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: 3
16
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 15 2017 @ 11:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Justso
Unless he was exhibiting unusual or aggressive behavior, this is a free country, right?


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

What do you call that? Plain and ordinary behavior?

Here is the paragraph immediately before the sentence that you quoted....

The statement says patrons objected to the man’s presence and that a lifeguard “responded by trying to speak with the individual. At this point, the individual became irate, repeatedly and aggressively using offensive language toward the lifeguard. As the situation began to escalate, a second lifeguard intervened, and the police were called.”


He was belligerent (the officials description) after they asked him to leave.... simply because of his tattoos.

I'm sorry. I'm not reading anywhere that its says they asked him to leave. Maybe your ability to read is different than mine, care to point it out?

What need did they have to speak to him if another patron was offended by his tattoos???
Were they congratulating him???

They could have asked him to cover it up for all you know.




posted on Aug, 15 2017 @ 11:37 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

That's what I mean about you being obtuse...what other reason would the life guard come talk to him for after being complained to by guests about his tattoos. You think the guy came over and was like "hey bro, nice weather we're having. Really nice tats bro!"



posted on Aug, 15 2017 @ 11:37 AM
link   
a reply to: testingtesting

nazism was never the problem, what they did out of hatred and fear was the problem, same with the ussr and maoist china, how can you sit there and justify that we should do the same thing due to hatred and fear?
we would only be hypocrites copying the same abhorrent behavior for the same exact reason, hate is hate and fear is fear, there's no difference between them, if we shun people because opinion or ideology that will only repeat history once again.

ideology is no different than race, religion, gender, skin color, disability, nationality or culture and this liberal mindset that tries to create an exception for right wing ideals is no different than nazis creating an exception for jews, poles, bolsheviks or whatever, this moralism of yours is just hypocrisy of the oppressor in disguise.



posted on Aug, 15 2017 @ 11:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Justso
Unless he was exhibiting unusual or aggressive behavior, this is a free country, right?


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

What do you call that? Plain and ordinary behavior?

Here is the paragraph immediately before the sentence that you quoted....

The statement says patrons objected to the man’s presence and that a lifeguard “responded by trying to speak with the individual. At this point, the individual became irate, repeatedly and aggressively using offensive language toward the lifeguard. As the situation began to escalate, a second lifeguard intervened, and the police were called.”


He was belligerent (the officials description) after they asked him to leave.... simply because of his tattoos.

I'm sorry. I'm not reading anywhere that its says they asked him to leave. Maybe your ability to read is different than mine, care to point it out?

What need did they have to speak to him if another patron was offended by his tattoos???
Were they congratulating him???

They could have asked him to cover it up for all you know.

Should they have even approached him because someone else was offended by his tattoo?
I say no.
The offended one should have been told something like this.... "Too bad. Feel free to go to another public pool if you are offended."



posted on Aug, 15 2017 @ 11:39 AM
link   
a reply to: TerryMcGuire

Nope they would not be, as its a public pool. If they want that type of control then you pay for a membership at a pool that will protect your children's eyes from things you dislike.



posted on Aug, 15 2017 @ 11:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: RickyD
a reply to: Krazysh0t

That's what I mean about you being obtuse...what other reason would the life guard come talk to him for after being complained to by guests about his tattoos. You think the guy came over and was like "hey bro, nice weather we're having. Really nice tats bro!"

I'm not being obtuse. There is nothing wrong with talking to him about the tattoos and asking him to cover up. It can all be done in a rather polite and inoffensive manner. This jackass got belligerent back and was ejected and now you are crying about his punishment because some people didn't like his tattoos, but are literally excusing his selfish and childish behavior.



posted on Aug, 15 2017 @ 11:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Justso
Unless he was exhibiting unusual or aggressive behavior, this is a free country, right?


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

What do you call that? Plain and ordinary behavior?

Here is the paragraph immediately before the sentence that you quoted....

The statement says patrons objected to the man’s presence and that a lifeguard “responded by trying to speak with the individual. At this point, the individual became irate, repeatedly and aggressively using offensive language toward the lifeguard. As the situation began to escalate, a second lifeguard intervened, and the police were called.”


He was belligerent (the officials description) after they asked him to leave.... simply because of his tattoos.

I'm sorry. I'm not reading anywhere that its says they asked him to leave. Maybe your ability to read is different than mine, care to point it out?

What need did they have to speak to him if another patron was offended by his tattoos???
Were they congratulating him???

They could have asked him to cover it up for all you know.

Should they have even approached him because someone else was offended by his tattoo?
I say no.
The offended one should have been told something like this.... "Too bad. Feel free to go to another public pool if you are offended."

Well that pool isn't your place of business and you aren't the lifeguard so who cares about what you'd do?



posted on Aug, 15 2017 @ 11:41 AM
link   
It's interesting.

WaPo says that the tatted up fella did appear to be there to use the pool, despite just sitting on the pool deck charging electronic devices.

Patch.com says he was not using the pool.

As does WAMU.

And both outlets say that's why he was initially approached by staff.



posted on Aug, 15 2017 @ 11:42 AM
link   
a reply to: abago71

from your post is says "Authorities said the man was asked to leave “due to offensive language and inappropriate behavior." of course it sounds like it started because of some sterotype crap was going on by some of the other patrons. i would have been upset as well if i was asked to leave somewhere because someone didn't like my tattos. don't like the way oi look cause of my tattos so what, i don't like the way most fat people look, wich happens to be the majority of our country and its disgusting. but not worth of calling law enforcement to have someone removed from anywhere. had the guy not lost his temper on them he could have had a lawsuit on them if they still kicked him out all because some people didn't like his tats.



posted on Aug, 15 2017 @ 11:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Justso
Unless he was exhibiting unusual or aggressive behavior, this is a free country, right?


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

What do you call that? Plain and ordinary behavior?

Here is the paragraph immediately before the sentence that you quoted....

The statement says patrons objected to the man’s presence and that a lifeguard “responded by trying to speak with the individual. At this point, the individual became irate, repeatedly and aggressively using offensive language toward the lifeguard. As the situation began to escalate, a second lifeguard intervened, and the police were called.”


He was belligerent (the officials description) after they asked him to leave.... simply because of his tattoos.

I'm sorry. I'm not reading anywhere that its says they asked him to leave. Maybe your ability to read is different than mine, care to point it out?

What need did they have to speak to him if another patron was offended by his tattoos???
Were they congratulating him???

They could have asked him to cover it up for all you know.

Should they have even approached him because someone else was offended by his tattoo?
I say no.
The offended one should have been told something like this.... "Too bad. Feel free to go to another public pool if you are offended."

Well that pool isn't your place of business and you aren't the lifeguard so who cares about what you'd do?

Never said I would do it.
I said that is what should have happened.
The man was causing no problem because of his behavior before being approached. Therefore there was no reason to approach him.



posted on Aug, 15 2017 @ 11:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: FauxMulder

Being offended now trumps individual rights.



Pun intended
!!!


But the children, my God, think of the children DB!



posted on Aug, 15 2017 @ 11:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: RickyD
a reply to: Krazysh0t

So what do you think the lifeguard wanted to talk to him about...like what kinda thing do you think he,came to say??? Only a few things spring to mind that make logical sense. Why do you insist on being obtuse about this?

I'm not being obtuse. I really want to know why you care what the lifeguard was saying to him. The point is that he became irate, the police were called, and he was ejected for his behavior and NOT his body art. I know you want to be offended so you can demean and denounce us leftists but this is fake news. No one was ejected for the tattoos on their body.


I agree. He shouldn't have been singled out and harassed to begin with. Same with breast feeding snitches. Mind your own damn business.



posted on Aug, 15 2017 @ 11:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: Shamrock6
It's interesting.

WaPo says that the tatted up fella did appear to be there to use the pool, despite just sitting on the pool deck charging electronic devices.

Patch.com says he was not using the pool.

As does WAMU.

And both outlets say that's why he was initially approached by staff.

Thanks for your sources. This should shut up the right wing cry brigade (though I know it won't)

Director of DC Department of Parks and Recreation Keith Anderson said: "We want to reassure our guests that while the agency does not deny access to programs or facilities based on personal appearance, we do require that all guests and employees treat one another with respect."



posted on Aug, 15 2017 @ 11:43 AM
link   
a reply to: abago71

If they say we have to allow NAMBLA
We have to allow the KKK

Then the swastika is nothing especially considering it is far more ancient as a symbol than Nazis.



posted on Aug, 15 2017 @ 11:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Justso
Unless he was exhibiting unusual or aggressive behavior, this is a free country, right?


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

What do you call that? Plain and ordinary behavior?

Here is the paragraph immediately before the sentence that you quoted....

The statement says patrons objected to the man’s presence and that a lifeguard “responded by trying to speak with the individual. At this point, the individual became irate, repeatedly and aggressively using offensive language toward the lifeguard. As the situation began to escalate, a second lifeguard intervened, and the police were called.”


He was belligerent (the officials description) after they asked him to leave.... simply because of his tattoos.

I'm sorry. I'm not reading anywhere that its says they asked him to leave. Maybe your ability to read is different than mine, care to point it out?

What need did they have to speak to him if another patron was offended by his tattoos???
Were they congratulating him???

They could have asked him to cover it up for all you know.

Should they have even approached him because someone else was offended by his tattoo?
I say no.
The offended one should have been told something like this.... "Too bad. Feel free to go to another public pool if you are offended."

Well that pool isn't your place of business and you aren't the lifeguard so who cares about what you'd do?

Never said I would do it.
I said that is what should have happened.
The man was causing no problem because of his behavior before being approached. Therefore there was no reason to approach him.

The approachment is irrelevant. Staff reserves to right to approach you and talk to you or request something from you at any time. He isn't free from confrontation from the staff by sitting at the pool charging his phone. What about his behavior? When are you planning on denouncing that? Or is the only crime here the fact that a lifeguard decided to talk to this guy because of the concerns of some other guests (as is his job)?



posted on Aug, 15 2017 @ 11:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: visitedbythem

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: RickyD
a reply to: Krazysh0t

So what do you think the lifeguard wanted to talk to him about...like what kinda thing do you think he,came to say??? Only a few things spring to mind that make logical sense. Why do you insist on being obtuse about this?

I'm not being obtuse. I really want to know why you care what the lifeguard was saying to him. The point is that he became irate, the police were called, and he was ejected for his behavior and NOT his body art. I know you want to be offended so you can demean and denounce us leftists but this is fake news. No one was ejected for the tattoos on their body.


I agree. He shouldn't have been singled out and harassed to begin with. Same with breast feeding snitches. Mind your own damn business.

That's what he gets for having the body work he does. It creates attention. Sometimes unwanted. He got the ink, he needs to deal with the consequences of his decision.



posted on Aug, 15 2017 @ 11:46 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Why was it within this life guards right to ask him to cover up his tattoos? I don't think it was within his rights at a public pool. If there were guests who didnt like it they have the option to go to another pool...maybe one with paid membership where the staff can make rules that are more agreeable to them.



posted on Aug, 15 2017 @ 11:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: Justso
a reply to: Krazysh0t

He became belligerent after the lifeguard became aggressive with him. Did you read the op?


The guard became aggressive? How did he do that, by just talking to the guy? Is the guy a nazi or a snowflake.



posted on Aug, 15 2017 @ 11:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Justso
Unless he was exhibiting unusual or aggressive behavior, this is a free country, right?


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

What do you call that? Plain and ordinary behavior?

Here is the paragraph immediately before the sentence that you quoted....

The statement says patrons objected to the man’s presence and that a lifeguard “responded by trying to speak with the individual. At this point, the individual became irate, repeatedly and aggressively using offensive language toward the lifeguard. As the situation began to escalate, a second lifeguard intervened, and the police were called.”


He was belligerent (the officials description) after they asked him to leave.... simply because of his tattoos.

I'm sorry. I'm not reading anywhere that its says they asked him to leave. Maybe your ability to read is different than mine, care to point it out?

What need did they have to speak to him if another patron was offended by his tattoos???
Were they congratulating him???

They could have asked him to cover it up for all you know.

Should they have even approached him because someone else was offended by his tattoo?
I say no.
The offended one should have been told something like this.... "Too bad. Feel free to go to another public pool if you are offended."


There are people "offended" by deformed limbs and burn scars or just plain ugliness or obesity.

My Father had tattoos he hated himself that he had done in the military when young. The past, you may be EX anything prison, an ex-gang member and still judged by the symbols.

Even if not EX they have a right to the public facilities I would think.
edit on 15-8-2017 by SeaWorthy because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 15 2017 @ 11:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: Shamrock6
It's interesting.

WaPo says that the tatted up fella did appear to be there to use the pool, despite just sitting on the pool deck charging electronic devices.

Patch.com says he was not using the pool.

As does WAMU.

And both outlets say that's why he was initially approached by staff.

Interesting.
A public pool where you are required to go into the water at risk of being thrown out if you don't.
I have taken my kids to pools and never gotten in the water. I never realized how awfully wrong that was.



new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join