Is Ireland's fake tan use problematic?

The decline of Irish journalism from a variety of different reporting styles and perspectives into a kind of cultural leftist-neoliberal synthesis, with its own boilerplate vocabulary, has made individual journalists generic and replacable.

Activist-journalists believe they can roll over any political opposition by presenting their shared social evaluations as a 'consensus'. They do this deniably and so never reckon honestly with their own unpopularity and fading circulation - blaming this solely on technology.

Apart from that, the future society they desire is clearly one composed entirely of bureaucratic, technocratic and commercial relationships only with zero interference from nationality, religion or any kind of non-controlled culture or opinion.

See Stephen Collins telling off the President for questioning globalist neoliberal materialism, complete with waffle about how any deviation from this trend is a return to all the worst aspects of the 1950s. Note the reliance on political cliché and the refusal to even think about the possibility of organic communitarian ideals separately from the specific difficulties and social environment of 70 years ago.

Agree, seems to me that the priveledged white male is one of the only class of person not offended or outraged about tripe said or written about them at this stage. Or more to the point they are not allowed to be so. Me thinks the State should fund free assertiveness classes for the rest to make them more resilient in the face of normal life's adversities

Any sun tan apparently is bad for your skin. So if it avoids people sitting in sun to get a sun tan the invention is helpful. Personally I dont find it attractive at all. Not asmuch as i find those fake lips that make you thinks that their ex was Mike Tyson. Do any people find them attractive??? And what is also with people putting so.much filters on social media pics that they look like zombies. I dont get all this.

IT journalism is going down hill if they are trying to imply only women use fake than or sun beds. Why couldn't the journalist say "people who use fake tan" rather than "women who use fake tan"

As far as I am aware, fake tan is temporary and harmless to both the wearer and the viewer.

If it makes people happy, let them get on with it.

It's a complete red herring. Journalists are almost certainly using the likes of chatgpt to write the outlines of their articles at a minimum and then building from there.

The problem isn't the AI, but that the IT saw fit to publish an opinion piece that at its heart was an absurd argument. Secondly that they didn't perform any checks on the author. A Gmail address was enough. Its the most basic stuff really and would make you wonder what other standards have been let slide. Do they verify sources? Is what they publish factually correct? Can the paper be trusted?

Exactly, the IT will present this as "an attack on press freedom by the far right" - there have already been several of the usual suspects on this thread pushing that angle.

That's can be literally said about a great number of social norms...

Like having to wear a suit at a wedding, women having to wear high heels, women having to wear makeup...all of this is pushed for a number of reasons...

Also would the ‘journalist’ have been paid? Are people paid for opinion pieces. If so, any idea how much?

I've just written a script outline for the next Martin McDonagh film with the help of AI and inspiration from fake tan and Gabriel Garcia Marquez.

Once upon a time, there was a small village in rural Ireland where the people had pale skin that glowed like moonlight in the mist. They were proud of their heritage, their customs, and their unique beauty.

One day, a traveling merchant arrived in the village with a bottle of magical elixir. The elixir promised to darken the skin and make the villagers look like they had spent long days in the sun. The villagers were curious, and some of them were tempted by the possibility of a new look.

At first, the villagers were cautious, applying only a small amount of the elixir to their skin. But as they saw the effects on their friends and neighbors, they began to use more and more, until their skin was a deep, unnatural shade of orange.

As the villagers paraded through the streets, showing off their new look, they began to notice that some of the neighboring villages were looking at them strangely. They felt a sense of discomfort, as if they had crossed some invisible line.

As the days went by, the villagers began to realize that they had made a mistake. They had been so focused on changing their appearance that they had lost touch with their roots and their cultural heritage. They had forgotten that their pale skin was a symbol of their history, their struggles, and their resilience.

Worse still, they began to see that their use of the magical elixir was seen as a form of cultural appropriation by some of the neighboring villages. They were accused of trying to appropriate the look of other cultures and races, and of perpetuating harmful stereotypes.

The villagers were shocked and ashamed. They realized that they had made a serious mistake, and that their actions had consequences beyond their own village. They vowed to return to their roots, to embrace their heritage, and to never forget the lessons they had learned.

And so, the village returned to its peaceful ways, and the villagers learned that true beauty comes from within, from embracing who you are and where you come from, and from respecting the cultures and traditions of others.

People who live and work outdoors have been dying of skin cancers for many many years . It is among one of the cancers that reduced life expectancy for many working people in the past .

Long before sun factor protection was invented or thought of.

Women and men who worked in the fields or on boats wore head cloths that covered their necks , widebrimmed hats and long sleeved shirts . However these were the people who were most at risk of developing skin cancers . Not the more wealthy.

Nobody fashionable tried to 'get a tan ' before the 1920s when Coco Chanel and the likes made it popular.

It was considered uncouth and low class before that.

It then became a sign of affluence that you could afford to go to foreign climes and get a tan , and keep it year round if possible .

Yes , people ate liver and offal if they could get it . But rickets was endemic in people who could not afford to eat well ..this is disease from lack of vitamin D .

AI is just figuring out what YouTube grifters and shock jocks have been doing for years. Publish some makey uppy bollocks with a healthy dose of strawman nonsense and get the simple minded all riled up and pissing and moaning about "tHe lEft" and (I can't believe I'm about to say this) "Communism".

CAPTAIN'S LOG:

It must have happened, but I can't remember when. But I've somehow landed on Clownworld. I need to find out where I parked the spaceship and get the fuck off of this planet as quickly as possible.

Y2K only wasn't a disaster because massive amounts of money and massive amounts of effort were put in to ensuring it wasn't.

Had people taken the approach that it was going to be a non-issue, rather disasterous things were going to happen. Maybe not aircraft out of the sky, but you were going to have powerplant shutdowns, banks incapable of operating and so on.

First signs that Y2K was going to be an issue were US banks unable to issue new 25 year mortgages in January 1975 as the loan maturity date was now January 1900. It was known to be an utter disaster if not sorted; so it was sorted.

So this wasn't simply just a case of the Irish times making a fool of themselves, but in fact, an elaborate ploy (worth losing their reputation over) to get clicks from....the alt right.

Sure, keep telling yourselves that.

Would have been funnier if the "writer" was named Adrianna Ignacio-Boteres.