Sometimes, there's a kernel of truth to these Halloween costume outrage stories. Sometimes, a deeper racism or sexism or -ism is revealed in a costume. It doesn't mean that being a moral scold online will ever change those costumes, but sometimes there is a reason for the pushback. In this case, the outrage is so incoherent I literally cannot understand it in the slightest. I think people have just gone mad and want to troll one another to the point of extinction, because if this costume is racist, the implications are dire and absurd. British comedian David Williams dressed up in this costume for Halloween, of Kim Jong-un: [[twitterwidget||https://twitter.com/davidwalliams/status/925471774493560833]] Because Twitter is an adult daycare for people with nothing to do, plenty of people called out the costume as a spearhead of racism in the world today. [[twitterwidget||https://twitter.com/edknock/status/925475942780293120]] [[twitterwidget||https://twitter.com/chrishop/status/925479021110005760]] Of course, nobody thinks about these issues for more than five seconds. It's a knee-jerk reaction, until the next issue, then the next, then the next. Try asking anyone outraged about this about the topic in a few months. If they still remember at all, it'll be a miracle. Here's the thing: if it's racist to simply dress up as someone of a different race, then you're advocating for segregation. Your ideas don't make sense. You are saying that white people can only dress up as other white people, as a foolish article argued last week about kids dressing up as Disney's Moana. The argument goes that white kids dressing up as characters of color is offensive. But this argument is bad. It is the most basic, aimless understanding of cultural appropriation possible. The argument can only lead to racial segregation, where any image/outfit/object/idea invented by an Asian person is only for Asian people, and so on, and so on. I'm not going to pretend it's coherent, because it isn't. It's the astrology of politics. Some claim that Williams was using 'yellow face' or makeup, but that's highly subjective. Of course if you're rich and famous you may use make-up to make your costume more convincing. That's not the same as becoming a racial caricature. He still looks white as hell. He is pale. He is white. If you think white people should only dress up as white characters, black people should only dress up as black characters, and Asians only dress up as Asian characters, I can't help you. That idea of racial segregation as a substitute for legitimate understanding between cultures is just absurd. Because Kim Jong-un is Asian, a white person can't dress up as him? Why? Who is it offending? Do people on Twitter really speak for the Asian race? I think it's absurd to think that a few people with Twitter followers are capable of speaking for North Koreans and their offense levels at this depiction of the dear leader. I think that if Halloween costumes are a central facet of what's oppressing you, then it's time to go pick up a new set of issues. You only stand to comfort a small sect of very sensitive millennials on Halloween, not much of a social service.

It's a sad fact that black Americans are forced to put up with an unwarranted amount of discrimination and abuse in their day-to-day lives, and talk to any minority in the United States, and you're sure to hear more than a few anecdotes from them about the racist treatment they've endured at the hands of bigots. Even members of the police force are not immune to this kind of harassment.

Indeed, I've never been in a position where someone has attacked me because of the colour of my skin or my ethnic background - however, I can imagine that it must be pretty aggravating for those who have to put up with it. I'm not sure that I wouldn't fly off the handle completely were I a person of colour, and it's damn hard to keep your composure when you're being called every name under the sun with a few slurs thrown in for good measure. That's what makes this next example of stoicism and dignity under pressure so impressive.

[[twitterwidget||https://twitter.com/_SJPeace_/status/1040605672948330496]]

The video, which was posted by Twitter user StanceGrounded, shows a man handcuffed on the ground, possibly in a state of intoxication, shouting a torrent of racist abuse at a black female police officer, who is pacing around the man with a colleague and waiting for backup.

StanceGrounded was impressed by the officer's poker face and dignity, and took a video of the incident (which apparently occurred in Brooklyn) and uploaded it to Twitter on Friday, September 14, where it quickly went viral. StanceGrounded captioned the video: "Watch this racist white man repeatedly call this black female police officer the N-word trying to invoke a reaction. She stands unfazed and unbothered. What a QUEEN! ... If the roles were reversed, a person of colour wouldn't live. I salute her patience."

However, not all the commenters were so impressed with StanceGrounded's moniker, with one Twitter-user named Hannah Drake stating: "You really believe she is unfazed and unbothered? You think that didn’t cut into the core of her being? You think she didn’t go home and reflect on that? You think she didn’t question her job and why she puts up with this? The problem is, you believe she is unbothered."

[[twitterwidget||https://twitter.com/slss1419/status/1040636399324684288]]

She added: "As a Black woman I can guarantee she isn’t unfazed and unbothered. But she is doing her job as best she knows how because she has worked for her position because she has to put food on the table, because she knows Black women can’t just “go off” without consequences ... If this is what it takes to be labelled a queen then I don’t want it and I dare say she would reject that crown if it’s connected to this incident."

It is currently unknown who the police officer in question is, or the identity of the man committing the hate crime. However, the nameless cop stands as symbol of the continuing oppression faced by black Americans, as well as of an ideal member of the police.

Megan Fox has been hit with a wave of backlash after some fans were left furious due to her "insensitive" Halloween costume.

Halloween is the time of year when celebrities treat us to their weird and wonderful costumes, and some are much better than others.

Heidi Klum usually wins the best costume of the year away - which isn't real and I just made it up, but she deserves it.

But this year, 37-year-old Megan Fox is under fire from her fans for her latest Instagram post featuring a striking Halloween costume inspired by Quentin Tarantino's Kill Bill: Vol. 1.

The actress, who donned the iconic Gogo Yubari outfit, shared the controversial photo alongside her boyfriend, rapper Machine Gun Kelly, causing quite a stir among her followers.

What makes this costume choice particularly contentious is Fox's brazen decision to tag the official page of the Screen Actors Guild‐American Federation of Television and Radio Artists (SAG-AFTRA) in her post.

The pair defied the request of SAG-AFTRA. Credit: Matt Winkelmeyer/Getty

The timing of her gesture is noteworthy, as it coincides with an ongoing strike by members of the performers' union, who have been advocating for better wages, job stability, and control over AI use in the entertainment industry since July 14.

SAG-AFTRA recently issued guidelines for actors participating in the strike, instructing them to refrain from dressing up as characters from struck works, including popular movies and TV shows, and posting such photos on social media during the Halloween season. Fox's costume and her decision to ignore these directives have ignited a fiery backlash from her fans.

Safe to say, people were not happy with Megan's choice of costume, as one person wrote: "You look amazing but i wish you didn’t post this. I totally understand if you disagree with sag and want to voice that privately / to your inner circle, but using your massive platform to undermine the union and sow seeds of division in an incredibly public way does nothing but hurt our leverage."

A second said: "Why is she being defiant to a group that's literally fighting for her to make a fair wage?

While a third added: "Yes girl give it to your union trying to get better wages and benefits for lesser known people than [you]!"

This isn't the first time that Megan's Halloween costumes have caused controversy, as last year she and MGK decided to dress up in costumes that "mocked" the Catholic faith.

The pair donned a Roman Catholic-inspired ensemble that left many viewers divided. MGK wore striking black and red priest's robes, while Megan was in latex lingerie, fishnet tights, and even wore a chain leash.

Fox captioned the eyebrow-raising post, "On Sunday's we take communion," along with a picture of herself kneeling as MGK feeds her a communion wafer. The couple also shared a video showcasing their matching outfits, with MGK captioning it, "God bless you."

Safe to say, the pair aren't shy when it comes to Halloween.

Featured image credit: Matt Winkelmeyer/Getty

Halloween is supposed to be a time when people explore their creative side and wow us all with their cool costumes, but there are some people who take it too far. Halloween is supposed to be scary and spooky, not bigoted and offensive. Sadly, not everyone seems to get that, and racist costumes are apparently still a thing, even in 2018.

If you want an example of this kind of controversy then look no further than the case of nurse Shelbi Elliott-Heenan. Elliott-Heenan, who hails from Kansas City, Missouri nurse, shocked and appalled social media users this week with her racist Beyonce costume, in which she and her partner appeared at a party wearing blackface.

Elliott-Heenan worked at Saint Luke’s East Hospital in Lee’s Summit, and after the pictures of her offensive Halloween outfit, and her friend's equally-racist Jay-Z outfit, were made public, she was summarily fired from her position. The pictures were first noticed by Facebook-user Lynese Sade, who immediately complained to the hospital about the images. Elliott-Heenan's contract was terminated shortly afterwards.

[[imagecaption|| Credit: Facebook]]

Commenting on the incident, Laurel Gifford, senior director of media relations for Saint Luke’s, stated: "Information was shared with appropriate health system personnel and an investigation was initiated immediately ... While it is against Saint Luke’s policy to comment on specific personnel matters, we can confirm that this individual is no longer a Saint Luke’s employee. Saint Luke’s is deeply committed to our culture of diversity and inclusion. It is fundamental to who we are as an organization and we vigorously protect it on behalf of all our patients and employees and expect those who represent us to do the same."

Social media users didn't mince words when it came to condemning Elliott-Heenan's costume. On Facebook-user wrote; "Play stupid games. Win stupid prizes.  If she doesn’t have the common sense to know that blackface is racist, how can she be trusted to treat each patient equally?  Don’t do Blackface. And if you have to (and you really shouldn’t) at least be smart enough to NOT TAKE A PICTURE AND POST IT ON YOUR OWN PAGE!!!! [sic]"

[[twitterwidget||https://twitter.com/capricecorbett/status/1057699568182353921]]

However, some people went so far as to defend the couple's choice of costume. One disgruntled commenter wrote: "Maybe Beyoncé was one of her favourite peeps. Wow. This world is so sad So white people can only dress like white people. Black people only like black people. Where does it stop?"

Recently, a white man in the United Kingdom who was dressed as the character of Jules Winnfield, was also shamed for wearing blackface on public transport. Blackface has a long history as a cultural practice in the western world, and was used to perpetuate stereotypes about Afro-Carribean people. Guys, seriously I don't think this is a particularly complex issue: blackface clearly makes people uncomfortable and upset, so just don't do it, okay?

Urban Outfitters is one of those love-it-or-hate-it brands. Row upon row of floaty dresses, baggy jumpers and too-cool-for-school 90s throwback gear, they’ve certainly got a talent for making you either feel down with the kids or judged by the kids. But this high-street hipster haven has one other very special talent: an incredible knack for offending people. So just who have Urban Outfitters upset over the years? You might want to sit down for this, it's a pretty long list.

Massacre victims

You know what’s cooler than cool? It’s paying $129 for a faux blood-spattered vintage-style jumper, referencing a notorious shooting of unarmed college students by the national guard, in which four people were killed, one person left paralysed and a further eight injured. In response to criticism, Urban Outfitters put out a (fairly weak) statement saying that any resemblance was unintentional: "It was never our intention to allude to the tragic events that took place at Kent State in 1970 and we are extremely saddened that this item was perceived as such", going on to claim that the colour was due to sun fading and the red stains (on every single jumper) were due to de-colourisation. Of course they were. 

[[twitterwidget||https://twitter.com/cjzanoni/status/511375170045362176]]

Holocaust victims

In 2015, Urban Outfitters found themselves in trouble for selling a tapestry that bore more than a passing resemblance to the outfit that gay male prisoners were forced to wear at concentration camps. Featuring white and blue stripes overlaid with a pink triangle, it was criticised by groups including Holocaust survivors as being insensitive and of bad taste: "Whether intentional or not, this gray and white striped pattern and pink triangle combination is deeply offensive and should not be mainstreamed into popular culture," said Abraham H. Foxman, National Director of the Anti-Defamation League. 

[[twitterwidget||https://twitter.com/businessinsider/status/566599086984658945]]

Gay people

In 2008, with California's debate on same-sex marriage reaching fever pitch, Urban Outfitters took the decision to pull a t-shirt reading: "I Support Same-Sex Marriage" within a week of it going on sale. You'd think that given that their biggest spending age group is young people aged between 18 to 24, usually a pretty liberal group, there wouldn't have really been a problem with it, but "too much bad press" was the reason given for its removal. However, not everyone is convinced this is quite the truth; Urban Outfitters’ CEO Richard Hayne has always avoided talking about his own views of homosexuality when pressed, but did donate over $14,000 to the notoriously anti-gay senator Rick Santorum.  

Parents

Urban Outfitters have a pretty strong track record for upsetting parents, repeatedly selling teen-targeted clothing - their second biggest market is under 18s - covered in swear words, and promoting drinking and casual sex. Their "I Drink You're Cute" and "USA Drinking Team" tees were also reportedly modelled by under 21s. Another "punk as f**k" t-shirt and sticker range was quietly removed from sale on their website after complaints from parents.

African Americans

Allow me to present "Ghettopoly": a version of Monopoly centred around stereotypes of ghetto life. Its mascot was a gun toting, weed smoking, soda chugging black guy, wearing a chunky gold chain and a headband; its "properties" included Harlem, the Bronx, a gun shop. Apparently not derogatory enough, Chance cards include: "You got da whole neighbourhood addicted to crack, collect $50."  Although Urban Outfitters wasn't the only place you could buy it, they were the only major retailer to sell it and promptly stopped after a barrage of criticism in the USA. [caption id="attachment_47175" align="aligncenter" width="1024"] Credit: Flickr/ Paladin27[/caption]

A 15-year-old girl

Not only did Urban Outfitters use a provocative image of a then 15-year-old model Hailey Clauson, legs spread on the back of a motorbike, on one of their t-shirts, they did so without her permission. After her and her parents took both the photographer and Urban Outfitters to court, to the tune of $28 million, the clothing company eventually settled out of court for an undisclosed sum of money. But seriously, would you want to parade around with an underage child with her legs akimbo on a t-shirt? Not cool. We've left the photo out, for obvious reasons.

Mexicans

Managing to insult a group of people is one thing; managing to insult an entire country? That's some next level stuff. But that's exactly what Urban Outfitters did when they released a t-shirt reading: "New Mexico, Cleaner than Regular Mexico". I can imagine  Trump's already got his order in. 

Jewish people

A few years back, UO released a t-shirt reading "Everyone loves a Jewish girl" surrounded by pictures of shopping bags and dollar signs, and playing on the derogatory stereotype of the Jewish American princess. If that wasn't bad enough, you should also take a second to digest the idea that they also produced another t-shirt with a blue Star of David above the left breast, on a yellow background, which many said mimicked the symbolism of the holocaust. Nothing says edgy like racial stereotypes and Nazi references.  

[[twitterwidget||https://twitter.com/lane_bh/status/891357214467919878]]

The Navajo Nation

Cultural appropriate has become a hot topic in the last few years, which might go some way to explain why Urban Outfitters finally agreed to settle out of court with the Navajo Nation in November 2016 after fighting a trademark lawsuit against them for almost four years. The Nation took exception to the fashion chain's use of their name in promoting of a line of generic patterned items including the "Navajo hipster panties" and the "Navajo print flask", commenting that: "These and the dozens of other tacky products you are currently selling referencing Native America make a mockery of our identity and unique cultures."

[[twitterwidget||https://twitter.com/indiancountry/status/802248079105736704]]

People with mental health issues 

I'll leave it up to you to decide which one of these is worse: the tee that promotes eating disorders or the one that uses depression as a fashion statement? After an outpouring of public outrage to the depression shirt, including a change.org petition, the shop pulled it from shelves. As for the "eat less" tee, modelled by a woman who is quite clearly borderline underweight - well, seven years later people are still talking about it on social media.

[[twitterwidget||https://twitter.com/EndBullyinNow/status/419933201352495104]]

So is it all a ploy to keep people talking about them in the cut-throat fast fashion world? Well, it’s hard to imagine you can create a replica Holocaust tapestry and not expect some kind of backlash. And, as if by clockwork, this seems to happen every couple of years. So the chances are that yes, they probably know exactly what they're doing. As the saying goes, being talked about is better than not being talked about. But that in itself is a pretty damning indictment of how this oh-so-cool store matches up with the supposedly young and liberal values of those who spend their cash there. Maybe someone should tell them that you can be edgy without being dicks?