The rise of the indelibly-illustrated everyman • Hacker News Board

Re: The rise of the indelibly-illustrated everyman

#21

Post by hprotagonist » Fri, Jul 26, 2019, 4:38 PM UTC

ubu7737 wrote: post #19

hprotagonist wrote: post #2

It was obvious that tattooing was undergoing a change: it was becoming professional and increasingly skilled. The increasing skill of it appalled me, for what should not be done at all is all the worse for being done well. Well, fuck you too, friend! We've found ink on the bodies of priests, shamans, warriors and kings going back as far as there have been humans. Both sexes. Nearly any culture you'd care to name. Why…

To be perfectly frank: it is our right to be put off by tattoos and the motivations behind them, just as it is your right to have them. Mewling that you are "hated" for your tattoos really just satisfies many of us that you got your tattoo to seem cool, and now you're pouting that most of us don't find you cool.

You assume i have ink. Interesting.

My point is that it has never been the case that “tattoos are just for scum”, and that the author of this piece is woefully and intentionally unaware of history and culture, even inside the upper crust of his own british milieu.

Re: The rise of the indelibly-illustrated everyman

#22

Post by lallysingh » Fri, Jul 26, 2019, 4:44 PM UTC

lolc wrote: post #20

tieze wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

fun fact: the name Britain comes from 'painted people' or 'tattooed people' given by Ceasar as he descended upon the UK: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Britain_(place_name) . That author is just not aware of his heritage.

Hey now I was just complaining when I'm unexpectedly getting something interesting back :-) Do we know how they painted themselves back then?

Half-face painted blue?

Re: The rise of the indelibly-illustrated everyman

#23

Post by zaat » Fri, Jul 26, 2019, 4:45 PM UTC

flotzam wrote: post #15

The thing that strikes me about these decline narratives is that they seem unwilling to give even the slightest inch to the "other side". Has the author really never seen (in this case) a beautiful tattoo? Nor asked other people to show them their favorites, or to explain it to them so that they might see as well?

I'm pretty sure there is no tattoo that will be perceived as beautiful by mom. Some people only see the deformation of the skin under it. Some of them can even be found right here in the comments.

Re: The rise of the indelibly-illustrated everyman

#24

Post by nomagicbullet » Fri, Jul 26, 2019, 4:46 PM UTC

jayd16 wrote: post #14

I find this article hilarious. Everything is from the author's perspective with very little (none?) from that of a person with a tattoo. As if the author couldn't fathom the idea of asking what someone actually thought and instead goes into wild speculation of their motivations. The author has no problem making general statements about the motivation of the tattooed but then finds the idea that there is a community o…

> The amount of time and effort people put in to not understanding but still disliking things that don't effect them has always and continues to blow my mind...

this

Re: The rise of the indelibly-illustrated everyman

#25

Post by DiffEq » Fri, Jul 26, 2019, 4:47 PM UTC

lolc wrote: post #11

A lot could be said about tattooing but this article falls short of providing anything of interest to me. I was wondering when we'd get to the part where the author explains why tattooing is bad. Turns out there's no reason against tattooing except cultural premises as far as the article is concerned. Also people who get tattoos have a personality problem according to the author. If you want to feel smug about not ha…

Yes this author makes a poor case against tatoos; so I will try to make one:

Tattoos are bad because: 1. Needles 2. Infection 3. It doesn't just "wipe off". 4. Needles

Re: The rise of the indelibly-illustrated everyman

#26

Post by dsr_ » Fri, Jul 26, 2019, 4:51 PM UTC

lolc wrote: post #20

tieze wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

fun fact: the name Britain comes from 'painted people' or 'tattooed people' given by Ceasar as he descended upon the UK: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Britain_(place_name) . That author is just not aware of his heritage.

Hey now I was just complaining when I'm unexpectedly getting something interesting back :-) Do we know how they painted themselves back then?

Woad.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isatis_tinctoria

Re: The rise of the indelibly-illustrated everyman

#27

Post by weberc2 » Fri, Jul 26, 2019, 4:54 PM UTC

tieze wrote: post #16

lolc wrote: post #11

A lot could be said about tattooing but this article falls short of providing anything of interest to me. I was wondering when we'd get to the part where the author explains why tattooing is bad. Turns out there's no reason against tattooing except cultural premises as far as the article is concerned. Also people who get tattoos have a personality problem according to the author. If you want to feel smug about not ha…

fun fact: the name Britain comes from 'painted people' or 'tattooed people' given by Ceasar as he descended upon the UK: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Britain_(place_name) . That author is just not aware of his heritage.

Your link indicates that it predates Caesar by a good while.

Re: The rise of the indelibly-illustrated everyman

#28

Post by mprev » Fri, Jul 26, 2019, 4:59 PM UTC

tzakrajs wrote: post #13

hprotagonist wrote: post #2

It was obvious that tattooing was undergoing a change: it was becoming professional and increasingly skilled. The increasing skill of it appalled me, for what should not be done at all is all the worse for being done well. Well, fuck you too, friend! We've found ink on the bodies of priests, shamans, warriors and kings going back as far as there have been humans. Both sexes. Nearly any culture you'd care to name. Why…

I am pretty sure it is a form of British satire to some degree but the author might actually believe some of this too.

The author is all-in on this. His schtick is to look down on everyone who isn't him.

Re: The rise of the indelibly-illustrated everyman

#29

Post by Retra » Fri, Jul 26, 2019, 5:03 PM UTC

mudil wrote: post #12

I find the whole idea of tattoo repulsive, ugly and uncool. I am also perplexed that people would spend their time on getting it. As if they have nothing better to do.

Like deriding irrelevant things on the internet?

Re: The rise of the indelibly-illustrated everyman

#30

Post by CodeCube » Fri, Jul 26, 2019, 5:15 PM UTC

ubu7737 wrote: post #19

hprotagonist wrote: post #2

It was obvious that tattooing was undergoing a change: it was becoming professional and increasingly skilled. The increasing skill of it appalled me, for what should not be done at all is all the worse for being done well. Well, fuck you too, friend! We've found ink on the bodies of priests, shamans, warriors and kings going back as far as there have been humans. Both sexes. Nearly any culture you'd care to name. Why…

To be perfectly frank: it is our right to be put off by tattoos and the motivations behind them, just as it is your right to have them. Mewling that you are "hated" for your tattoos really just satisfies many of us that you got your tattoo to seem cool, and now you're pouting that most of us don't find you cool.

There's a huge difference between:

1. Not liking something

and

2. Going out of your way to write a long article detailing all the shortcomings of those that partake in the thing you don't like.

Of course you have the right to dislike tattoos, but that doesn't give anyone the right to tell someone they suck for something they chose because they like it.