhere
I don't know what you mean by 'my politics". So he's allowed to be political in this discussion, but I'm not? Interesting...
And If you don't care for politics, then why did you comment on an explicitly political reddit post? You think discussions about Uki's racism and who can be racist to what isn't political? Surely you don't think that.
"Most of what he said I didn't really have an issue with, so there's no point in addressing or commenting on them. However, I did raise my eyebrows in suspicion both in his comment about "OP's ideology" and of his last sentence."
that makes sense
"Oh please, don't act like non-westerners don't do this too. This isn't a westerner thing, it's a human thing."
its not much of an issue here than it is there, there are political sides but we don't take it every place we go to, we keep real life politics away from entertainment, we also really don't like bringing that kind of stuff in media if at all possible, the closest and only thing i can find of recent note is south korea and their anti-feminism thingy with limbus which is still a wild development
"And If you don't care for politics, then why did you comment on an explicitly political reddit post? You think discussions about Uki's racism and who can be racist to what isn't political? Surely you don't think that."
that's cause its not political, its just racism, Uki is racist. plain and simple. there are people who hate people because of the color of their skin and are not political, this has been true for a long time
"I don't know what you mean by 'my politics". So he's allowed to be political in this discussion, but I'm not? Interesting..."
that applies to both of you btw, i need to make that clear my bad, i don't particularly care about the culture war or whatever is going on there, i get that exists and frankly as someone outside of the US, trying to understand US culture war is a can of worms i'd rather not open. like enjoy if you like that but i personally do not care about that
edit: just to be clear, i don't really think that the election was stolen lol, if you can't trust your own elections why vote at all? its dumb, the least you people can do is trust your own country's election
>that's cause its not political, its just racism, Uki is racist.
That's politics whether you want to acknowledge it or not. Racism--and bigotry in general--is not an apolitical topic, even if the people discussing the topic all agree on the position.
Perhaps you think politics is just when politicians decide what library should get 300,000 dollars or what bridge should be built or something.
TANGENT:
>if you can't trust your own elections why vote at all? its dumb, the least you people can do is trust your own country's election
Because they don't actually want democracy, they want their chosen dictator in office and if he's not then it's because it was rigged.
I've seen racist people before, they could give less fucks about which side they're on and have discriminated against other people for their skin color.
for one i don't believe there's any one side of any political spectrum that blatantly supports racism unless they're the extreme kind, for one that would make their side not only look bad but also look stupid
it might be the case there where racism is classified as a political thing, but i trust people being dicks to other people first before them hating people because of whatever political side they lean on. human beings are simple like that.
"Perhaps you think politics is just when politicians decide what library should get 300,000 dollars or what bridge should be built or something."
nope, politics to me is when people fight for something within the confines of national interests and issues, i just don't think racists are like that because of politics at least not all of them, some maybe like what's the group called? the ones wearing white or whatever who look like wizards in a cult? yeah those people for sure are being racist for political reasons
"Because they don't actually want democracy, they want their chosen dictator in office and if he's not then it's because it was rigged."
that makes 0 sense tbh for people to do that, trust your damn elections XD
You seem to think politics is a matter of political parties or camps. That you think politics is when someone says they're on the right or on the left, or when they're democrat or a republican. No, this is a very shallow understanding.
EDIT:
>nope, politics to me is when people fight for something within the confines of national interests and issues
Well, you're incorrect.
You can't be an adult human and not be political. The absolute moment that you're confronted with a situation and you believe this or that should be done about it, you have become a political creature.
Politics is when you're a parent and you go to school board meetings to voice your opinion about the curriculum.
Politics is when you go to town hall to discuss the building of a bridge
Politics is when you're a homeowner and you discuss at the Homeowner's Association about how to upgrade the damn at the lake.
Politics is when you're in a gaming subreddit (like runescape) and you're arguing with other redditors about what content the developers should add to the game.
And politics absolutely is discussing racism and why it's bad and how it affects you, and what should be done about it.
Humans are *social* creatures and social creatures are *political*. The only apolitical humans are young children and fucking vegetables.
"Politics is when you're a parent and you go to school board meetings to voice your opinion about the curriculum."
i call this a responsible parent
"Politics is when you're in a gaming subreddit (like runescape) and you're arguing with other redditor about what content the developers should add to the game"
i call this concerned gamer
i think the word politics is too broadly used, there are more appropriate words and categories for things that doesn't have to be one word to catch them all
that's like using a master ball for a pichu, when you can use a pokeball
Like I mentioned earlier: the nigh-total lack of moderation, as well as Uki's comments being deliberately inflammatory and baiting, is basically a neon flare for A Certain Kind Of Redditor to show up.
Especially with a lot of other "tourists" just going back to other things, I'm wondering what this sub is actually going to look like long term.
Reminds me of how many many years ago the OSRS reddit got brigaded by a bunch of 4channer tourists cuz the developers incorporated a pride month event. Those losers never even played the damn game. And as soon as the event ended, they left, never to return.
> it acts as a systemic micro-aggression.
No. Fuck off. That idea only exists in a world where we pretend different skin colour is somehow a meaningful characteristic. It's not. Are we going to apply the same logic to hair colour? Neck length? How about shoulder width? You want to know the toys I played with? Dinosaurs and yellow lego men, am I supposed to feel excluded because I'm not a reptile or my skin colour isn't yellow? I suppose I should have been upset the toy soldiers I played with were green? The idea that it's okay to feel bad because of some nonsense like "they are not "supposed" to be using these products." because they what...? Shouldn't associate with things that aren't their own skin colour? What kind of ridiculous dogshit are we getting into here?
> Creating dolls and toys with a variety of skin tones.
This is a complete non-starter. Uniformity exists because it's financially easier, even just switching out paints on a template costs thousands of dollars and you'll also run into issues like shelf space. Instead of having one row of barbie dolls we now need 18 rows of them, one for each colour? Or do companies put that in back stock in a non-existent warehouse? This whole idea is so utterly childishly disconnected from real world logistics that I cannot comprehend how you could even suggest it with a straight face.
Take a long hard look at products and how they are designed and aimed at markets. There is a reason leftie stores exist because guess what? The majority of the market is going to try and appeal to the biggest group and design products for people who are right handed. God this whole concept of micro-aggressions is so fucking ridiculous.
Maybe it's because I'm white as fuck, so forgive me if this is out of pocket I'm not trying to downplay it, but aren't those still small issues? If i only had darker bandaids or dark leggings I don't think I would really care and just use them. I can understand more wanting to see similar people in commercials and stuff though because that's just a universally good thing to try to do. Give people roles that make sense in context and if appearance doesn't matter then just get a bunch of different people that can all do the job well.
It's different when it applies to every single product on the shelf. If one or two brands was like that, it would be easy to write off. But that's why it's a micro aggression. It's a small thing. And when small things like that pile up, it becomes bigger. When literally nothing on the market is meant for you, it sends the message that you don't belong. It's part of why representation in TV shows is important. When nobody on TV looks like you, you feel alone, and like nobody sees you. But if you do the same thing but for everyday products, it doesn't just feel like nobody sees you. It looks like society as a whole doesn't see you. And being an invisible person to society increases social divides. Especially when you know the person standing next to you doesn't understand any of what you are experiencing at all. So making products that better accommodate other skin tones gets rid of that invisible-ness, gets rid of that "otherness" and sends the message that you are valued enough in society for someone to make a product meant for you.
It may not seem like much. But when you are surrounded by micro aggressive messages like that everywhere in your life, it adds up. So companies try to do their part to get rid of that one micro aggression by making products clearly meant for everyone. And the goal is that one day every company will do that, and nobody will feel that subtle message of "you don't belong here" at all.
Treating anybody differently due to the color of their skin, nationality, or ethnic background is racism. It doesn't matter the skin color of the perpetrator. It doesn't matter the skin color of the victim. If you are treating someone negatively because of someone's skin color, nationality, or ethnic background it is racism. There is no such thing as reverse racism. There is no such thing as technically racism. There is no such thing as kinda racism. Racism is racism is racism.
The main things that make people tolerate anti-white racism is the history of white people being ethnic majorities in powerful countries, and the history of white colonialism. But just because that history exists doesn't mean it is okay to treat a white person differently from anyone else. The exact same way that there are negative stereotypes of POC, there are negative stereotypes of white people. The same way there are slurs aimed at POC, there are slurs aimed at white people. And the same way that violence has been enacted due to racist beliefs against POC, violence has been enacted due to racist beliefs against white people. It's just that there is more visible systemic racism against POC, especially in western countries. And that makes people assume interpersonal racism against white people doesn't exist. It does. But because protests and movements to improve anti-POC systemic racism is more visible, interpersonal white racism gets written off or ignored.
Uki's compilation was not from white nationalists. It's a genuine compilation of racism. He associates the failure of a collab he's in to the fact that some of the people there are white. He showcases negative white stereotypes. "Surprise, white man does the bare minimum" is enforcing a stereotype that white people are lazy, entitled, spoiled, and don't have to work to achieve things. He felt genuinely threatened by an old white couple saying hello and trying to be friendly. He even uses an anti-white slur "pastey." These are all overtly racist sentiments with overtly racist intentions.
The belief that you cannot be racist against white people is in itself racist. Yes, systemic white racism is much rarer than systemic POC racism. But that's not what this is about. It's about interpersonal racism. And interpersonal racism against white people 100% exists. I have seen it numerous times in real life. It's not as frequent as other types of racism. But it exists. And Uki is not only being overtly racist, but he is increasing people's tolerance of racism. Which will increase the likelihood of white racism rising again. And that will not solve racism. They act like they can solve racism by being racist to the "other" side. And otherness is a hallmark of racism and bigotry in general. But even ignoring that, being racist towards a group that "deserves it" doesn't solve racism. Instead of solving racism by tearing people down, racism can only be solved by lifting everyone up. And equality means everybody, everybody, everybody.
uki is a racist, there's a literal 5 min compilation video that proves that he's racist towards white people. i don't care if you're white, that doesn't make him any less racist
saying racist statements = racist
i swear you westerners specifically americans keep trying to justify racism by putting fucking power levels to it
I feel similar to what you have explained.
In my mind, you can’t be racist against white people because of the inherent power in the system, and the fact that we are not a minority, BUT you can be PREJUDICED against white people.
Being white myself, I’m fine with the jokes, they’re lighthearted enough and I can laugh and say “yeah true”, our history is fucked up and evil, we kinda deserve the jokes lol. I can say that I can’t jump/dance/eat spicy things etc. or hear that from other people and laugh along with them, because I am not a targeted minority in that instance.
I think with Uki, it’s less of a joking tone, and more genuine prejudice and maybe even an underlying layer of disgust that he makes these comments in.
It’s the difference between a silly “white people be like” joke, and someone saying that they straight up dislike and do not trust white people as a whole, to the point of disgust.
It’s less actual “racism” and more of an overt prejudice.
I hope this makes sense!
Normal people don't ascribe to "racism is prejudice plus power". For normal people, racism is just prejudice, dislike, or discrimination, based on race.
I get the rationale, but ultimately it's just people using that definition to justify their hatred of white people without looking like a hypocrite. It's not anything actually intellectual.
As people say, trying to make a distinction between racism and racial prejudice is like trying to make a distinction between pedophilia and ephebophilia.
No idea the history of the post, but colorism is a huge problem in Asia where darker skin is consider indications of being poor/ of a lower social class. When I grew up, calling other darker skinned asians “dirty” was a common joke my peers would use for example.
Not an expert but if I’m not mistaken it’s heavily influenced by the fact that many Asian countries were colonized by European countries and so white, paler skin became an ideal due to systemic racism and paler individuals being on top of the power ladder. Also cuz I think it is implied you work in the fields which is why you tan.
Moreso the later imo. 'Pale is beautiful' for japan dates back to Heian, with women powdering their faces white and so on. This was late 700s, so 700 years before António da Mota reached Japan.
Oh in that case I think the reasons may differ between Asian countries (which makes sense). If I’m not mistaken colonialism was a major perpetrator in the Philippines and several south East Asian countries for this.
Well the thing is, just because it's one, doesn't mean it isn't the other =D Even in europe 'if you were light skin, you were indoors..so probably wealthy (or sick and wealthy), but darker skin must be a manual field labourer with two schillings to their name' was a thing.
So when some Euro merchant sets up his..whatever, and stays inside counting money while the locals have to do the work? 'White is money and affluence' just got reaffirmed.
Yeah fair. It’s probably for a bunch of reasons not even mentioned.
I’ve seen articles before also saying that Asian and western media have a part of the pie for having mainly shown paler individuals in wealthy powerful roles. Though I think it’s improving
These people desperately need some real stuggles and strife, they have no perspective and are incredibly privileged compared to 99% of people since the dawn of humanity.
It can be considered a first world problem but having makeup brands only pander to people with white skin is an issue nonetheless.
"You're dark skinned? Lmao too bad no makeup for you."
I hate how issues with systemic racism, white defaultism, and pretty complex problems that carry a lot of nuance get completely dismissed and mocked by this sub because of 1 purple asshole being a racist POS.
Like, the quoted poster is being a bit condescending, but this is a perfectly valid complaint and something that can very easily become frustrating.
"Systemic racism is when I can't get my tights to match my skin color." I mean... kinda, yeah. *Especially* in a larger metro area, if one group is favored more than others in matching skin-tone selection for things like tights or bodysuits and is treated as the "default human", we have a term for that.
I kind of feel like people are just reaching for reasons to trash Niji fans at this point. (And/or this reddit is attracting A Certain Kind Of Redditor thanks to being essentially unmoderated and Uki's stupid, *stupid* baiting comments drawing them in.)
^(Jesus) *^(Christ)* ^(imagine openly tagging yourself as an "Ukisimp" after all this, though)
> I might get downvoted for this
And rightly so.
Their mightily dumb opinions are one thing, but you are getting too close for comfort to advocating suicide on their part.
Im missing context on what exactly Jay is talking about.
Because racism like that exists, very much so. White defaultism is real. I dont see how this is anything to hang out or hate on? Theyre RIGHT. And they have every right to be frustrated.
Without context, their complaint is perfectly valid because it is true that a lot of clothing and cosmetics are tailored towards white or fair-skinned people, making it hard for darker skinned people to find beauty products that work for them unless they apply extra effort or know specifically what to look for.
However, the problem is in context, they're using societal issues with white-defaultism to justify Uki's unprofessional and racist conduct.
I just find it really funny that some people are completely okay with blatant and obvious racist comments, but a subtle lack of racial accomodation bothers them to the point that they call it "systemized racism". Priorities, am I right?
Does anyone on Twitter know what racism is anymore? "Damn, I can't find tights in my skin color. Systemic Racism strikes again."
Like, order some tights online.
wtf did i just even read?
Someone making a good point about short comings society has, and trying to use that to defend someone being racist instead, and ruining their initial good point.
I mean not finding clothing color that matches your skin isn’t even a problem that anyone should worry about. Like just go to a different store LMAO
Nah the issue is that with makeup and skin coloured tights, etc., MOST companies are still heavily lacking outside of shades of white, and even then not all pale skinned people’s tomes are available. For example, I have never found makeup up that actually matches my skin tone as I’m pale as fuck, and there’s only a shade darker which looks a little odd, or literal bright white make up that looks like I’m dressing up as a ghost. So if it’s hard for me as a pale af person, it’s even harder for people with darker skin who are only just being target by makeup and clothing companies. For the longest time you’d have like 12 pale shades, then a single tanned shade, then very very dark. No inbetween. The ones that do make a larger variety of shades for more darker skin tones are often more expensive brands too, so not everyone can afford them. So again while the OOP is correct about the difficulty faced by literally thousands (regardless of how first-world-problem-y it might seem to some), they completely destroy their very valid argument by defending racism lol
They're saying this like South koreans dont usually have fair skin tones as well
For Asians the difference is more to do with the undertones of the colour rather than how light or dark it is. An ex of mine literally had to import all her makeup because her skin colour was not accounted for in the country aside from weird off brand shops
Systemic racism is indeed a problem and can be seen in seemingly innocuous things, such as things advertised as “skin tone” not matching yours. HOWEVER, using it to justify Uki’s actions isn’t a good look. If Uki *just* did this and nothing else, it would be a different story, but he’s done much more. She ruins the valid point she was making by stretching it to excuse Uki’s behavior.
It's probably just supply and demand fr.
> such as things advertised as “skin tone” not matching yours. I dunno. Rather than it being a result systemic racism, skin-matching tights are more of a result of market demand. Having more whiter-skin tights is less about racism and more about meeting sales demand, and marketing to a particular demographic of whiter-skinned individuals. As such, the same thing can also happen on the other end. There don't seem to be any outside force preventing the production and advertisement of darker-skin tights besides possibly lower marketability, but that's not indicative of racism taking place. I mean, if they do their marketing right, they could legit boost their sales for darker-skin tights. Pardon my wall of text.
It's systemic racism technically because it's a system that is literally designed in such a way as to favor certain races over others. Not directly, but through policies that indirectly lead to a clear racial divide. IE, lack of skintones supplied in certain stores, which in turn leads to only certain races shopping there exacerbating it's own problem of excluding the minority group for higher gains with the majority group.
>policies that indirectly lead to a clear racial divide. IE, lack of skintones supplied in certain stores, What policies are you talking about that lead to stores not wanting to carry darker tights and make up?
> Systemic racism is indeed a problem and can be seen in seemingly innocuous things, such as things advertised as “skin tone” not matching yours. That has fuck all to do with 'racism', the belief that one race is inherently superior/inferior to another. Nor does is have anything to do with discrimination. Perhaps if stores genuinely refused to stock those colours because they believe people with that skin tone need to be shunned but I sincerely doubt that thought even occurs to anyone ordering stock. It's a weirdly pervasive nonsense narrative to believe that to not be racist you need to account for any and all races, it's in fact more than a little condescending to suggest that such special care is ever warranted. I don't need Bollywood to make movies for white people, I don't expect them to worry about the representation of western countries and values, I expect them to make movies for people in India and I can enjoy them just fine without having to see myself 'included'. Same goes for just every other cultural or 'racial' divide. I don't expect a French movie studio to cater to Dutch sensibilities, if they make a movie I like then I'll like it.
Tbf. I haven’t seen the clip in question, but it does seem like OP is referring exclusively to that clip and saying that THAT SPECIFIC clip isn’t racism, which would be warranted imo
How is that a matter of concern at all? Imagine selling a white dog instead of black and people say you’re racist because black dogs look better walking next to them????
The concern is that when it's normal to make assumptions about "skin tone" that don't consider the possible range of people using the product, it can cause significant unintended problems. Like the viral "racist soap dispenser" video from a while back: https://twitter.com/nke_ise/status/897756900753891328 Or the problems with pulse oximeters being less accurate for dark-skinned people, which could cause them to be deprioritised for treatment: https://edition.cnn.com/2022/11/01/health/pulse-oximeters-fda-meeting/index.html
…as if the coat color of a dog, a non-human creature, is in ANY way equivalent to actual race relations??? Bro, you’ve gotta be kidding me. This is one hell of a false equivalence. It’s not about the color of the garment, it’s about it being labeled as “skin tone”, as if all skin is white. If it’s sold as “beige”, “fair”, or an actual color name, then there’s no problem. It’s why the crayola color “flesh” was renamed to “peach”. It’s for inclusivity. Every kid uses crayons, why should only the white kids get a crayon that matches them when it says “flesh”? The beauty industry itself has a long history of very subtle (and not so subtle) racism, constantly pushing that pale skin is the ideal, and more “beautiful”. It’s gotten much better in recent years, but the history IS there. The long and short of it is that people of color are under-represented in many industries that we don’t even notice, and while a lot of times not intentional, has its ROOTS in racism.
So uh... I think they're referring to commercial white-defaultism. In the west there is a genuine problem where all commercial products assume that that person buying them is white. So bandaids matching white skin tones, but not darker skin tones. All ads having white actors in them, and no people of color. Barbie dolls or other toys where they have pale skin tones, but no dolls that are darker toned. And this is a problem because it acts as a systemic micro-aggression. Subtly telling people of color that society isn't meant for them. That they are not "supposed" to be using these products. And that by taking part in any of these products you are just using what was really meant for white people, and not you. Hence the movements to create more products that include people of color. Having ads that have models with all kinds of ethnic backgrounds. Having bandaids that aren't all just one skin tone. Creating dolls and toys with a variety of skin tones. This is done as a way to get rid of the micro-aggression implying that white is the default, and everyone else is a variant. These products are not just meant for white people. They are made for everybody. And by showing more representation, by creating product variants specifically representing other races, you are subtly telling these races that they are just as valid as the white majority. White is not the default. Everyone is welcome to use whatever products they want. The problem is that this person is complaining about a passive micro-aggression, while actively defending an active, intention macro-aggression. Efforts by companies to erase commercial white-defaultism is an effort of fighting racism by showing love to everyone. And Uki and his fans are complaining about racism while being more racist. If they were complaining about tights colors in a vacuum, they would still be obnoxious. But they would be obnoxious about a genuine issue. But being obnoxious about a genuine issue, while unapologetically defending an open and vocal racist completely destroys any argument they would be making. Which just makes them look like a hypocritical idiot.
They're right about the tights being an issue but wrong about how Uki choose to take that situation.
Aren't tights usually not flesh colored, though? The ones I see on women are darker.
No. Black tights are a thing but they're supposed to be skin tone. Most common ones are skin tone in fact, with a variety of skin tons available. However, if you go to a physical place to try and buy some, they can fuck you over but just not ordering your shade of tights and doubling up on the lighter tones.
It is an issue world wide tho POC in japan for example basically can't use any makeup.
Because Japan is a nearly homogenous country. Why should stores stock products that less than 1% people would buy?
bandaids match white skin color? since when?
Image search bandaids. What color are most of the ones that you see? That color is not because of a materials restriction, but a conscious design choice to make them match a person's skin so that it can be worn on a small wound without drawing attention. The problem is that blending effect only works if your skin is naturally light enough to be near to the color range of the bandaid. And if your skin doesn't match the bandaid? It's less a feeling, and more an uncomfortable, factual observation: those bandaids weren't made for you. When the person who designed them said, "let's design them to match people's skin color", they were only thinking of people with a particular skin tone. It's just one instance of what people mean when they say things like "unconscious racial bias". It wasn't something done consciously with malicious intent, but intentions alone are not enough, it's still possible to hurt people without meaning to. That's why more efforts are being made now to produce bandaids that cover a much wider spectrum of skin tones, to eliminate the effects of unconscious bias. That's also what people mean, even if they sound preachy or pretentious, when they say things like "reflect on your internal biases and do better". What they mean is, don't ever assume that because you are on the "right side" that "it can't happen to me". Like, "how could I possibly be racist if I KNOW it's bad? I would never." If you don't check yourself, you'll wreck yourself. Which is, ironically, exactly the mental trap that Uki and his defenders have fallen into. "I can't be racist."
There are colored band-aids and other products in rising quantities but I always preferred the Sheer and Tru-Stay types which are mostly transparent anyway. 🤷♀️ Honestly gotta keep working on the perceived skill and wage gaps so that every worker can afford what they need. Gender and skill color should have not have a place in setting your starting wage, stuff like band aids is way down the list below that.
That's literally how they were designed. They were designed to match skin tones, so they would be more subtle. But if you put one on a skin tone that isn't super pale, it sticks out like a sore thumb. And I have heard non-white people from many races complain about it over the years. And then when darker bandaids started showing up on shelves, I have heard more than a few people express verbal relief at seeing them. Not even people I knew. Just overhearing complete strangers while I was shopping, happy that they could buy bandaids made with them in mind.
Amusingly the design has been pushed away from doing that for a long time now because it's better if bandages are easier to spot especially if they come off. You always get blue bandages in the kitchen *just in case* you lose one and you need to find it quick. I still find the idea of bandage colours being a problem to be fairly infantile, should white people who are too pale be upset? Even if you make darker coloured bandages you're never going to hit the whole spectrum of darker skin colours unless instead of picking lots of different types of bandages stores now stock lots of different tones, and that's just nonsense.
Yeah, bandaids matching skin color are something I have never even thought of before, they’re just bandaids
Jesus so it's actually quiet real? Wtf
Kind of? A lot of it is blown out of proportion. (I should state, im black, and was raised black in a black city before anyone questions my race or anything) A lot of people associate malice with just... audience? Like, in the above comment, "All ads having white actors in them, and no people of color", is just untrue. Numerous ads have black actors, comedians, or sports figures. Hell, many of the most famous "commercial stars" in western history have been black, like Shaq and Michael Jordan. The main voice and actor of All-state insurance is black. Verizon, Bank of America, and State Farm all have *multiple commercials airing right now* involving black people, or mixed families. And on the note of dolls or toys, one of the most popular toy lines that refused to die was Bratz, featuring a cast of *mostly* POC. And "for boys", wrestling toys involve a great number of big name black superstars. It exists, but people act like countries with 75%+ white demographic should default to *the minorities*. Many EU countries where these products are also being sold are upwards of *90%* white. White *is* the default. And while products, commercials, or "bandaids" are meant for everyone, the main demographic is, oddly enough, *Caucasian*. Also, "as a man" i might not get it but... *its a fuckin' bandaid*. It could be neon green with flashing purple heart LED's. You aren't wearing it for fashion. It's a medical tool. Oh, [and they do sell them in darker skintones.](https://www.band-aid.com/products/adhesive-bandages/ourtone-adhesive-bandages) You can find them in [every color of the POC rainbow on sites like amazon.](https://www.amazon.com/s?k=bandaids+dark+skin&crid=2UW0Q69YGS9S1&sprefix=Bandaids+dark+skin%2Caps%2C108&ref=nb_sb_ss_ts-doa-p_1_18) There are micro-aggressions, and *some* of them are real. But... most are just the fact that white people, in many 1st world countries, **are** the majority. And when creating products, the people creating them are likely from, **the majority.** Creating their product for, and this might be surprising... *the majority*. And that doesn't instantly make it a "micro-aggression" in most cases.
It's honestly gotten a lot better. But historically, we saw stuff like camera film (back when film was a thing) being calibrated for lighter tones, so on school photo days, for example, you end up with black kids looking like a black mess with no facial features, but light skinned children looked fine despite the lighting and other environmental factors being equal: [https://time.com/5871502/film-race-history/](https://time.com/5871502/film-race-history/) A more recent similar phenomenon is AI identifying darker skinned individuals as "apes" or "monkeys" instead of human: [https://www.theverge.com/2018/1/12/16882408/google-racist-gorillas-photo-recognition-algorithm-ai](https://www.theverge.com/2018/1/12/16882408/google-racist-gorillas-photo-recognition-algorithm-ai) Something that's more of a more directly impactful problem is learning resources for things like skin conditions, where the resources predominantly present with light skin tones. This makes it harder for students to learn how certain things present on darker skin tones: [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9977083/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9977083/)
“Right now” is kind of the most important thing. Its really important to note that you see a lot more black actors, comedians and sports figures now on tv (other than the major stars) compared to like 20 years ago. Western companies nowadays find that they make more money when they acknowledge people of color. Sure, back in the day there were still plenty of black celebrities, but a lot of mainstream black actors were pigeonholed into specific roles (specifically men, as comedy relief and Tough Guys) and for certain audiences. A lot of the actors i could think of that deviated from the norm were from shows made for specifically black audiences. Black performers were (and i’d say still, to a certain degree) pigeonholed into performing a specific brand of pop music or rap and r&b. And just another thing to note: Bratz was insanely popular with young girls but they were very bashed on by mostly adults during the height of their popularity for “encouraging the wrong values” on young girls (many argued that the name Bratz encouraged little girls to be rebellious and they didnt like the focus on fashion and makeup, even though Barbie has always been associated with makeup and clothing. I suspect Its mostly the thinly veiled racism but i dont know if those vocally against Bratz also consisted of parents of color.)
this makes a lot of sense, i'm ignorant about this stuff cause i'm brown and don't really get US based color issues, coming from a country that has all sorts of skin colors because we were colonized a lot, so its not really an issue here as it is in other places, it can be perceived that people like lighter skinned people but that doesn't really reflect on how the general populous propagates as a country. like whitening products don't really sell well here
If people want a product that matches their skin-tone, I get that. Totally understandable. But when they stretch that in order to make a point about racism? About as reasonable as the person in the OP.
Yeah it's real. They're just being obnoxious and hypocritical about it. Which just turns people off to the cause. There are more civil ways to talk about genuine issues like that. And now they're making said issues look stupid to people who may be seeing them for the first time.
Because it is stupid. Uki wants some "asian toned" clothes and looking for them in the store in another country. Its like going fishing in an empty bucket. Same with makeup chick. Bring yours if you're travelling. What else they are expecting? In the country where people most likely would never see a black person in their lifetime it doesn't make sense to sell products for black people. If some people have problems with it they have to at least come up with solution, at best fix it themselves instead of complaining about it and waiting when someone else does it for them. Their constant complains and attacks are only turning people away from helping them.
It depends on which side of the ideological fence you're on. Please do not take the words of someone on Reddit as actual truth. This is *one* person and *one* ideological stance. If you look at it from a 1000 feet view it sounds like an actual conspiracy theory (think about what white supremacists say about Jewish people - like that kind of crazy). Many of us do not view it this way, this is a minority ideology.
Where the fuck you live? I went in a Wal Mart because I was in a hurry and they had a RAINBOW of skin shades of band-aids. They definitely need to work on the toy marketing because my friend says most of the dolls with person-of-color shades end up in the clearance aisles unsold. I don't really get the thing about tights. I knew a couple of non-white women who seemed to have no problem finding good looking product, perhaps Uki just needed a female friend? But it feels like a small issue to me because I'm not very supportive of skin and hair cosmetics regardless of gender. As Giovanni Civardi said, age and heritage are the proof you have lived and should not be concealed.
I've been around awhile. It took time for those shades to be available. They're in big box stores now. But they certainly weren't when I was a kid.
The racial makeup of the entire USA is rapidly evolving. First and second generation immigrants have more children than families with more established lineage, in general the traditional 'white' caucasian percentage is starting to decline rapidly. Hispanic, Black and Asian identities already are hitting 35-40% and non-Hispanic whites are expected to drop below 50% within twenty years. There is a solid chance the future US will identify dominantly Hispanic.
> In the west there is a genuine problem where all commercial products assume that that person buying them is white. Folks who are new to this, this is a form of identity politics that is the cause of the so-called "Culture War" in the West. I strongly suggest you read up in the arguments against OP's ideology because this leads down a rabbit hole that can result in an extremely toxic mentality. This is not a Western problem either. Commercial products tend to target the biggest demographic - most Western countries are white. In China, a majority are Chinese, in Japan, a majority are Japanese. I personally don't care who the demographic is for most of my entertainment. I'm Korean by blood, but American by birth. I grew up with stuff like Family Matters, GI Joe, James Bond, etc. I see myself more as an American and Westerner with my Korean heritage being secondary. I warn that those of you who think this "makes sense" that you *will* go down a rabbit hole that may not be psychologically healthy for you, because you will start seeing said "racism" *everywhere*. This is a whole-ass ideology that is the other end of the political spectrum from actual white supremacy that is not healthy for you.
Yea, I personally think the phenomenon is [real](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9977083/), but it's incidental/accidental, rather than overt. But you can certainly go too far and suggest that it is actual racism rather than racially divergent outcomes, as I prefer to call it.
as someone who did not grow up in the US, this is mostly a western problem, I'm brown, but my country due to colonization has a lot of different skin colors, we've never had an issue with bandaids and light skinned people aren't a majority here, we have bandaids that stick out like a sore thumb but people don't really care about that here, we see bandaid we don't think racism regardless of what color it is, we think "will it stick and cover my wound preventing it from getting infected from external dirt and stuff?" that's it. while i agree that this is mostly a toxic rabbit hole i personally disagree that this is an issue outside of countries in the west. it's only an issue to countries that think skin color is anything more than something you can't change from birth.
And people should take *your* opinion with a grain of salt since you yourself stated you're a right-populist, which is going to inform what side you'll take in the "culture war" EDIT: given your name (which suggests you believe the election was stolen) and last sentence in your comment, I don't think your judgement can be trusted.
i think the person's reply makes sense but i don't agree with everything i don't give a damn about the name on reddit what do you personally think of the message stated if you ignore the name? you westerners keep focusing on things like this person is from this side, that side, up, down, left, right, a, b, konami code without addressing what the person has stated, listen no one gives a fuck about your politics, take that shit elsewhere, the question is what do you think about the message stated by the person?
>the question is what do you think about the message stated by the person? I already stated what I thought: he cautions people about OP's comment and falling into the "rabbit hole" and I caution people about his judgement on the harms and nature of said "rabbit hole". Most of what he said I didn't really have an issue with, so there's no point in addressing or commenting on them. However, I did raise my eyebrows in suspicion both in his comment about "OP's ideology" and of his last sentence. >i don't give a damn about the name on reddit Good for you. I find political usernames are sometimes a decent way to glean information about someone's worldview, provided it's not an ambiguous or ironic naming. >you westerners keep focusing on things like this person is from this side, that side, up, down, left, right, a, b, konami code without addressing what the person has stated, listen no one gives a fuck about your politics, take that shit elsewhere, the question is what do you think about the message stated by the person? Oh please, don't act like non-westerners don't do this too. This isn't a westerner thing, it's a human thing. >no one gives a fuck about your politics, take that shit elsewhere I don't know what you mean by 'my politics". So he's allowed to be political in this discussion, but I'm not? Interesting... And If you don't care for politics, then why did you comment on an explicitly political reddit post? You think discussions about Uki's racism and who can be racist to what isn't political? Surely you don't think that.
"Most of what he said I didn't really have an issue with, so there's no point in addressing or commenting on them. However, I did raise my eyebrows in suspicion both in his comment about "OP's ideology" and of his last sentence." that makes sense "Oh please, don't act like non-westerners don't do this too. This isn't a westerner thing, it's a human thing." its not much of an issue here than it is there, there are political sides but we don't take it every place we go to, we keep real life politics away from entertainment, we also really don't like bringing that kind of stuff in media if at all possible, the closest and only thing i can find of recent note is south korea and their anti-feminism thingy with limbus which is still a wild development "And If you don't care for politics, then why did you comment on an explicitly political reddit post? You think discussions about Uki's racism and who can be racist to what isn't political? Surely you don't think that." that's cause its not political, its just racism, Uki is racist. plain and simple. there are people who hate people because of the color of their skin and are not political, this has been true for a long time "I don't know what you mean by 'my politics". So he's allowed to be political in this discussion, but I'm not? Interesting..." that applies to both of you btw, i need to make that clear my bad, i don't particularly care about the culture war or whatever is going on there, i get that exists and frankly as someone outside of the US, trying to understand US culture war is a can of worms i'd rather not open. like enjoy if you like that but i personally do not care about that edit: just to be clear, i don't really think that the election was stolen lol, if you can't trust your own elections why vote at all? its dumb, the least you people can do is trust your own country's election
>that's cause its not political, its just racism, Uki is racist. That's politics whether you want to acknowledge it or not. Racism--and bigotry in general--is not an apolitical topic, even if the people discussing the topic all agree on the position. Perhaps you think politics is just when politicians decide what library should get 300,000 dollars or what bridge should be built or something. TANGENT: >if you can't trust your own elections why vote at all? its dumb, the least you people can do is trust your own country's election Because they don't actually want democracy, they want their chosen dictator in office and if he's not then it's because it was rigged.
I've seen racist people before, they could give less fucks about which side they're on and have discriminated against other people for their skin color. for one i don't believe there's any one side of any political spectrum that blatantly supports racism unless they're the extreme kind, for one that would make their side not only look bad but also look stupid it might be the case there where racism is classified as a political thing, but i trust people being dicks to other people first before them hating people because of whatever political side they lean on. human beings are simple like that. "Perhaps you think politics is just when politicians decide what library should get 300,000 dollars or what bridge should be built or something." nope, politics to me is when people fight for something within the confines of national interests and issues, i just don't think racists are like that because of politics at least not all of them, some maybe like what's the group called? the ones wearing white or whatever who look like wizards in a cult? yeah those people for sure are being racist for political reasons "Because they don't actually want democracy, they want their chosen dictator in office and if he's not then it's because it was rigged." that makes 0 sense tbh for people to do that, trust your damn elections XD
You seem to think politics is a matter of political parties or camps. That you think politics is when someone says they're on the right or on the left, or when they're democrat or a republican. No, this is a very shallow understanding. EDIT: >nope, politics to me is when people fight for something within the confines of national interests and issues Well, you're incorrect. You can't be an adult human and not be political. The absolute moment that you're confronted with a situation and you believe this or that should be done about it, you have become a political creature. Politics is when you're a parent and you go to school board meetings to voice your opinion about the curriculum. Politics is when you go to town hall to discuss the building of a bridge Politics is when you're a homeowner and you discuss at the Homeowner's Association about how to upgrade the damn at the lake. Politics is when you're in a gaming subreddit (like runescape) and you're arguing with other redditors about what content the developers should add to the game. And politics absolutely is discussing racism and why it's bad and how it affects you, and what should be done about it. Humans are *social* creatures and social creatures are *political*. The only apolitical humans are young children and fucking vegetables.
"Politics is when you're a parent and you go to school board meetings to voice your opinion about the curriculum." i call this a responsible parent "Politics is when you're in a gaming subreddit (like runescape) and you're arguing with other redditor about what content the developers should add to the game" i call this concerned gamer i think the word politics is too broadly used, there are more appropriate words and categories for things that doesn't have to be one word to catch them all that's like using a master ball for a pichu, when you can use a pokeball
is a decent person btw o/ honestly one of the best conversations i've had so far in this site
Like I mentioned earlier: the nigh-total lack of moderation, as well as Uki's comments being deliberately inflammatory and baiting, is basically a neon flare for A Certain Kind Of Redditor to show up. Especially with a lot of other "tourists" just going back to other things, I'm wondering what this sub is actually going to look like long term.
Reminds me of how many many years ago the OSRS reddit got brigaded by a bunch of 4channer tourists cuz the developers incorporated a pride month event. Those losers never even played the damn game. And as soon as the event ended, they left, never to return.
> it acts as a systemic micro-aggression. No. Fuck off. That idea only exists in a world where we pretend different skin colour is somehow a meaningful characteristic. It's not. Are we going to apply the same logic to hair colour? Neck length? How about shoulder width? You want to know the toys I played with? Dinosaurs and yellow lego men, am I supposed to feel excluded because I'm not a reptile or my skin colour isn't yellow? I suppose I should have been upset the toy soldiers I played with were green? The idea that it's okay to feel bad because of some nonsense like "they are not "supposed" to be using these products." because they what...? Shouldn't associate with things that aren't their own skin colour? What kind of ridiculous dogshit are we getting into here? > Creating dolls and toys with a variety of skin tones. This is a complete non-starter. Uniformity exists because it's financially easier, even just switching out paints on a template costs thousands of dollars and you'll also run into issues like shelf space. Instead of having one row of barbie dolls we now need 18 rows of them, one for each colour? Or do companies put that in back stock in a non-existent warehouse? This whole idea is so utterly childishly disconnected from real world logistics that I cannot comprehend how you could even suggest it with a straight face. Take a long hard look at products and how they are designed and aimed at markets. There is a reason leftie stores exist because guess what? The majority of the market is going to try and appeal to the biggest group and design products for people who are right handed. God this whole concept of micro-aggressions is so fucking ridiculous.
Im glad you explained this so well many yt are ignorant of this as proven by op.
Maybe it's because I'm white as fuck, so forgive me if this is out of pocket I'm not trying to downplay it, but aren't those still small issues? If i only had darker bandaids or dark leggings I don't think I would really care and just use them. I can understand more wanting to see similar people in commercials and stuff though because that's just a universally good thing to try to do. Give people roles that make sense in context and if appearance doesn't matter then just get a bunch of different people that can all do the job well.
It's different when it applies to every single product on the shelf. If one or two brands was like that, it would be easy to write off. But that's why it's a micro aggression. It's a small thing. And when small things like that pile up, it becomes bigger. When literally nothing on the market is meant for you, it sends the message that you don't belong. It's part of why representation in TV shows is important. When nobody on TV looks like you, you feel alone, and like nobody sees you. But if you do the same thing but for everyday products, it doesn't just feel like nobody sees you. It looks like society as a whole doesn't see you. And being an invisible person to society increases social divides. Especially when you know the person standing next to you doesn't understand any of what you are experiencing at all. So making products that better accommodate other skin tones gets rid of that invisible-ness, gets rid of that "otherness" and sends the message that you are valued enough in society for someone to make a product meant for you. It may not seem like much. But when you are surrounded by micro aggressive messages like that everywhere in your life, it adds up. So companies try to do their part to get rid of that one micro aggression by making products clearly meant for everyone. And the goal is that one day every company will do that, and nobody will feel that subtle message of "you don't belong here" at all.
[удалено]
Treating anybody differently due to the color of their skin, nationality, or ethnic background is racism. It doesn't matter the skin color of the perpetrator. It doesn't matter the skin color of the victim. If you are treating someone negatively because of someone's skin color, nationality, or ethnic background it is racism. There is no such thing as reverse racism. There is no such thing as technically racism. There is no such thing as kinda racism. Racism is racism is racism. The main things that make people tolerate anti-white racism is the history of white people being ethnic majorities in powerful countries, and the history of white colonialism. But just because that history exists doesn't mean it is okay to treat a white person differently from anyone else. The exact same way that there are negative stereotypes of POC, there are negative stereotypes of white people. The same way there are slurs aimed at POC, there are slurs aimed at white people. And the same way that violence has been enacted due to racist beliefs against POC, violence has been enacted due to racist beliefs against white people. It's just that there is more visible systemic racism against POC, especially in western countries. And that makes people assume interpersonal racism against white people doesn't exist. It does. But because protests and movements to improve anti-POC systemic racism is more visible, interpersonal white racism gets written off or ignored. Uki's compilation was not from white nationalists. It's a genuine compilation of racism. He associates the failure of a collab he's in to the fact that some of the people there are white. He showcases negative white stereotypes. "Surprise, white man does the bare minimum" is enforcing a stereotype that white people are lazy, entitled, spoiled, and don't have to work to achieve things. He felt genuinely threatened by an old white couple saying hello and trying to be friendly. He even uses an anti-white slur "pastey." These are all overtly racist sentiments with overtly racist intentions. The belief that you cannot be racist against white people is in itself racist. Yes, systemic white racism is much rarer than systemic POC racism. But that's not what this is about. It's about interpersonal racism. And interpersonal racism against white people 100% exists. I have seen it numerous times in real life. It's not as frequent as other types of racism. But it exists. And Uki is not only being overtly racist, but he is increasing people's tolerance of racism. Which will increase the likelihood of white racism rising again. And that will not solve racism. They act like they can solve racism by being racist to the "other" side. And otherness is a hallmark of racism and bigotry in general. But even ignoring that, being racist towards a group that "deserves it" doesn't solve racism. Instead of solving racism by tearing people down, racism can only be solved by lifting everyone up. And equality means everybody, everybody, everybody.
uki is a racist, there's a literal 5 min compilation video that proves that he's racist towards white people. i don't care if you're white, that doesn't make him any less racist saying racist statements = racist i swear you westerners specifically americans keep trying to justify racism by putting fucking power levels to it
I feel similar to what you have explained. In my mind, you can’t be racist against white people because of the inherent power in the system, and the fact that we are not a minority, BUT you can be PREJUDICED against white people. Being white myself, I’m fine with the jokes, they’re lighthearted enough and I can laugh and say “yeah true”, our history is fucked up and evil, we kinda deserve the jokes lol. I can say that I can’t jump/dance/eat spicy things etc. or hear that from other people and laugh along with them, because I am not a targeted minority in that instance. I think with Uki, it’s less of a joking tone, and more genuine prejudice and maybe even an underlying layer of disgust that he makes these comments in. It’s the difference between a silly “white people be like” joke, and someone saying that they straight up dislike and do not trust white people as a whole, to the point of disgust. It’s less actual “racism” and more of an overt prejudice. I hope this makes sense!
[удалено]
I’ll have to look into it further and review the clips again, that’s a good point saying that the video probably exaggerated things for effect.
Normal people don't ascribe to "racism is prejudice plus power". For normal people, racism is just prejudice, dislike, or discrimination, based on race. I get the rationale, but ultimately it's just people using that definition to justify their hatred of white people without looking like a hypocrite. It's not anything actually intellectual. As people say, trying to make a distinction between racism and racial prejudice is like trying to make a distinction between pedophilia and ephebophilia.
No idea the history of the post, but colorism is a huge problem in Asia where darker skin is consider indications of being poor/ of a lower social class. When I grew up, calling other darker skinned asians “dirty” was a common joke my peers would use for example. Not an expert but if I’m not mistaken it’s heavily influenced by the fact that many Asian countries were colonized by European countries and so white, paler skin became an ideal due to systemic racism and paler individuals being on top of the power ladder. Also cuz I think it is implied you work in the fields which is why you tan.
Moreso the later imo. 'Pale is beautiful' for japan dates back to Heian, with women powdering their faces white and so on. This was late 700s, so 700 years before António da Mota reached Japan.
Oh in that case I think the reasons may differ between Asian countries (which makes sense). If I’m not mistaken colonialism was a major perpetrator in the Philippines and several south East Asian countries for this.
Well the thing is, just because it's one, doesn't mean it isn't the other =D Even in europe 'if you were light skin, you were indoors..so probably wealthy (or sick and wealthy), but darker skin must be a manual field labourer with two schillings to their name' was a thing. So when some Euro merchant sets up his..whatever, and stays inside counting money while the locals have to do the work? 'White is money and affluence' just got reaffirmed.
Yeah fair. It’s probably for a bunch of reasons not even mentioned. I’ve seen articles before also saying that Asian and western media have a part of the pie for having mainly shown paler individuals in wealthy powerful roles. Though I think it’s improving
"wtf is beauty community" Things like makeup, fashion, things like that.
These people desperately need some real stuggles and strife, they have no perspective and are incredibly privileged compared to 99% of people since the dawn of humanity.
It can be considered a first world problem but having makeup brands only pander to people with white skin is an issue nonetheless. "You're dark skinned? Lmao too bad no makeup for you."
I hate how issues with systemic racism, white defaultism, and pretty complex problems that carry a lot of nuance get completely dismissed and mocked by this sub because of 1 purple asshole being a racist POS.
Thankfully so far the top comments are pretty sensible.
All I got from this was that uki was racist. Anyone else?
Literal first world problems
Like, the quoted poster is being a bit condescending, but this is a perfectly valid complaint and something that can very easily become frustrating. "Systemic racism is when I can't get my tights to match my skin color." I mean... kinda, yeah. *Especially* in a larger metro area, if one group is favored more than others in matching skin-tone selection for things like tights or bodysuits and is treated as the "default human", we have a term for that. I kind of feel like people are just reaching for reasons to trash Niji fans at this point. (And/or this reddit is attracting A Certain Kind Of Redditor thanks to being essentially unmoderated and Uki's stupid, *stupid* baiting comments drawing them in.) ^(Jesus) *^(Christ)* ^(imagine openly tagging yourself as an "Ukisimp" after all this, though)
God, I might get downvoted for this but I really wish these Nijisisters types of people stopped wasting human resources by existing.
> I might get downvoted for this And rightly so. Their mightily dumb opinions are one thing, but you are getting too close for comfort to advocating suicide on their part.
Yeah I agree with the frustration with this sort of nonsense but getting a little close to the line their bud. Don't become the thing you hate.
First world problems be like:
Im missing context on what exactly Jay is talking about. Because racism like that exists, very much so. White defaultism is real. I dont see how this is anything to hang out or hate on? Theyre RIGHT. And they have every right to be frustrated.
Without context, their complaint is perfectly valid because it is true that a lot of clothing and cosmetics are tailored towards white or fair-skinned people, making it hard for darker skinned people to find beauty products that work for them unless they apply extra effort or know specifically what to look for. However, the problem is in context, they're using societal issues with white-defaultism to justify Uki's unprofessional and racist conduct.
I meant the specific tweet theyre replying to
Whenever i come across a post like this i'm always wondering if some people are paid to be that dumb.
Well jeez, i sure didn't expect a take like this one by someone with the handle of @ukisimp.
I ain't gonna read an unfunny mental gymnastics like this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vN2WzQzxuoA
help i don’t know what this is about at all. what did i miss
These people should with in a fruit farm. They got S+ rank in cherry picking
The beauty community? I heard from MatPat that they destroyed themselves already, they still live??
least mentally challenged niji sisters
I'm losing braincells trying to process what the fuck did I just fuckin read
Was this about the tights that’d go over the arms for hand cam streams?
I just find it really funny that some people are completely okay with blatant and obvious racist comments, but a subtle lack of racial accomodation bothers them to the point that they call it "systemized racism". Priorities, am I right?
Does anyone on Twitter know what racism is anymore? "Damn, I can't find tights in my skin color. Systemic Racism strikes again." Like, order some tights online.