Politics

Crybabies On The Internet Are Having A Sook Over Redskins And Chicos Changing Their Name

"The people who have angrily vowed to never to eat Redskins or Chicos again, are the exact same people who say the left are offended by everything."

red skins chicos nestle

If there’s one thing that crybabies on the internet feel most threatened by, it’s political correctness.

The thought of not having the freedom to be racist without being called out for being racist is a troubling concept for many, who prefer the golden age when blackface was laughed at and sexist jokes were applauded.

But things are changing as the world becoming less tolerant of this intolerance — and the latest casualty in the war against “PC culture” is Nestle.

Yesterday Nestle announced it will change the name of its Red Skins and Chicos lollies due to the racist connotations.

Redskin is a slur used to describe Native Americans, while chico is an offensive slang term for Latin Americans.

“This decision acknowledges the need to ensure that nothing we do marginalises our friends, neighbours and colleagues,” Nestle’s statement said.

“These names have overtones which are out of step with Nestle’s values, which are rooted in respect.”

It didn’t take long for whingers on the internet (who probably haven’t eaten a Chico in ten years, because they’re objectively terrible) to throw a tantrum.

Of course, the irony of people who take enjoyment from complaining about people getting offended by everything losing their minds over a lolly rebrand was totally lost on them.

Some people, anticipating the comments, also jumped in to take the piss.

But while changing the name of some Nestle products seems like a good PR move, people have also called out the brand for being performative.

Last year, Nestle said it may take years for them to eradicate child labour in their supply chain, despite pledging nearly 20 years ago to end the practice.

Also, yesterday Nestle also quietly dropped the news that they would no longer be using Fairtrade certification for its KitKat bars.

The Fairtrade Foundation protects producers in some of the world’s poorest countries by protecting workers’ rights, investing in community development, fostering sustainable farming, and guaranteeing them a fair price.

The charity said the decision to no longer buy Fairtrade cocoa and sugar for KitKats will mean a loss of £1.95 million (around $3.6 million) for around 27,000 producers in Côte d’Ivoire, Fiji and Malawi.

Nestle — the world’s biggest food company — will now source from farmers certified under the Rainforest Alliance.