Freedom of expression and the freedom to react

While this isn't an Earth shattering story, I think it somewhat telling of how some people view society.

So there is an article I read ( LINK ) about a young man who obtained a relatively large tattoo on his neck and is not seemingly upset that he is having difficulty finding work. The article isn't very in depth but it did remind me of some conversations I've had over the years on the topic of tattoos, less-than-usual piercings and body modification in general.

I know everyone is different but when I speak to people in my world about their tattoos, a common response (in one form or another) is that they are "expressing themselves." Generally, I take that at face value and people are free to do as they want. (Note: I know people with TONS of tattoos but nobody I know has anything that isn't easily hidden with typical attire).

Although I don't lose sleep over it, what bothers me about the person in this article (and others I've heard about) is that they want to be free to express themselves yet don't want the rest of the world to be able to react. With labor laws being as complex as they are I can't speak to legality but personally (and depending on the type of position) I may very well disqualify a person with tattoos on certain parts of their body.

We all have the opportunity to enjoy all sorts of freedoms but I think we all also have to understand that we are in and of a larger world and their are repercussions to our choices, whether it be body modification or speaking our mind when hold an unpopular opinion. We also need to pick our battles and choose which battles we want to introduce into our lives.

a reply to: eluryh22

That's why I choose a location for my tatoo that would never prevent me from getting a respectable job.

a reply to: eluryh22

Can I ask you a question?

Where do you sit on the right of Nazis to march in the United States, without being beaten bloody and washed down a storm drain? Where do you sit on the right of Britain First to continue to exist on the hallowed soil of this, the United Kingdom of Great Britain, despite their fascist leanings, leanings which make them enemies of all true patriots in the land?

It may seem that these things have nothing to do with the subject matter, but if you would not mind answering the question, I will explain how they connect to one another, I assure you.

I love how tattoos always create a stir.

It's one of millions of ways we have to express ourselves.

How the average idiot chooses to do so is on them. Literally and figuratively.

Tattoos don't tattoo people..... people do it thenselves.

a reply to: eluryh22

Tattoos are overrated. Man has always enjoyed ornamentation, and tattoos are just another self-serving iteration of that.

That being said, a tattoo can not predict job performance.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: eluryh22

Tattoos are overrated. Man has always enjoyed ornamentation, and tattoos are just another self-serving iteration of that.

That being said, a tattoo can not predict job performance.

They give no indication of performance but can hinder your ability to perform.

Imagine having a job that involved selling to elderly people with a cradle of filth tattoo on your forhead.

originally posted by: nonspecific

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: eluryh22

Tattoos are overrated. Man has always enjoyed ornamentation, and tattoos are just another self-serving iteration of that.

That being said, a tattoo can not predict job performance.

They give no indication of performance but can hinder your ability to perform.

Imagine having a job that involved selling to elderly people with a cradle of filth tattoo on your forhead.

No, they cannot hinder performance. But they may offend someone’s tastes and sensibilities.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: nonspecific

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: eluryh22

Tattoos are overrated. Man has always enjoyed ornamentation, and tattoos are just another self-serving iteration of that.

That being said, a tattoo can not predict job performance.

They give no indication of performance but can hinder your ability to perform.

Imagine having a job that involved selling to elderly people with a cradle of filth tattoo on your forhead.

No, they cannot hinder performance. But they may offend someone’s tastes and sensibilities.

Well if you alienate people due to looking freaky and you are a salesman that is going to affect your performance isn't it?

Sure. IMO, employers should have the right to say "no job" to anyone for any reason. I personally don't understand this idea that they don't and shouldn't have that right. It's just....weird.

It's like saying to someone "Hey man. I'm gonna come to your door one day and knock and when you answer I'm going to tell you I'm moving in and you can't say no based upon the fact that you don't like me or don't want me living in your house".

I mean, that's literally the policy some people are trying to push on employers. If someone shows up and wants a job, they can't refuse to hire them simply because they don't like them or find them objectionable in some way.

I mean, really. This is long established. If you go to work for a company that has uniforms, you don't get to wear whatever you like. You wear the uniform just like everyone else. You don't get to wear a shirt with a middle finger on it to work. That is pretty much how tattoos are seen.

Everyone who gets a tattoo knows that some people are not going to think they're awesome. A person who owns a business is (IMO) analogous to a person who owns a home. People don't have the right to just walk into your home and do as they please. Your business is also your property.

a reply to: nonspecific

They reflect someone's decision making process, their value system, and their ability or lack thereof to adhere to societal or subcultural norms.

I'm generally a "tattoo advocate," but if someone doesn't want to hire someone because of their tattoos.. I think that is entirely their choice. The social pressures against such things may be gaining popularity, but I still have issues with that.

I think there is a lot of conflation between tolerance and acceptance as well. Some even going so far as to treat tolerance as being not "enough" and that everyone should accept and zealously support certain demographics. Not all, of course, just Party approved groups for doubleplusgood points. Its the only way to be non-partisan and unbiased.

I have personal issues with tattoos. Maybe it's because I'm older and not from the age of "tattoos are awesome". My oldest brother got one in the Navy...I always figured it was a military thing guys did on leave when they were drunk.

I do have another brother who's been in jail for most of his life, both in juvenile hall as well as adult jail. He got out a few years ago and he is covered head to toe in tats....from his shaved head down to his feet. To me, it's horrible. I feel like it's not my brother any more, he looks like a carnival freak. There is such a thing as too much.

There are certain professions where you cannot have tattoos that show. That pretty much includes all service professions. Any job in the medical or dental profession. I'm seeing more on the arms, but from the neck up is still verboten.

Anybody with family in prison, or who has done prison time, and comes out with a bunch of tats, has an automatic negative reaction to them. I am free not to like them....and I usually don't. Tats still equal gang violence and prison time to me.

a reply to: TrueBrit

Where do you sit on the right of Nazis to march in the United States.....

Although I wouldn't support them, if they want to march they can march. However, anyone that joins them in support should not act surprised when they are shunned by the rest of society.

without being beaten bloody and washed down a storm drain?

Using as broad a brush as possible, outside self defense I essentially have no tolerance for violence.

Where do you sit on the right of Britain First to continue to exist on the hallowed soil...

To be completely candid, I'm too ignorant of the history to have an opinion worth anything.

Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

You are free to get tattoos of anything, anywhere on your body you please.

Employers are free to choose who to associate with, provided that they don't discriminate against any protected classes. Tattooed persons are not a protected class ( yet ).

End of discussion.

I have tattoos, all of which can be covered by a short-sleeve t-shirt. My employer has a written tattoo policy, which I abide by.

a reply to: eluryh22

Fifty years ago it was skin color.

Now it's ink. Body art. Tattoos.

Why are we not focusing on content of character and only judging by appearance?


I suppose I can just hire hot blondes with big tits as interns now.

Since I don't want to judge by how well they can actually do their job.

a reply to: DBCowboy

Fifty years ago it was skin color.

Now it's ink. Body art. Tattoos.

I'm not sure that is an appropriate analogy. As I've mentioned before, it seems that many people sport tattoos as a way of expressing themselves. I've never seen someone (white, black, asian, latino, etc) in their natural state as expressing themselves. A tattoo is a conscious decision someone makes. Not only the tattoo itself but it's size and location as well.

Why are we not focusing on content of character and only judging by appearance?

I think in many (if not most) scenarios I would agree with you. However, on the topic of job interviews the potential employer literally has very little to judge someone's character. More often than not there is simply a previously submitted resume and then the interview itself. That interview is literally the time/place for the job seeker to sell him/herself.

To that end, I propose that it is as appropriate to consider body modifications in the same way that the wardrobe someone chooses to wear can (is) considered.

I suppose I can just hire hot blondes with big tits as interns now.

Since I don't want to judge by how well they can actually do their job.

I suppose you could, although I'm not sure that's exactly what we're talking about (or perhaps I'm not expressing myself well enough).

If an employer wants to seek out a specific "type" of person (big titted blonds in your scenario) I guess they could. However, those wouldn't be smart business decisions in the long run and the business would suffer (although you did specify "interns" so take this with a grain of salt).

But.... what if you had two applicants with incredibly similar education and work experience and the position they were vying for dealt with the public. With all things being equal, would you hire the one that is easy on the eyes or the one that is "fugly" (for lack of a better term)?

a reply to: eluryh22

I've never had a situation where two people were identical for a job interview.

But if that were the case, for engineering (my profession) I would give them each a test.

The person that scored the highest?

Hired.

Especially if she had huge bazoongas.

a reply to: eluryh22

The reason I asked is as follows.

Currently, it is expected that Nazis be left to chant their curses against the human race, free to march wherever, fly their thrice damned banner over any place they see fit, and not be countered in anything like the proper, stern manner that our forefathers resisted them with. Unlike our forefathers, this generation is expected to leave the Nazi to his or her own devices, and to not allow our justifiable prejudice against them seep through into violence, lest we be criminalised in the press.

* feign swoon*

We are expected to restrain ourselves, and are even lambasted as, of all things, bigots, because we cannot accept or tolerate the intolerance expressed by Nazis, which used to be a natural, normal and broadly supported position, but is now for some reason, taboo. We cannot even counter-protest, without being called radicals, or terrorists, or traitors by some. We are expected to keep our feelings secret, to work alongside and accept Nazis into our lives, without doing what our every atom demands of us, and destroying them utterly, leaving no trace or speck of them left to tell of it.

And yet, you are saying that mere ink upon a persons skin, is grounds to be refused employment, to be treated poorly by those passing on the street, looked down on, ostracised from ones own community in effect, something which, were I to do to a Nazi, I would presumably be chastised for, for being too judgemental and not accepting of anothers personal, free will choices.

This seems to be a strange situation. A person cannot bare the marks on their body of their choice, without being prevented from earning a living as a result, but a Nazi can march around, calling for genocide and ethnic cleansing, uttering forth the most anti-Semitic, Islamophobic, homophobic, white supremacist bile, shooting into crowds, and yet the ones countering the Nazis are the problem?

Something seems way off here.

originally posted by: TrueBrit
Where do you sit on the right of Nazis to march in the United States, without being beaten bloody and washed down a storm drain? Where do you sit on the right of Britain First to continue to exist on the hallowed soil of this, the United Kingdom of Great Britain, despite their fascist leanings, leanings which make them enemies of all true patriots in the land?

It may seem that these things have nothing to do with the subject matter, but if you would not mind answering the question, I will explain how they connect to one another, I assure you.

a reply to: theultimatebelgianjoke

Aye, he has tattoos, AND is a bigot, fascist bastard.

But of the two things, which is it that you think people are more offended by? The thing they ought to be offended by, the thing they SHOULD ostracise the knuckle dragging, venomous thug for, or is it the ink?