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: 8
16
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 15 2017 @ 04:06 PM
link   
a reply to: SlapMonkey

I agree with pretty much everything you said.
I should have been much clearer in my OP. I apologize for that.

The initial complaint about the tattoos was one of my issues. That resulted in a chain of events that could have been avoided by refraining from voicing their opinion. No one made them complain. They chose to complain. The guy's reaction is on him. If he became belligerent, he should have been asked to leave. They can ban him from the pool for his actions and I would be ok with that.

My main concern is with the person who complained. I am sure they feel vindicated or empowered and would possibly be inclined to complain again and again and again.

Another concern is that the Washington Post purposefully put "swastika" in the title when the article never states that the swastika was the tattoo in question. It could have easily been someone offended by 666 and the upside down cross.
If the article was titled "Man with tattoos ordered out of D.C. pool", I would have never read the article or created my post.

With the events of the past weekend, I feel WaPo sensationalized the story for the clicks and to possibly promote a further divide.




posted on Aug, 15 2017 @ 04:09 PM
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.

The belligerence was due to harassment.

The statement says patrons objected to the man’s presence and that a lifeguard “responded by trying to speak with the individual.

The lifeguard should have responded to the patrons in objection by telling them it is a public pool, open to the public.

Aren't you a big proponent of the 1st amendment?



posted on Aug, 15 2017 @ 04:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: RickyD

So what? It isn't illegal to approach someone and talk to him. He wasn't arrested in the end.

If it is a public pool, funded at all by the government, then yes it would be.

Tattoos would be considered a form of speech, and the government paid employee aka the lifeguard is legally not allowed to infringe on an individuals right to free speech.

Meaning no, he was not allowed to confront the individual over his tattoos, plain and simple.



posted on Aug, 15 2017 @ 04:18 PM
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.

That would be the government infringing on his 1st amendment right. The pool is indeed a government funded pool.
source



posted on Aug, 15 2017 @ 04:22 PM
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?

Holy crap you went off the liberal deep end (pun intended).

Had I known you had made so many asinine responses I would have lumped them all in to one reply, but I kept reading and you kept going...sigh.

This is a government funded pool. If you do not denounce the action of the lifeguard right here and now, you oppose the 1st amendment.



posted on Aug, 15 2017 @ 04:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t
Can you show me in the Social Justice Warrior handbook where it defines that all SJW's are leftists?


Social Justice Warrior-Urban dictionary

A pejorative term for an individual who repeatedly and vehemently engages in arguments on social justice on the Internet, often in a shallow or not well-thought-out way, for the purpose of raising their own personal reputation. A social justice warrior, or SJW, does not necessarily strongly believe all that they say, or even care about the groups they are fighting on behalf of. They typically repeat points from whoever is the most popular blogger or commenter of the moment, hoping that they will "get SJ points" and become popular in return. They are very sure to adopt stances that are "correct" in their social circle.

The SJW's favorite activity of all is to dogpile. Their favorite websites to frequent are Livejournal and Tumblr. They do not have relevant favorite real-world places, because SJWs are primarily civil rights activists only online.
#1:

A social justice warrior reads an essay about a form of internal misogyny where women and girls insult stereotypical feminine activities and characteristics in order to boost themselves over other women.

The SJW absorbs this and later complains in response to a Huffington Post article about a 10-year-old feminist's letter, because the 10-year-old called the color pink "prissy".

#2:
Commnter: "I don't like getting manicures. It's too prissy."

SJW: "Oh my god, how #ing dare you use that word, you disgusting sexist piece of #!"



Do you have a different definition for a SJW?

Although I will agree that many SJW's lean left in varying degrees, I didn't think it was an exclusive club.

I am not attacking the left. I am attacking stupidity. I am attacking the easily offended. I am attacking whine bags that b!tch when they don't get their way. I am attacking the people who demand special treatment. I am attacking the people who expect a participation trophy and the dumbasses who gave it to them.
I am attacking because I am tired of being attacked.

FFS! I am a jew who voted for Bernie Sanders. You ASSUME I am attacking the left and that I am defending a freaking Nazi.

Why are you blindly defending them?



posted on Aug, 15 2017 @ 07:22 PM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

What communists exactly did your relatives fight against?



posted on Aug, 15 2017 @ 07:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: testingtesting
Jesus these are nazis we are talking about....my grandfather fought the bastards and some are saying it is okay for them to parade their nazi tattoos in public.
Sod em do people forget what they stand for?.
They are free to get as many nazi tats as they want but don't cry if people shun these bastards..Like they should be.
So did mine. I guess what you really mean to say is our grandparents and parents... and brothers and uncles... fought for the ideas in our constitution... the ideas of our former sense of freedom. It's a pjblic pool, man. You don't have to like him, but you have to let him swim there unless there is a valid reason that'd get anybody kicked out.



posted on Aug, 15 2017 @ 07:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: SeaWorthy
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.


This is a silly argument... The meaning of the symbol was changed during WWII and it's childish to keep referring to an ancient meaning of a symbol, you KNOW that guy wasn't showing off that tattoo to promote peace.



posted on Aug, 15 2017 @ 07:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: abago71

We are sooooo 1984 now.



We really are. How come so few see it? What's more - how the hell do we stop it?
edit on 8/15/2017 by kosmicjack because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 15 2017 @ 07:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: VoxVirtus
a reply to: DBCowboy

What communists exactly did your relatives fight against?


There was a little dust-up in Korea a few years back. You might not have heard of it.



posted on Aug, 15 2017 @ 07:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: seagull
Let's reverse this situation, purely as a hypothetical, shall we?

This gentleman doesn't have a tattoo that depicts Nazism, or associated evilness, it is, instead, a Star of David--which some, thankfully few, find offensive, as well...and that someone complained. The offensive tattoo wearing individual was escorted out by police...

What conversation would we be having now?

What ever happened to being judged by ones actions, rather than appearance?

I find the Nazi ideology loathsome in the extreme, it's indefensible. In this instance, the person in question was, by the account, not preaching the gospel of the Hitlerite. He was charging his electronics? I think maybe, just maybe, he could have got a pass.

Actions. Not appearance. Obviously, the day Martin Luther King, Jr spoke of hasn't quite arrived yet, has it?

Yes, yes, he's wearing a tattoo--he must therefore have committed evil acts. Maybe he has, maybe he will. I don't know. I can only judge him on this one moment in time. By the account, he wasn't doing anything wrong...what ill had the man done at that moment--which is all the lifeguard had to go by. Yet "tattoo guy" is the one in the wrong...

Guilty because tattoo. Not actions, tattoo.



Look another person ignoring the reported facts... He wasn't kicked out because of his tattoos, but because of his reaction to being talked to by a life guard.

He wasn't using the pool. For all we know they could have been questioning his purpose there... sitting at the pool around all those children. Kind of suspicious maybe? Not saying he was guilty of anything, but in a thread full of people saying "Freedom of X or Y" they are forgetting that the establishment, or lifeguard in this case was well within their rights to talk to this man without having him become belligerent, regardless of what was being said... because you know "freedom"



posted on Aug, 15 2017 @ 07:48 PM
link   
a reply to: abago71

Teardrop tatts are the most offensive. They are open admissions that they are murderers.

-- Just showing you how easy it is to justify discriminatory practices based on appearance alone.

What are you pro-murder or something??

/sarcasm



posted on Aug, 15 2017 @ 07:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: VoxVirtus
a reply to: DBCowboy

What communists exactly did your relatives fight against?


There was a little dust-up in Korea a few years back. You might not have heard of it.



Ok, and are we talking about someone sporting USSR tattoos? Or are we talking about someone sporting a symbol that been morphed into a hateful thing, that was worn proudly by a group that murdered 6 million people?

Glad you know your history, but did that statement have any relevance to the discussion or is this a strawman argument?



posted on Aug, 15 2017 @ 07:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: muzzleflash
a reply to: abago71

Teardrop tatts are the most offensive. They are open admissions that they are murderers.

-- Just showing you how easy it is to justify discriminatory practices based on appearance alone.

What are you pro-murder or something??

/sarcasm


That is a misnomer. Tear drop tattoos can mean all kinds of things. A murder is definitely one of them, but it also doesn't mean that you're the one who committed it. Could mean that you had a family member murdered.



posted on Aug, 15 2017 @ 07:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: filthyphilanthropist

originally posted by: testingtesting
Jesus these are nazis we are talking about....my grandfather fought the bastards and some are saying it is okay for them to parade their nazi tattoos in public.
Sod em do people forget what they stand for?.
They are free to get as many nazi tats as they want but don't cry if people shun these bastards..Like they should be.
So did mine. I guess what you really mean to say is our grandparents and parents... and brothers and uncles... fought for the ideas in our constitution... the ideas of our former sense of freedom. It's a pjblic pool, man. You don't have to like him, but you have to let him swim there unless there is a valid reason that'd get anybody kicked out.


That's the thing though... he wasn't swimming there. He was sitting there charging his phone, he was approached by a lifeguard who tried to talk to him and he became belligerent. For all we know the discussion had nothing to do with covering up tattoos, but simply to ask why he was utilizing the power facilities of the pool, which he may not necessarily be allowed to. Perhaps there was a slight bit of concern that he may have predatory intentions and they just wanted to figure out what was going on.



posted on Aug, 15 2017 @ 11:34 PM
link   
a reply to: VoxVirtus

Oh, look... Someone ignoring why the attention was drawn to the man.



posted on Aug, 16 2017 @ 12:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: VoxVirtus

originally posted by: SeaWorthy
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.


This is a silly argument... The meaning of the symbol was changed during WWII and it's childish to keep referring to an ancient meaning of a symbol, you KNOW that guy wasn't showing off that tattoo to promote peace.


I have zero way of knowing any such thing.



posted on Aug, 16 2017 @ 01:27 AM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

QUICK LETS GO BACK TO THE FUTURE....oh wait....



posted on Aug, 16 2017 @ 01:38 AM
link   
There's a man with tattoos that state that Jews, SJWs, black people and even the far right evanglical Christians are subhumans. I can see how it goes smoothly.



new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join