The rise of the indelibly-illustrated everyman(standpointmag.co.uk)
standpointmag.co.uk
The rise of the indelibly-illustrated everyman
https://standpointmag.co.uk/issues/june-2019/the-rise-of-the-indelibly-illustrated-everyman/
67 comments
fun fact: the name Britain comes from 'painted people' or 'tattooed people' given by Ceasar as he descended upon the UK: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Britain_(place_name).
That author is just not aware of his heritage.
That author is just not aware of his heritage.
Hey now I was just complaining when I'm unexpectedly getting something interesting back :-)
Do we know how they painted themselves back then?
Do we know how they painted themselves back then?
Half-face painted blue?
Is that a joke? I don't know enough about the topic.
https://www.bing.com/images/search?q=mel+gibson+face+half+bl...
Braveheart was (loosely) based on real events.
Braveheart was (loosely) based on real events.
Very loosely - some names were shared and that's about it. One of the most historically inaccurate films of all time, and completely mutilates Wallace's memory. There's an extensive inaccuracy section on Wikipedia. I wouldn't dare mention it to my Scottish friends. :)
Your link indicates that it predates Caesar by a good while.
Yes this author makes a poor case against tatoos; so I will try to make one:
Tattoos are bad because: 1. Needles 2. Infection 3. It doesn't just "wipe off". 4. Needles
Tattoos are bad because: 1. Needles 2. Infection 3. It doesn't just "wipe off". 4. Needles
1. They don't reuse the needles 2. Not common these days 3. Feature, not a bug 4. Again...
It was obvious that tattooing was undergoing a change: it was becoming professional and increasingly skilled. The increasing skill of it appalled me, for what should not be done at all is all the worse for being done well.
Well, fuck you too, friend!
We've found ink on the bodies of priests, shamans, warriors and kings going back as far as there have been humans. Both sexes. Nearly any culture you'd care to name.
Why the visceral hate?
Well, fuck you too, friend!
We've found ink on the bodies of priests, shamans, warriors and kings going back as far as there have been humans. Both sexes. Nearly any culture you'd care to name.
Why the visceral hate?
Pretty typical for Standpoint. It's a Britsh, culturally conservative magazine, so the default position you might expect is that anything that Her Majesty wouldn't approve of is morally abhorrent
While Standpoint is culturally conservative, the way you've worded it implies that because it is British it necessarily mean that it is culturally conservative. A version of this could equally have appeared in a publication from any English speaking nation.
However, the author -- Theodore Dalrymple (not his real name) -- is a particularly interesting character.
He is almost exclusively pessimistic about humanity, with a particular dislike of anyone less fortunate than himself. He seems to believe that everyone ends up in life where they deserve, taking to an extreme the idea of personal responsibility, and draws on his experience as a prison doctor to try to excuse his writing career of finding ever new ways to look down on others.
However, the author -- Theodore Dalrymple (not his real name) -- is a particularly interesting character.
He is almost exclusively pessimistic about humanity, with a particular dislike of anyone less fortunate than himself. He seems to believe that everyone ends up in life where they deserve, taking to an extreme the idea of personal responsibility, and draws on his experience as a prison doctor to try to excuse his writing career of finding ever new ways to look down on others.
To support your point, here's the wikipedia article about him: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodore_Dalrymple
> Regarding his pseudonym "Theodore Dalrymple", he wrote that he "chose a name that sounded suitably dyspeptic, that of a gouty old man looking out of the window of his London club, port in hand, lamenting the degenerating state of the world"
> Regarding his pseudonym "Theodore Dalrymple", he wrote that he "chose a name that sounded suitably dyspeptic, that of a gouty old man looking out of the window of his London club, port in hand, lamenting the degenerating state of the world"
Not sure why you’re being downvoted, I see no misinformation here.
> He seems to believe that everyone ends up in life where they deserve
This is posed as a bad thing, but there are lots of people on this site who tell themselves this very thing.
This is posed as a bad thing, but there are lots of people on this site who tell themselves this very thing.
Then I very much hope they do indeed get what they deserve.
A world where everybody gets what they deserve is a just world - is that so bad?
I'd say that depends very much on who decides who deserves what.
Justice is inherently malleable and subjective. It's a thing we humans (as a society) decide to do to one another. As far as I can tell, it tends to lag the scales we're operating at.
Justice is inherently malleable and subjective. It's a thing we humans (as a society) decide to do to one another. As far as I can tell, it tends to lag the scales we're operating at.
I'm assuming it would happen automatically - i.e. people would be judged by all-knowing and impartial external parties (angels, aliens etc.) - otherwise of course it cannot happen, i.e. of course people alone can never implement true justice.
As for defining what is just - this is obviously a huge subject studied by philosophers - but I'm assuming that, if we had these all-knowing judges, they could just assess (by scanning thoughts of people) how hard everybody is trying to do good to others. And this way, we would be living in a just world. To repeat my question - would that be so bad?
As for defining what is just - this is obviously a huge subject studied by philosophers - but I'm assuming that, if we had these all-knowing judges, they could just assess (by scanning thoughts of people) how hard everybody is trying to do good to others. And this way, we would be living in a just world. To repeat my question - would that be so bad?
Yes.
King Harold II of England had a number of tattoos. After his death at the Battle of Hastings in 1066, his tattoos were used to identify his body.
and more here - https://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/nigelfarndale...
and more here - https://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/nigelfarndale...
https://www.tattooarchive.com/history/queen_victoria.php
Edward VII was inked up, with his mother's approval. If it's good enough for the son of Victoria, it should be fine, even for the prudes.
Edward VII was inked up, with his mother's approval. If it's good enough for the son of Victoria, it should be fine, even for the prudes.
To be perfectly frank: it is our right to be put off by tattoos and the motivations behind them, just as it is your right to have them. Mewling that you are "hated" for your tattoos really just satisfies many of us that you got your tattoo to seem cool, and now you're pouting that most of us don't find you cool.
You assume i have ink. Interesting.
My point is that it has never been the case that “tattoos are just for scum”, and that the author of this piece is woefully and intentionally unaware of history and culture, even inside the upper crust of his own british milieu.
My point is that it has never been the case that “tattoos are just for scum”, and that the author of this piece is woefully and intentionally unaware of history and culture, even inside the upper crust of his own british milieu.
There's a huge difference between:
1. Not liking something
and
2. Going out of your way to write a long article detailing all the shortcomings of those that partake in the thing you don't like.
Of course you have the right to dislike tattoos, but that doesn't give anyone the right to tell someone they suck for something they chose because they like it.
1. Not liking something
and
2. Going out of your way to write a long article detailing all the shortcomings of those that partake in the thing you don't like.
Of course you have the right to dislike tattoos, but that doesn't give anyone the right to tell someone they suck for something they chose because they like it.
> 2. Going out of your way to write a long article detailing all the shortcomings of those that partake in the thing you don't like.
For those able to put words in order that article would take 15 minutes to write and 5 to proof read.
>Of course you have the right to dislike tattoos, but that doesn't give anyone the right to tell someone they suck for something they chose because they like it.
What would you do if the author tattooed that piece on themselves? You now can't tell them they are wrong for hating people with tattoos because it's a tattoo.
For those able to put words in order that article would take 15 minutes to write and 5 to proof read.
>Of course you have the right to dislike tattoos, but that doesn't give anyone the right to tell someone they suck for something they chose because they like it.
What would you do if the author tattooed that piece on themselves? You now can't tell them they are wrong for hating people with tattoos because it's a tattoo.
Lol, if the author tattoos themselves, it changes nothing. That would be equivalent to someone chopping off their own limb, getting a prosthesis, and then (being a mental giant that can put words in order) penning an article in 15 minutes (proof reading it for 5 minutes, of course) about why disabled folks shouldn't get prosthesis titled, "the hubris of man".
At the end of the day, keep your opinions about what other people do to/for themselves to yourself ... it's as simple as that. And when you choose to exercise your right to share that unrequested opinion, don't be alarmed when you get a middle finger in your face.
At the end of the day, keep your opinions about what other people do to/for themselves to yourself ... it's as simple as that. And when you choose to exercise your right to share that unrequested opinion, don't be alarmed when you get a middle finger in your face.
> Well, fuck you too, friend!
> Why the visceral hate?
Pot, kettle.
> Why the visceral hate?
Pot, kettle.
Not at all. Its an unprovoked insult versus the retaliation.
Everyone seems negative about this article but it struck a chord with me. Particularly:
>> It seems obvious to me that if a person feels he has to tattoo himself in order to “express” his difference from others, he must have some difficulty in individuating himself, perhaps indicative (when this difficulty is on a mass scale, as it clearly is) of an individualistic society without individuals.
Young people are almost always the ones who get tattoos. I think because they want to define themselves. One problem is that it is a pretty superficial way to do it. I never thought someone was thoughtful, artistic, caring.. etc. because of their tattoo. The other problem is that you often outgrow how you see yourself as a teen. There is something to be said for being comfortable in your own skin.
But hey-- if you have a tattoo I have no problem with that.
>> It seems obvious to me that if a person feels he has to tattoo himself in order to “express” his difference from others, he must have some difficulty in individuating himself, perhaps indicative (when this difficulty is on a mass scale, as it clearly is) of an individualistic society without individuals.
Young people are almost always the ones who get tattoos. I think because they want to define themselves. One problem is that it is a pretty superficial way to do it. I never thought someone was thoughtful, artistic, caring.. etc. because of their tattoo. The other problem is that you often outgrow how you see yourself as a teen. There is something to be said for being comfortable in your own skin.
But hey-- if you have a tattoo I have no problem with that.
> Young people are almost always the ones who get tattoos. I think because they want to define themselves.
Wait until all the old people have tattoos, young people won't tattoo.
My father told me that old guys wore one earpiece when he was little (Milan area, Italy). It took 100 years to become acceptable again. Women had two and still have.
Wait until all the old people have tattoos, young people won't tattoo.
My father told me that old guys wore one earpiece when he was little (Milan area, Italy). It took 100 years to become acceptable again. Women had two and still have.
I got my first and only (so far) tattoo at 45. I did not do so to express my difference from others, and do not have difficulty individuating myself. Nor do I care about individuating myself.
It took until I was 45 to decide on something I wanted to keep on my body forever.
It took until I was 45 to decide on something I wanted to keep on my body forever.
I got a bunch when I was 18-21 and it was for exactly that reason, confusing time, trying to find acceptance and identity etc.
I am in my 30s now and don’t regret them but would never get a public facing one again. Private/easy to cover ones I still consider though, modern humans rarely recieve scars or injuries to mark our life experiences, but we still suffer and go through transformative events. I do like tattoos as reminders of these times, even if the content of the tattoo is unrelated to the event.
I am in my 30s now and don’t regret them but would never get a public facing one again. Private/easy to cover ones I still consider though, modern humans rarely recieve scars or injuries to mark our life experiences, but we still suffer and go through transformative events. I do like tattoos as reminders of these times, even if the content of the tattoo is unrelated to the event.
I got mine when I was 19, I haven't for a moment regretted it (20 years later) as it serves as both an anchor point in time and maturity, these days I wouldn't get a tattoo* but young me absolutely would, in that sense it's a visible reminder that I grow.
* - The one thing I'd consider is "Vincit qui patitur" across my back over my spine - it translates as "he conquers who endures" and given my spine is trying to kill me it seems apropos.
* - The one thing I'd consider is "Vincit qui patitur" across my back over my spine - it translates as "he conquers who endures" and given my spine is trying to kill me it seems apropos.
>if you have a tattoo I have no problem with that.
You literally said there were 2 problems, even using the word problem, with having tattoos in your previous paragraph. It's ok to have an opinion, you don't have to add in this shit to try and make people feel better or to make you seem worldly, open, or woke.
You literally said there were 2 problems, even using the word problem, with having tattoos in your previous paragraph. It's ok to have an opinion, you don't have to add in this shit to try and make people feel better or to make you seem worldly, open, or woke.
I meant I have a problem with tattoos for me. Not everyone agrees with me and I am often wrong about things and change my mind. So while I have my own opinions about tattoos I don't hold it against someone who disagrees.
The author needs to maybe get over it? He goes through the typical complaints.
>They think that by having themselves tattooed they are shocking the bourgeoisie à la Baudelaire; and in so far as their parents don’t like it, and are in effect silencing them by a fait accompli of which it is useless for them to complain, they are exercising power over them.
>It seems obvious to me that if a person feels he has to tattoo himself in order to “express” his difference from others, he must have some difficulty in individuating himself, perhaps indicative (when this difficulty is on a mass scale, as it clearly is) of an individualistic society without individuals.
But in large part people get tattoos because they like them, nothing much more than that. It's just a skin mod, not a big deal, not worth wringing hands over.
It sure is nice that people don't usually get beaten up anymore for having weird hair or modifications.
>They think that by having themselves tattooed they are shocking the bourgeoisie à la Baudelaire; and in so far as their parents don’t like it, and are in effect silencing them by a fait accompli of which it is useless for them to complain, they are exercising power over them.
>It seems obvious to me that if a person feels he has to tattoo himself in order to “express” his difference from others, he must have some difficulty in individuating himself, perhaps indicative (when this difficulty is on a mass scale, as it clearly is) of an individualistic society without individuals.
But in large part people get tattoos because they like them, nothing much more than that. It's just a skin mod, not a big deal, not worth wringing hands over.
It sure is nice that people don't usually get beaten up anymore for having weird hair or modifications.
> What has also struck me about this modern fashion (which goes along with that for self-mutilation by piercing) is that it is almost free of any kind of criticism: on the contrary, there is an almost obsequious acceptance of it, as if to say that you found it aesthetically hideous and deeply savage were to declare yourself an Enemy of the People. ...
Trends with little to no mainstream opposition are fascinating. I'm thinking of things like smoking, disco, the real estate bubble, the dot com bubble, and hairbands. Suddenly, everywhere you look it's been normalized. Given enough time, they're all repudiated - strongly and viscerally.
I wonder if the tattoo will join their ranks.
Trends with little to no mainstream opposition are fascinating. I'm thinking of things like smoking, disco, the real estate bubble, the dot com bubble, and hairbands. Suddenly, everywhere you look it's been normalized. Given enough time, they're all repudiated - strongly and viscerally.
I wonder if the tattoo will join their ranks.
For health reasons if nothing else. Everything foreign that people have put in their bodies which isn't food or drink turns out to be poison over a long enough time frame.
The thing that strikes me about these decline narratives is that they seem unwilling to give even the slightest inch to the "other side". Has the author really never seen (in this case) a beautiful tattoo? Nor asked other people to show them their favorites, or to explain it to them so that they might see as well?
I'm pretty sure there is no tattoo that will be perceived as beautiful by mom. Some people only see the deformation of the skin under it. Some of them can even be found right here in the comments.
Hey fellow hackers, I think you need to work on your sense of humor.
As someone who is inked, I not only found this hilarious, but interesting and well-written, and the author actually has experience with prison tattoos, which makes him more expert than 99% of us, easily.
Also, this may shock you, but I'm going to go out on a limb and agree with the author that your tattoo is neither original nor cool, so if that's what you find offensive then you've totally missed the point!
As someone who is inked, I not only found this hilarious, but interesting and well-written, and the author actually has experience with prison tattoos, which makes him more expert than 99% of us, easily.
Also, this may shock you, but I'm going to go out on a limb and agree with the author that your tattoo is neither original nor cool, so if that's what you find offensive then you've totally missed the point!
The whole thing hinged on the two points that the author doesn't like it and that people who do it are boring, predictable individualist-consumerists. These are not points that needed making with me.
So at the end when the author smugly predicts the tattooed masses how it will look bad with age, should I chuckle at the commonplace that people look worse with age?
There was just nothing in there for me.
So at the end when the author smugly predicts the tattooed masses how it will look bad with age, should I chuckle at the commonplace that people look worse with age?
There was just nothing in there for me.
>> "These are not points that needed making with me."
I'm genuinely interested in what you mean by this. Like, you think that it's false, or you take umbrage to it being brought up?
>> "There was just nothing in there for me"
I'm guessing this is emphasis on the above point.
>> "should I chuckle at the commonplace that people look worse with age?"
No, and if you think he's making a trivially true comment then you're missing a subtler point. Anyone with a nice tattoo will lament the fact that it will fade, it will lose crisp lines, and it will look bad over time.
That's why for nice pieces touchups are necessary, but you have a limited number of those.
I'm genuinely interested in what you mean by this. Like, you think that it's false, or you take umbrage to it being brought up?
>> "There was just nothing in there for me"
I'm guessing this is emphasis on the above point.
>> "should I chuckle at the commonplace that people look worse with age?"
No, and if you think he's making a trivially true comment then you're missing a subtler point. Anyone with a nice tattoo will lament the fact that it will fade, it will lose crisp lines, and it will look bad over time.
That's why for nice pieces touchups are necessary, but you have a limited number of those.
> Like, you think that it's false, or you take umbrage to it being brought up?
Neither. I'm just not interested in unsubstantiated personal opinions. So the author doesn't like tattoos but decided to write an article anyway? Why? That people are generally shallow is an observation that can be made about a number of topics and I don't see what is gained when singling out tattooed people. Subcultures do tend to look ridiculous to the outsider.
The fact that people get tattoos to look nice in the eyes of other people who appreciate it was not discussed seriously in what feels like willful ignorance on part of the author. Or in the words of a tattooed friend: "People with a stick up their ass do tend to leave you alone once you've got your face done."
> Anyone with a nice tattoo will lament the fact that it will fade, it will lose crisp lines, and it will look bad over time.
That's not a novel observation for me. What's subtle or funny about it? "Look at these people. They think they have a nice tattoo but watch them in twenty years!" (I know it's not funny anymore once it's bluntly stated anyway, but I'm having trouble understanding how the original can be considered funny.)
Neither. I'm just not interested in unsubstantiated personal opinions. So the author doesn't like tattoos but decided to write an article anyway? Why? That people are generally shallow is an observation that can be made about a number of topics and I don't see what is gained when singling out tattooed people. Subcultures do tend to look ridiculous to the outsider.
The fact that people get tattoos to look nice in the eyes of other people who appreciate it was not discussed seriously in what feels like willful ignorance on part of the author. Or in the words of a tattooed friend: "People with a stick up their ass do tend to leave you alone once you've got your face done."
> Anyone with a nice tattoo will lament the fact that it will fade, it will lose crisp lines, and it will look bad over time.
That's not a novel observation for me. What's subtle or funny about it? "Look at these people. They think they have a nice tattoo but watch them in twenty years!" (I know it's not funny anymore once it's bluntly stated anyway, but I'm having trouble understanding how the original can be considered funny.)
Okay, before I continue this conversation further I just want to note that I understand your concern for the optics of an educated doctor appearing to condescend to a large group of young people, but I think yes, he does have much more insight than the average person on tattoos, and I think it's made in jest with a little cultural misunderstanding on humor.
I have a tattoo but I acknowledge I'm not an expert. I did take a class on the psychological and social constructs behind body modifications and clothing, but most people with strong opinions on a subject believe their factual knowledge is "above average," including myself. In return, I'd like you to consider the limits of your knowledge on the topic as well.
Okay, so continuing...
>> Neither. I'm just not interested in unsubstantiated personal opinions. So the author doesn't like tattoos but decided to write an article anyway?
I'm just going to restate the first sentence of the essay here: "When I started as a prison doctor in 1990, I was both fascinated and horrified by the tattoos inscribed on the skins of the prisoners." I'd say he's more than qualified to write an op-ed on this topic. This is also not a scientific topic, so if you're looking for facts, then yes it's not the right article.
On the other hand, I think you've pointed out your chief objection clearly: People should not write about topics they don't have nice things to say about. I think this is the implicit position people take, and I appreciate you being explicit about it. As a matter of principle, I don't just disagree, but disagree very strongly with this statement.
>> That's not a novel observation for me. What's subtle or funny about it?
Ask anyone with tattoos, and while everyone "knows" that tattoos fade, it's much different when it's your tattoo. Tattoos are consistently listed at the top of the list of regrets young people make, that's a fact. I don't think it's obvious to a lot of them how it's going to look later, even really nice, expensive pieces. And that's what he's noting there. It's not just aging, it's fading and bleeding of colors. Ink on skin does not age the same way as on other media, and I seriously doubt anyone without a piece or working with clients can actually can predict what the tattoo will look like ten to twenty years later.
I have a tattoo but I acknowledge I'm not an expert. I did take a class on the psychological and social constructs behind body modifications and clothing, but most people with strong opinions on a subject believe their factual knowledge is "above average," including myself. In return, I'd like you to consider the limits of your knowledge on the topic as well.
Okay, so continuing...
>> Neither. I'm just not interested in unsubstantiated personal opinions. So the author doesn't like tattoos but decided to write an article anyway?
I'm just going to restate the first sentence of the essay here: "When I started as a prison doctor in 1990, I was both fascinated and horrified by the tattoos inscribed on the skins of the prisoners." I'd say he's more than qualified to write an op-ed on this topic. This is also not a scientific topic, so if you're looking for facts, then yes it's not the right article.
On the other hand, I think you've pointed out your chief objection clearly: People should not write about topics they don't have nice things to say about. I think this is the implicit position people take, and I appreciate you being explicit about it. As a matter of principle, I don't just disagree, but disagree very strongly with this statement.
>> That's not a novel observation for me. What's subtle or funny about it?
Ask anyone with tattoos, and while everyone "knows" that tattoos fade, it's much different when it's your tattoo. Tattoos are consistently listed at the top of the list of regrets young people make, that's a fact. I don't think it's obvious to a lot of them how it's going to look later, even really nice, expensive pieces. And that's what he's noting there. It's not just aging, it's fading and bleeding of colors. Ink on skin does not age the same way as on other media, and I seriously doubt anyone without a piece or working with clients can actually can predict what the tattoo will look like ten to twenty years later.
> In return, I'd like you to consider the limits of your knowledge on the topic as well.
I don't think I understand much about tattooing at all.
> I'd say he's more than qualified to write an op-ed on this topic.
Why are we dwelling on that? I assumed we are in agreement about it.
> This is also not a scientific topic, so if you're looking for facts, then yes it's not the right article.
It could have been. It started out interesting enough. I'm deploring the wasted opportunity.
> On the other hand, I think you've pointed out your chief objection clearly: People should not write about topics they don't have nice things to say about. I think this is the implicit position people take, and I appreciate you being explicit about it.
Wait. Please rein in your presumptions. I asked why and nothing more. Had the author argued their position then that could have been interesting. Sadly the article was just a collection of general observations mixed with the distaste of the author. There wasn't much to object to except for the unsubstantiated opinions sprinkled about.
I don't even disagree much with the author!
> I don't think it's obvious to a lot of them how it's going to look later, even really nice, expensive pieces. And that's what he's noting there.
In a useless way: "for there is only one thing more pitiful than a tattoo on young skin, and that is a tattoo on old skin."
Such was the depth of the article!
I don't think I understand much about tattooing at all.
> I'd say he's more than qualified to write an op-ed on this topic.
Why are we dwelling on that? I assumed we are in agreement about it.
> This is also not a scientific topic, so if you're looking for facts, then yes it's not the right article.
It could have been. It started out interesting enough. I'm deploring the wasted opportunity.
> On the other hand, I think you've pointed out your chief objection clearly: People should not write about topics they don't have nice things to say about. I think this is the implicit position people take, and I appreciate you being explicit about it.
Wait. Please rein in your presumptions. I asked why and nothing more. Had the author argued their position then that could have been interesting. Sadly the article was just a collection of general observations mixed with the distaste of the author. There wasn't much to object to except for the unsubstantiated opinions sprinkled about.
I don't even disagree much with the author!
> I don't think it's obvious to a lot of them how it's going to look later, even really nice, expensive pieces. And that's what he's noting there.
In a useless way: "for there is only one thing more pitiful than a tattoo on young skin, and that is a tattoo on old skin."
Such was the depth of the article!
>> So the author doesn't like tattoos but decided to write an article anyway? Why?
>> Wait. Please rein in your presumptions. I asked why and nothing more.
Unless your writing tends to be very tangential, or you are only using conjunctions for stylistic purposes, it's hard for me to read this and not take the position that you are asking for some kind of justification.
Specifically: "You do Z, but you do X, why?" In my very limited world, this construct implies there is a disconnect (or more rather, some connection that needs clarification) between the two. The implication is that Z and X held together create a tension in your world that needs resolution.
Perhaps that can be considered presumptuous, but if that is considered presumption then I don't think I'll be able to correctly interpret your position without a lot more syntactic clarification.
No harm done, and I'm sure we find much more agreement elsewhere. Besides, this is hardly the best thing I've read all year; I just found it funny and somewhat interesting, and I thought I found some negative pattern in the comments that would stifle otherwise interesting conversation. But perhaps the poster and I just have poor taste of cheeky humor and this doesn't belong here! That's possible too. Cheers.
>> Wait. Please rein in your presumptions. I asked why and nothing more.
Unless your writing tends to be very tangential, or you are only using conjunctions for stylistic purposes, it's hard for me to read this and not take the position that you are asking for some kind of justification.
Specifically: "You do Z, but you do X, why?" In my very limited world, this construct implies there is a disconnect (or more rather, some connection that needs clarification) between the two. The implication is that Z and X held together create a tension in your world that needs resolution.
Perhaps that can be considered presumptuous, but if that is considered presumption then I don't think I'll be able to correctly interpret your position without a lot more syntactic clarification.
No harm done, and I'm sure we find much more agreement elsewhere. Besides, this is hardly the best thing I've read all year; I just found it funny and somewhat interesting, and I thought I found some negative pattern in the comments that would stifle otherwise interesting conversation. But perhaps the poster and I just have poor taste of cheeky humor and this doesn't belong here! That's possible too. Cheers.
> it's hard for me to read this and not take the position that you are asking for some kind of justification. [...] The implication is that Z and X held together create a tension in your world that needs resolution.
The article failed me. I wanted to know what the author's reasons are. But I was left hanging with only witty comments for the rest of the article. It turned out I was not justified in reading the whole. I feel I was tricked into reading dross.
The article failed me. I wanted to know what the author's reasons are. But I was left hanging with only witty comments for the rest of the article. It turned out I was not justified in reading the whole. I feel I was tricked into reading dross.
I see. In that case we'll chalk it up to his "self-expression." Maybe the only difference between him and his subject matter is the medium on which the ink is laid! Lol.
I'm not inked at all, but I watched a friend get inked to commemorate a friend of his who committed suicide. I think that's extremely cool. :)
This guy's gotta be a hit at parties
I find this article hilarious. Everything is from the author's perspective with very little (none?) from that of a person with a tattoo. As if the author couldn't fathom the idea of asking what someone actually thought and instead goes into wild speculation of their motivations.
The author has no problem making general statements about the motivation of the tattooed but then finds the idea that there is a community or shared way of thinking that binds them inconceivable.
The amount of time and effort people put in to not understanding but still disliking things that don't effect them has always and continues to blow my mind...
The author has no problem making general statements about the motivation of the tattooed but then finds the idea that there is a community or shared way of thinking that binds them inconceivable.
The amount of time and effort people put in to not understanding but still disliking things that don't effect them has always and continues to blow my mind...
>The amount of time and effort people put in to not understanding but still disliking things that don't effect them has always and continues to blow my mind...
It's easier if you categorize it a little bit. I put this type of rhetoric/conversation under "commiseration". Humans tend to get social validation and dopamine hits when their views and opinions are validated. It's much easier to find common ground with people on things you dislike. I really suggest people examine their relationships with the friends and people they keep around them and try to inventory how many of those relationships are based on commiseration, talking shit about people or things. I then suggest you stop spending social energy with those people. IMO, it has been better for my mental health to be alone than to be with commiserators. It's even better when you're able to connect with people and share revelry.
It's easier if you categorize it a little bit. I put this type of rhetoric/conversation under "commiseration". Humans tend to get social validation and dopamine hits when their views and opinions are validated. It's much easier to find common ground with people on things you dislike. I really suggest people examine their relationships with the friends and people they keep around them and try to inventory how many of those relationships are based on commiseration, talking shit about people or things. I then suggest you stop spending social energy with those people. IMO, it has been better for my mental health to be alone than to be with commiserators. It's even better when you're able to connect with people and share revelry.
> The amount of time and effort people put in to not understanding but still disliking things that don't effect them has always and continues to blow my mind...
this
this
All in all this is pretty hilarious and funny, however
>More recently, in what is no doubt a manifestation of the desire to fit in with the majority, even dark-skinned minorities, whose epidermis is unsuited to tattooing, are having themselves tattooed in ever-larger numbers.
smells a bit racist and ignorant to me, I mean, tattoos are part of African tribes culture for at least few millennia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_tattooing#North_Afr...
>More recently, in what is no doubt a manifestation of the desire to fit in with the majority, even dark-skinned minorities, whose epidermis is unsuited to tattooing, are having themselves tattooed in ever-larger numbers.
smells a bit racist and ignorant to me, I mean, tattoos are part of African tribes culture for at least few millennia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_tattooing#North_Afr...
No, I think stating that dark on dark is hard to see is just stating facts. As a former tattoo artist, I can tell you that the more pale, the better the tattoo and especially colors show up.
But comparing modern men to tribesmen, that might be a little...
But comparing modern men to tribesmen, that might be a little...
>I think stating that dark on dark is hard to see is just stating facts. As a former tattoo artist, I can tell you that the more pale, the better the tattoo and especially colors show up.
Well, obviously, but this is slightly different in content than "unsuited to tattooing", which is false as the rich history of African tattoos shows, and very different in connotation, which was my point.
> But comparing modern men to tribesmen
I didn't make any comparison.
Well, obviously, but this is slightly different in content than "unsuited to tattooing", which is false as the rich history of African tattoos shows, and very different in connotation, which was my point.
> But comparing modern men to tribesmen
I didn't make any comparison.
Also, the whole thesis of the article is that tattooing is a symptom of some societal problem, so naming that cause as "a manifestation of the desire to fit in with ... dark-skinned minorities" seems to imply that wanting to be like black people is wrong somehow.
I find the whole idea of tattoo repulsive, ugly and uncool. I am also perplexed that people would spend their time on getting it. As if they have nothing better to do.
"I am also perplexed that people would spend their time on getting it. As if they have nothing better to do."
Have you considered sitting down and asking them, with an open heart and mind?
Have you considered sitting down and asking them, with an open heart and mind?
Sorry, but for me tatooed body is ugly. I don't see any difference between tattoos and graffiti. There is no art in graffiti, not Banksy not anybody else. (Sorry, he is cool but I don't see a revolutionary art in Banksy. He is not even close to Basquiat or Warhol.)
There is no art or prettiness in tattoos.
There is no art or prettiness in tattoos.
Like deriding irrelevant things on the internet?
I was wondering when we'd get to the part where the author explains why tattooing is bad. Turns out there's no reason against tattooing except cultural premises as far as the article is concerned. Also people who get tattoos have a personality problem according to the author.
If you want to feel smug about not having a tattoo this piece provides!