4 ms·
I don't understand your last sentence, or rather the last part of it. It seems to be suggesting (incincerely, of course) that looking to hire people without ta
by drdeca 13y ago
I don't understand your last sentence, or rather the last part of it.
It seems to be suggesting (incincerely, of course) that looking to hire people without tattoos would help to hire people who identify as hackers (but who would not be considered to be hackers by some standard or definition not including self-identity).
But I don't see the connection between tattoos and hackerishness or self identifying.
Is it a thing, and just not one I had noticed/heard of?
I get (somewhat anyway) the "feminist:self-identity" connection, And some of the other connections,
But I don't understand what meaning is being expressed by the last part of the last sentence.
- Betelgeusian 13y agoYou parsed the last sentence wrong. Read it as >It will help the government to hire more talented security experts who don't (have tattoos, or self-identify as hackers). Not >It will help the government to hire more talented security experts who (don't have tattoos), or (self-identify as hackers). The article itself, implied that experts in information security often come from a subculture that self-identifies as hackers, and whose members often have tattoos. I didn't make this up myself. Neither did I make up the feminist critique of geek culture, which also states that geek culture in general is associated with certain hobbies, lifestyles and appearances, all of which may serve to exclude women and minorities.