4 ms·

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 s

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?

ubu7737 7y ago
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.
- hprotagonist 7y ago
  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.
- CodeCube 7y ago
  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.
  - KUcxrAVrtI 7y ago
    > 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.
    - CodeCube 7y ago
      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.
oddeyed 7y ago
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
- philk10 7y ago
  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/9350671/Tattoos-have-a-distinguished-royal-history.html https://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/nigelfarndale...
- hprotagonist 7y ago
  https://www.tattooarchive.com/history/queen_victoria.php 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.
- mprev 7y ago
  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.
  - thom 7y ago
    Not sure why you’re being downvoted, I see no misinformation here.
    - 7y ago
mattnewport 7y ago
> Well, fuck you too, friend! > Why the visceral hate? Pot, kettle.
- jayd16 7y ago
  Not at all. Its an unprovoked insult versus the retaliation.
tzakrajs 7y ago
I am pretty sure it is a form of British satire to some degree but the author might actually believe some of this too.
- mprev 7y ago
  The author is all-in on this. His schtick is to look down on everyone who isn't him.

ubu7737 7y ago

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.

hprotagonist 7y ago
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.
CodeCube 7y ago
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.
- KUcxrAVrtI 7y ago
  > 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.
  - CodeCube 7y ago
    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.

oddeyed 7y ago

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

philk10 7y ago
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/9350671/Tattoos-have-a-distinguished-royal-history.html https://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/nigelfarndale...
hprotagonist 7y ago
https://www.tattooarchive.com/history/queen_victoria.php 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.
mprev 7y ago
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.
- thom 7y ago
  Not sure why you’re being downvoted, I see no misinformation here.
  - 7y ago

mattnewport 7y ago

> Well, fuck you too, friend! > Why the visceral hate? Pot, kettle.

jayd16 7y ago
Not at all. Its an unprovoked insult versus the retaliation.

tzakrajs 7y ago

I am pretty sure it is a form of British satire to some degree but the author might actually believe some of this too.

mprev 7y ago
The author is all-in on this. His schtick is to look down on everyone who isn't him.