It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Are tattoos the next target for SJW?

page: 10
16
<< 7  8  9    11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 17 2017 @ 08:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: wanderingconfusion
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Why were complaints made about his tats? That was starting sh!t that didn't even need to be started. I would have been offended also.

Because that's what people who are offended by body art do.


Last time I checked it's a free country and you can get whatever tat you want. If you don't like someone's tat - oh here's an option it's called don't look at it. Plain and simple as that. But noooooooooooooooo just had to stir the pot because they knew the guy was gonna react negatively. They won in the end. This is BS. Once again rights being infringed upon. Oh what sneaky devils they are!!!

So what? You get the tat then you accept that you may get some # for it while in public. Just because you have the right to express yourself doesn't mean you have the right to not hear any # for doing it. Plus "tattooed person" isn't a protected class of citizen. And furthermore, if the guy had just acted like a reasonable adult and not gotten abrasive then the cops wouldn't have been called and he ejected.




posted on Aug, 17 2017 @ 08:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: wanderingconfusion
a reply to: eNumbra

I don't even have time for your nonsense today.

*clicks thumb and middle finger together - shoo*

Nonsense?

Firstly, everyone has their right to their opinions the first amendment only protects you from the government and intervening laws infringing upon those opinions; not private entities, you can be asked to leave privately owned establishments for a myriad of reasons.
Secondly, story states he became belligerent after being asked to cover up his tatoos, depending on how belligerent I'd say any establishment, public or private is then well within their rights to have him removed.
Thirdly, there's an argument to be made that due to the nature of Nazi ideology, Nazi iconography represents an incitement of violence, which is never covered under the first amendment.
Fourthly, though there may be an argument made for a swastika, at 90 degree angle, surrounded by other bhuddist symbology not being a Nazi symbol, but the 45 degree turned swastika is a clear and obvious symbol of one thing; and I'd think that if the man were a bhuddist he would have never gotten belligerent in the first place.

Tl;dr, if you don't want to get kicked out of places, don't be a twat.



posted on Aug, 17 2017 @ 08:56 PM
link   
a reply to: ericendtimes

No, no, now. That is not fair. The swastika is evil. End of story. No discussion to be had about it.
Good day Sir.

I SAID GOOD DAY! (Sarc if you couldn't tell)



posted on Aug, 18 2017 @ 09:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: olaru12
If it was a privately owned pool, the owners/operators have a right to kick anyone out for wearing disgusting brown shoes, much less racist and satanic tattoos.

If it was a public pool and he paid to display his racist tattoos then, thats another kettle of fish.


And how can business people be forced to cater a social event they don't agree with, and be punished by law? So a business can just kick anyone out or deny service? Funny how the left gets to pick and choose how that works?



posted on Aug, 18 2017 @ 09:19 AM
link   
His body can do what he likes. Just consequences are expected.

I doubt tattoos will be target but seems he had a good few that gets people's backs up



posted on Aug, 18 2017 @ 09:21 AM
link   


en.m.wikipedia.org...

The swastika (as a character 卐 or 卍) is an ancient religious icon used in the Indian subcontinent, East Asia and Southeast Asia, where it has been and remains a sacred symbol of spiritual principles in Buddhism, Hinduism, and Jainism.[2][3][4][5] In the Western world, it was historically a symbol of auspiciousness and good luck,[6] but in the 1930s it became the main feature of Nazi symbolism as an emblem of Aryan race identity, and as a result it has become stigmatized in the West by association with ideas of racism, hate and mass murder.[6][7]


So, a person gets to judge and discern what is in another person's heart by a tattoo?



posted on Aug, 18 2017 @ 09:29 AM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux


I think if someone goes to the trouble of getting a swastika tattoo then I think that probably does say something about him. Apart from being a total bell end.



posted on Aug, 18 2017 @ 09:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: abago71


he became belligerent with a life guard, D.C. officials said.

I'd say it has to do with his belligerence and not so much the tattoos, but let's go with the tattoos. ATS needs another hyperbolic reason to hate the left right?

PS: People have been getting # for their questionable tattoos for a long time. A sergeant in my old unit had a spider web on his elbow that apparently means something that he was unaware of when he got it. He would hear # about it all the time. This was back in 2005.


Aww, reading comprehension issues again. They guy did get mouthy, but only AFTER he was harassed because of his tattoos. I don't like Nazi's or white supremacists either, but don't you think it's a slightly slippery slope if you deny them rights based off of appearance alone? Where do you draw the line on offensive body art? Who gets to decide what's "offensive"?



posted on Aug, 18 2017 @ 09:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: FauxMulder

Being offended now trumps individual rights.



Nobody forced him to get those tattoos and unless he's completely brain dead, he knew what he was doing would be offensive to anyone who understands what those symbols represent and the regime that employed them to strike fear into their victims. No one is protected from public backlash. No one has any governmentaly sanctioned rights that protects them from public criticism. Individuals have rights... people have the right to be offensive but people also have the right to be offended and express it. Freedom of speech is a two way street.



posted on Aug, 18 2017 @ 09:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux




en.m.wikipedia.org...

The swastika (as a character 卐 or 卍) is an ancient religious icon used in the Indian subcontinent, East Asia and Southeast Asia, where it has been and remains a sacred symbol of spiritual principles in Buddhism, Hinduism, and Jainism.[2][3][4][5] In the Western world, it was historically a symbol of auspiciousness and good luck,[6] but in the 1930s it became the main feature of Nazi symbolism as an emblem of Aryan race identity, and as a result it has become stigmatized in the West by association with ideas of racism, hate and mass murder.[6][7]


So, a person gets to judge and discern what is in another person's heart by a tattoo?


Yes....



posted on Aug, 18 2017 @ 09:55 AM
link   
a reply to: Blarneystoner

Really, then I get to judge your are self righteous?
edit on 18-8-2017 by neutronflux because: Fixed



posted on Aug, 18 2017 @ 09:57 AM
link   
a reply to: Blarneystoner

Sorry, you don't have a right to force unwanted behavior on a person just because they have a tattoo.



posted on Aug, 18 2017 @ 09:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Blarneystoner

Really, then I get to judge your are self righteous?


Who said anything about being righteous? I just answered your question... I didn't say whether it was virtuous or not. People are gonna judge others for whatever reason they choose.... that's just a fact. Maybe you should rephrase the question so you get the answer you're looking for....



posted on Aug, 18 2017 @ 10:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Blarneystoner

Sorry, you don't have a right to force unwanted behavior on a person just because they have a tattoo.



No.... but I can judge the # out of them all I want. Are you telling me I can't? Because if you are, you're worse than those who you are calling out.
edit on 18-8-2017 by Blarneystoner because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 18 2017 @ 10:11 AM
link   
Again. I am coming from a business is required by law to provide services to anyone based on the construction and discrimination. Not up to a business who they can surve? But freedom of speech can be trampled on by a business? So a business can just claim a tattoo or shirt is offensive to deny service?



posted on Aug, 18 2017 @ 10:13 AM
link   
a reply to: Blarneystoner

But if a person is minding their own business with the only offense is a tattoo you don't like, you have no right to intrude with unwanted behavior.



posted on Aug, 18 2017 @ 10:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Blarneystoner

But if a person is minding their own business with the only offense is a tattoo you don't like, you have no right to intrude with unwanted behavior.


I can tell him/her that he's a jackass for having a Swastika tattoo.... freedom of speech right? Everyone whining about this forgets that both parties have rights. You have the right to be offensive and I have the right to be offended.

In this particular case, the guy got belligerent. Maybe that's why he got booted from the pool.

I'm willing to bet that the same people crying about this guy getting booted are the same people who say that say business owners have the right to refuse service to gay people.



posted on Aug, 18 2017 @ 10:22 AM
link   
a reply to: Blarneystoner

I'm not denying people's right to be offended, I'm just saying that they don't have a right to infringe on anyone else's rights.



posted on Aug, 18 2017 @ 10:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Blarneystoner

I'm not denying people's right to be offended, I'm just saying that they don't have a right to infringe on anyone else's rights.



I agree... but what rights are we talking about... ?



posted on Aug, 18 2017 @ 10:26 AM
link   
a reply to: Blarneystoner

If you come up to me to say you don't like a tattoo of my cat, then I say your comment is unwanted, then it's over. Anything more becomes harassment and unwanted behavior on your part.



new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 7  8  9    11 >>

log in

join