ADDED: I ran across that by chance as I was researching the subject of anti-tattoo discrimination. On that topic, see:
"Should anti-tattoo discrimination be illegal?"
"Tattoos are sad and stupid – we should discriminate against people with them."
"Dear fellow tattooed people: Lighten up/Are you really surprised that some people don't like your ink?"
पोस्ट्स
३४ टिप्पण्या:
Sadly, most people think it's OK to sexually mutilate a newborn atheist boy but frown on tattoos for adults.
Tattoos are worthless. They are either property titles proving which Master owns the person[ or they are sad mistakes that make good looking people into ugly people.
"Should anti-tattoo discrimination be illegal?"
Of course. Subjects, er, I meant citizens, should have all their decisions pre-approved by some dweeb.
One of Kenneth Anger's books (Hollywood Babylon?) had a picture of Groucho Marx shirtless. He was very into tattoos. I couldn't find it online, though.
I think that what these parents did is touching, though. The symbolism is powerful, and I think will also be a great comfort to the girl as she grows up.
Anti-tattoo discrimination? Legal sanctions against that reflect fucked-up thinking. Society protects classes of people for things they can't help, like their race or gender or handicap. To give the same protections to people who mutilate themselves with tattoos incentivizes the practice.
The parents are goofy because that port wine stain can be erased with green laser light when she is a little molder but they will be stuck with their tattoos.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25624768
My objection to tattoos has less to do with the stratified stigma of class and taste as with my opinion that they are just plain ugly. I've yet to see one that improved the physical appearance of anyone.
My thoughts, too, Michael K.
With respect to incentivizing self-inflicted mutilation: I think sanctioning discrimination against transgendered persons is right at the margins of incentivization as well. And I think the soon-to-be-formerly Bruce Jenner is a case in point.
On one level, it's very touching that they did this; but on another level, it says more about their reaction to the birthmark. They must have thought it awful that she was born with a big birthmark on her leg. I wonder if their act of solidarity in the long run won't make her more ashamed of it than she might have otherwise been if they had just treated it as a normal part of her.
"One of Kenneth Anger's books (Hollywood Babylon?) had a picture of Groucho Marx shirtless. He was very into tattoos."
He had eyes that folks adore so and a torso even more so.
"On one level, it's very touching that they did this; but on another level, it says more about their reaction to the birthmark. They must have thought it awful that she was born with a big birthmark on her leg. I wonder if their act of solidarity in the long run won't make her more ashamed of it than she might have otherwise been if they had just treated it as a normal part of her."
I agree.
It's also incoherent to act like the birthmark is wonderful because it's "really, really unique" and then to make it less unique by copying it twice.
And does imitation like that really work? If, say, somebody has a speech impediment and you copy it, you'd be thought to be mocking that person. (Except for that lisping Spanish king business.... )
Ann- come on, at least post the link so the unenlightened can enjoy it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n4zRe_wvJw8
I have to work hard not to sing this song around the little Lydias I know. But if they ever get tattoos, they're fair game.
re Groucho's tats:
http://thailandgary.proboards.com/thread/8
Scroll down to the bottom of the page.
"He had eyes that folks adore so and a torso even more so."
Also his dick was reputed to be his best feature.
Tattoos are gross and a complete turn off. A woman with a tattoo might as well have a penis as far as I am concerned.
In the current age of people being told to report everything about child abuse and the color of a port-wine tattoo, some of those extendedly staring at the daughter were probably thinking the child had been bruised on her leg in some way. So I suppose matching tats on mom and dad -- if they're wearing short pants -- would be a way to at least discourage that assumption, if not the staring.
(As for Groucho, he really liked to sing "Lydia the Tattooed Lady" from "At The Circus", more than just about any of the other songs done for him in the Marx Brothers' movies. Having them himself might explain why.)
Sadly, most people think it's OK to sexually mutilate a newborn atheist boy but frown on tattoos for adults.
Sometimes a hernia surgery is just a hernia surgery.
Bellyaching caused it, and more bellyaching ain't gonna fix it.
Should we discriminate against those born with the Mark of the Beast?
sydney said...
On one level, it's very touching that they did this; but on another level, it says more about their reaction to the birthmark. They must have thought it awful that she was born with a big birthmark on her leg. I wonder if their act of solidarity in the long run won't make her more ashamed of it than she might have otherwise been if they had just treated it as a normal part of her.
I was born before this new "tolerant" age we're in now, back when kids could tease other kids, I have a big birthmark on my leg. I doubt my parents ever had any thought besides "hmm, a big birthmark." It's probably the thing I was teased the least about.
I think the parents' hearts are in the right place, and port wine stains may be treatable with laser, but this is not a sure-fire treatment- thus the daughter may well have this as permanent feature for some time into the future.
As for tattoos in general, I have never understood the need to get them.
"port wine stains may be treatable with laser,"
Treated early the results are good.
"Tattoos are sad and stupid – we should discriminate against people with them."
May be you are discriminating against "sad and stupid" people. That ought to be illegal.
Tattoo-bigot, "sad and stupid" people have a right to wear their "sad and stupid" as a badge of honor. We must enact affirmative action to make sure "sad and stupid" people are adequately represented in each organization.
Tattoos are really weird.
20-30 years ago, they were a sign of deliberately declaring that you didn't subscribe to social norms, and that you didn't CARE about subscibing to social norms.
They marked you as a rebel, so people treated you as a rebel-- they didn't want to hire you if you had obvious tattoos. Not because TATTOOS are bad, but because rebels are bad employees in most industries.
Now the millennials want to brand themselves as rebels, but freak out when people make hiring decisions based on their loud declarations of 'rebellion.' Of course.... if everybody is a rebel, then maybe only those un-tattooed squares are actually rebellious,..
If she was born with a facial birthmark, would they have matched it?
I've never even found a bumper sticker I like so much I put it on my vehicle. Too permanent. So, for me, tattoos? Nope.
I sometimes think we don't see as many birthmarks as we used to. Is that possible? I have one on my back that I go long periods of time without thinking about. I would be horrified if my parents got birthmark tattoos in solidarity.
I also have a tattoo on my arm that I often go long periods of time without thinking about.
Brother and Sister In Law were Body Artists.
SIL, in thanks for a good turn I did her, did ink me in a discreet place, as she understood the stigma.
I keep it hidden, and treasure it, as she's no longer Here. Honestly liked her.
My little brother used to call me Square, because I didn't let my 'freak flag fly' so much as he did his.
My response was that one can best Subvert the System if one Knows the System, and can blend in with it.
I do think that tattoos are mostly stupid, and, yes, from a very classist point of view. I would question hiring anyone who had noticeable tattoos, with some exception - most notably, I am fine with military tattoos.
I was interested in talking recently with someone who had recently entered the prison system. They were undergoing classification, which was lengthy because the charges they had been convicted of suggested gang affiliation. Gang tattoos apparently automatically get inmates at least medium security. Gang tattoos that include marks showing killings automatically get maximum security (one of their cousins was in maximum thanks to tattoos of a couple tear drops). At the prison that we visited recently, the guards photograph tattoos, and then periodically strip search those with them to make sure that they aren't being added to in prison - which is the sort of thing that gets you moved up in severity, and loses good time.
If everyone these days is getting tattoos, then aren't those not doing it the real freaks?
I find tattoos distracting and uninteresting. I think it's a shame that beautiful women will cover themselves in tattoos.
I suspect that tattoos are an attempt to label oneself as an outsider, free and brave. Unfortunately, they mostly come across as weird and ugly.
But on the scale of things that bother me, tats barely register. People do stupid things all the time.
My granddaughter was born with a large, brown, raised birthmark on her right calf. Her parents had it removed when she was quite young. There was some slight scarring.
She's grown up into a tall, good-looking woman with a minor mark on her leg. Maybe she'll get a tat to cover it.
Sounds like the parents did something to make themselves feel better about their daughter's minor imperfection.
It doesn't register on my outrage-o-meter.
"We must enact affirmative action to make sure "sad and stupid" people are adequately represented in each organization."
I guarantee that goal has already been achieved
Quantus tremor est futurus,
Quando Judex est venturus,
Cuncta stricte discussurus!
(Oh. Different judge.)
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा