Comment on For all you inked people
Dyskolos@lemmy.zip 1 day agoI would actually not care or measure that into my judgment. At one particular time in their life, this felt like a great idea to them. We didn’t live their life, we can’t know. It might even make up for a great story to tell.
And on top of that: I see no difference to make-up, except it’s permanent. Women paint their faces like they’re applying to Clowns college and noone bats an eye. A nice face-tattoo is just more plainly identifieable as paint than good good makeup.
Not talking about a swastika or other stupid messages of course. If you portrait stupid messages I’m forced to deduct you’re stupid.
Make up not being permanent is a big reason why it’s perfectly OK to use it even if you look like a clown. I’m a dude and occasionally use make up at certain parties.
You seem to agree with me that face tattoos are a terrible idea, but you empathise with their idiot younger selves. I get it, and probably IRL I would not be so merciless. But I prefer that my kids know that face tattoos are a terrible idea even if some people will show them some sympathy.
I prefer that my kids know that face tattoos are a terrible idea…
Ever heard of a cyclical issue? Basically, you believe that people will think less of them for having face tattoos because you think less of people with face tattoos. You’re perpetuating the intolerance that you fear your kids would face.
Tattoos don’t mean that you’re stupid, especially not in today’s world where tattoo removal is increasingly available to the laymen. What do you gain by judging people in that way? Just more reason to feel better than them?
Can’t see the forest for the trees.
I wouldn’t say they’re a terrible idea. Except maybe you’d want to work one of those boring ass jobs where a stick up your arse is a requirement. Like accountant, salesman or bank-clerk.
But besides your own consequences in this world for having makeup or face-tats, I couldn’t care less. You’re not defined by the clothes you wear, the money in your accounts, the color of your skin, nor the paint you put on that. Permanent or not. Unless, as said, the message is obvious (swastika et al) and hence more judge-able. You’re defined by your actions. The facetat-dude could be the loveliest dude ever, while the suit could be the worst kid-beater.
What I would do is having a prejudgment maybe. But that is just by looking at you and has no intrinsic value at all, until you proove me right or wrong. Just a first impression.
I would (and actually do) hire anyone for anything if they prove to be good people (and obviously abled for the job). Heck, I have one dude managing a branch that is covered in tats (face too), wears some rock- or punk whatever outfit, is a harley-biker with rings heavier than my watch and looks like 3 angry people melted into one big SOB 😁… And is one of the kindest persons I’ve ever met who helps everyone and works his free time in a soup-kitchen.
Long story short: prejudgment should be just that. A quick judgment based on appearance prior to a real judgment based on character.
boonhet@lemm.ee 1 day ago
The permanence IS the most important difference though. One requires you to knowingly make the decision you’ll have it on your face forever.
groet@feddit.org 1 day ago
So many decisions are permanent. Philosophically speaking, every decicsson is. If you decide to get that burito later you will forever be the person that decided to get that burito in that decision.
Someone decides to go to college and spends 5 years there. That is forever. They can decide to go into a different profession of course or get a second degree in something else but those 5 years are gone. And that decision should be mutch mutch mutch more relevant to somebody hiring you that a cosmetic decision. And yet we say to children that they can change their courses and degrees if they are not right but we say a tatoo is a mark against you forever.
Its 100% prejudice from a time when tattoos were (in western society) mainly related to gang association. A point that is 0% relevant today.
boonhet@lemm.ee 1 day ago
Yes, from a philosophical standpoint, even the water I just drank was a permanent decision.
But face tattoos are a permanent change to your appearance that you KNOW you might be against for AND can’t cover up so making that decision implies that you don’t consider potential negative future effects of your actions, or don’t care.
real_squids@sopuli.xyz 1 day ago
You can absolutely cover up face tattoos. It’s even easier in colder climates. Also, and I know it’s a bit of a reach, but coming out publicly is a permanent change that you know you might be discriminated against for. Should everyone stay in the closet because it brings fewer negative future effects?
Let people do what makes them happy, after all, it doesn’t hurt anyone (except themselves for a bit while getting it).
Dyskolos@lemmy.zip 1 day ago
I don’t see much of a difference. Besides the obvious physical one of course. You have paint on your face right now, whatever kind it might be. Maybe it’s a message, maybe you’re dumb, maybe you’ve made a big mistake at some time, maybe not. But should I care? Are you good people or a mean piece of human garbage? That is what counts (to me). You could be either, with or without paint. My prejudgment doesn’t cloud my actual judgment of you.