26 ms·
You should read the entire article. The author discusses how pushing products meant for white skin towards dark skinned people despite negative detriment is com
by devmor 4y ago
You should read the entire article. The author discusses how pushing products meant for white skin towards dark skinned people despite negative detriment is common.
That is racism.
- kortilla 4y agoUnless they are being targeted, it’s absolutely not racism.
- throwawayboise 4y agoLots of products target particular races. It's only racism if it's motivated by hate, bias, a desire to cause harm, etc.
- hgomersall 4y agoNo, we can have racist policies. No value judgement is necessarily implied but they should be dealt with.
- chmod600 4y agoIt sounds more like they just want to sell more sunscreen. They don't really care what color your skin is as long as money is changing hands. Nothing racist about that. And doctors don't want to differentiate because it's safer to just say "sure, wear sunscreen all day and wear a helmet too, in case you get hit by a meteor". Nobody will blame a doctor for repeating the currently-accepted dogma. Maybe they'll blame sunscreen companies in ten years, but not the doctor.
- devmor 4y agoIf they are aware that doing so is putting people with darker skin at mortal risk, it's racism.
- mod 4y agoI disagree. Highly immoral, but not racism. Could possibly be racially motivated, but greed seems likelier.
- Jommi 4y agoYou realize both can be true right? The can want to sell more suncreen, and the way they are achieving that might be racist. These two are not mutually-exclusive.
- chmod600 4y agoBut in the absence of evidence that corroborates the claim of racism, it's mere speculation. Particularly here, where the alternative action (not recommending sunscreen for dark-skinned people) could also be seen as racist, it seems unfair to claim one way or the other.
- 10amxn10 4y ago