7 ms·

>> "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 t

>> "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.

lolc 7y ago
> 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.)
- ciphershot 7y ago
  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.
  - lolc 7y ago
    > 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!
    - ciphershot 7y ago
      >> 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.

lolc 7y ago

> 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.)

ciphershot 7y ago
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.
- lolc 7y ago
  > 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!
  - ciphershot 7y ago
    >> 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.