I was home sick on Friday. So in my misery I decided to think up a ridiculous thing that mindless, brainless, zombie Liberals could be “offended” by that was utterly ludicrous.
I came up with White people getting a Tan.
And wouldn’t you know it, The Huffington Post obliged (several months ago apparently).
Swedish company Emmaatan came under fire on Friday for selling a dark-colored self-tanner called “Dark Chocolate,” after pictures were posted to its social media pages that featured white models with skin that appeared to mimic black skin. With other products that have names like “Caramel” and “Dark Ash Onyx,” some black people argued that Emmaatan was yet another example of white people appropriating black features.
The Owner of the Salon in Teen Vogue: “I’m a small tanning business in Sweden and I’ve been working with beauty for 2 years in August. I’m a hard working owner of emmaatan and love working with beauty cause I get to appreciate all types of looks and figures. I’m in [shock] for the response I’ve gotten and may have responded and commented the wrong way because I expect Ppl to know how Spraytan works . I’ve got a lot of feedback and mostly been called “black face” and racist. Ppl looks at my pic I’ve posted and without a blink assuming we desire to look black, I understand why it might seem that way and I apologise for the miss understanding,” Alm wrote.
“My color isn’t going for black it’s going for a natural golden tan when you wash it off. I never want my customers to look unnatural or too dark since we usually have a lighter skin tone . You also have to understand I have ppl with dark and pale skin tone and therefore look darker or lighter. I love all skin types and that’s why I think ppl should be able to choose for what they feel good in, as long as you respect ppl around you. I understand a lot of you don’t agree with the tan industry but I don’t want you to think we want to go for a crazy black tan, we don’t!”
In a statement posted by Emmaatan via their Instagram, the company’s owner Emma Patissier apologized for “the misunderstanding.” But she insisted that her products weren’t designed to mimic black skin, she wrote: “I never want my customers to look unnatural or to [sic] dark since we usually have a lighter skin tone.”
So in this case, because it’s the Leftist SJW whacko agenda, “intent” and “misunderstanding”is not good enough to get you off the hook with them.
“For those who were familiar with the hashtag used in the title, it was understood not to be literal,” writes Rose, reaffirming what he stated in his previous message to the public. “Nonetheless, the program should not have been so titled. Out of context, it is offensive and alarming. That was not the intent.”
Well, that’s ok, then, it’s not like you were spewing racist assumptions about white people.
Forgive and Forget when they say it. But when you do it, well, there is no forgiveness and they never forget. Funny how that works out. 🙂
So Let’s all get mad and upset about Tanning instead. Then we’ll move onto the next target of outrage.
Rose’s first statement said he had “no indication that this particular program was inconsistent with the respectful environment we hope to support and sustain,” adding that the hashtag is “commonly used ironically.”
Isn’t it ironic that they don’t understand irony? 🙂
But they can go banana fruit cake crazy about a Tanning!
Jessica (blackgirllonghair.com): [..] i think the fundamental issue here is that whiteness is a privilege and blackness is not. [..] This is black face. No matter how you spin it. This is bottled blackness, made for the appropriation of privileged white consumers.
This is why we have a Liberal Zombie Apocalypse in 2016.