Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The rise of the indelibly-illustrated everyman

standpointmag.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–68 of 68 posts

Re: The rise of the indelibly-illustrated everyman

#61

Post by badpun »

InitialLastName wrote: post #54
badpun wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A world where everybody gets what they deserve is a just world - is that so bad?

I'd say that depends very much on who decides who deserves what. Justice is inherently malleable and subjective. It's a thing we humans (as a society) decide to do to one another. As far as I can tell, it tends to lag the scales we're operating at.

I'm assuming it would happen automatically - i.e. people would be judged by all-knowing and impartial external parties (angels, aliens etc.) - otherwise of course it cannot happen, i.e. of course people alone can never implement true justice.

As for defining what is just - this is obviously a huge subject studied by philosophers - but I'm assuming that, if we had these all-knowing judges, they could just assess (by scanning thoughts of people) how hard everybody is trying to do good to others. And this way, we would be living in a just world. To repeat my question - would that be so bad?

Re: The rise of the indelibly-illustrated everyman

#62

Post by lolc »

ciphershot wrote: post #58
lolc wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Like, you think that it's false, or you take umbrage to it being brought up? Neither. I'm just not interested in unsubstantiated personal opinions. So the author doesn't like tattoos but decided to write an article anyway? Why? That people are generally shallow is an observation that can be made about a number of topics and I don't see what is gained when singling out tattooed people. Subcultures do tend to look ri…

Okay, before I continue this conversation further I just want to note that I understand your concern for the optics of an educated doctor appearing to condescend to a large group of young people, but I think yes, he does have much more insight than the average person on tattoos, and I think it's made in jest with a little cultural misunderstanding on humor. I have a tattoo but I acknowledge I'm not an expert. I did t…

> In return, I'd like you to consider the limits of your knowledge on the topic as well.

I don't think I understand much about tattooing at all.

> I'd say he's more than qualified to write an op-ed on this topic.

Why are we dwelling on that? I assumed we are in agreement about it.

> This is also not a scientific topic, so if you're looking for facts, then yes it's not the right article.

It could have been. It started out interesting enough. I'm deploring the wasted opportunity.

> On the other hand, I think you've pointed out your chief objection clearly: People should not write about topics they don't have nice things to say about. I think this is the implicit position people take, and I appreciate you being explicit about it.

Wait. Please rein in your presumptions. I asked why and nothing more. Had the author argued their position then that could have been interesting. Sadly the article was just a collection of general observations mixed with the distaste of the author. There wasn't much to object to except for the unsubstantiated opinions sprinkled about.

I don't even disagree much with the author!

> I don't think it's obvious to a lot of them how it's going to look later, even really nice, expensive pieces. And that's what he's noting there.

In a useless way: "for there is only one thing more pitiful than a tattoo on young skin, and that is a tattoo on old skin."

Such was the depth of the article!

Re: The rise of the indelibly-illustrated everyman

#63

Post by lolc »

lallysingh wrote: post #22
lolc wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Is that a joke? I don't know enough about the topic.

Re: The rise of the indelibly-illustrated everyman

#64

Post by DoreenMichele »

lolc wrote: post #63
lallysingh wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Half-face painted blue?

Is that a joke? I don't know enough about the topic.

https://www.bing.com/images/search?q=mel+gibson+face+half+bl...

Braveheart was (loosely) based on real events.

Re: The rise of the indelibly-illustrated everyman

#65

Post by NeedMoreTea »

DoreenMichele wrote: post #64
lolc wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is that a joke? I don't know enough about the topic.

https://www.bing.com/images/search?q=mel+gibson+face+half+bl... Braveheart was (loosely) based on real events.

Very loosely - some names were shared and that's about it. One of the most historically inaccurate films of all time, and completely mutilates Wallace's memory. There's an extensive inaccuracy section on Wikipedia. I wouldn't dare mention it to my Scottish friends. :)

Re: The rise of the indelibly-illustrated everyman

#66

Post by ciphershot »

lolc wrote: post #62
ciphershot wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Okay, before I continue this conversation further I just want to note that I understand your concern for the optics of an educated doctor appearing to condescend to a large group of young people, but I think yes, he does have much more insight than the average person on tattoos, and I think it's made in jest with a little cultural misunderstanding on humor. I have a tattoo but I acknowledge I'm not an expert. I did t…

> In return, I'd like you to consider the limits of your knowledge on the topic as well. I don't think I understand much about tattooing at all. > I'd say he's more than qualified to write an op-ed on this topic. Why are we dwelling on that? I assumed we are in agreement about it. > This is also not a scientific topic, so if you're looking for facts, then yes it's not the right article. It could have been. It started…

>> So the author doesn't like tattoos but decided to write an article anyway? Why?

>> Wait. Please rein in your presumptions. I asked why and nothing more.

Unless your writing tends to be very tangential, or you are only using conjunctions for stylistic purposes, it's hard for me to read this and not take the position that you are asking for some kind of justification.

Specifically: "You do Z, but you do X, why?" In my very limited world, this construct implies there is a disconnect (or more rather, some connection that needs clarification) between the two. The implication is that Z and X held together create a tension in your world that needs resolution.

Perhaps that can be considered presumptuous, but if that is considered presumption then I don't think I'll be able to correctly interpret your position without a lot more syntactic clarification.

No harm done, and I'm sure we find much more agreement elsewhere. Besides, this is hardly the best thing I've read all year; I just found it funny and somewhat interesting, and I thought I found some negative pattern in the comments that would stifle otherwise interesting conversation. But perhaps the poster and I just have poor taste of cheeky humor and this doesn't belong here! That's possible too. Cheers.

Re: The rise of the indelibly-illustrated everyman

#67

Post by lolc »

ciphershot wrote: post #66
lolc wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In return, I'd like you to consider the limits of your knowledge on the topic as well. I don't think I understand much about tattooing at all. > I'd say he's more than qualified to write an op-ed on this topic. Why are we dwelling on that? I assumed we are in agreement about it. > This is also not a scientific topic, so if you're looking for facts, then yes it's not the right article. It could have been. It started…

>> So the author doesn't like tattoos but decided to write an article anyway? Why? >> Wait. Please rein in your presumptions. I asked why and nothing more. Unless your writing tends to be very tangential, or you are only using conjunctions for stylistic purposes, it's hard for me to read this and not take the position that you are asking for some kind of justification. Specifically: "You do Z, but you do X, why?" In…

> it's hard for me to read this and not take the position that you are asking for some kind of justification. [...] The implication is that Z and X held together create a tension in your world that needs resolution.

The article failed me. I wanted to know what the author's reasons are. But I was left hanging with only witty comments for the rest of the article. It turned out I was not justified in reading the whole. I feel I was tricked into reading dross.

Re: The rise of the indelibly-illustrated everyman

#68

Post by ciphershot »

lolc wrote: post #67
ciphershot wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> So the author doesn't like tattoos but decided to write an article anyway? Why? >> Wait. Please rein in your presumptions. I asked why and nothing more. Unless your writing tends to be very tangential, or you are only using conjunctions for stylistic purposes, it's hard for me to read this and not take the position that you are asking for some kind of justification. Specifically: "You do Z, but you do X, why?" In…

> it's hard for me to read this and not take the position that you are asking for some kind of justification. [...] The implication is that Z and X held together create a tension in your world that needs resolution. The article failed me. I wanted to know what the author's reasons are. But I was left hanging with only witty comments for the rest of the article. It turned out I was not justified in reading the whole.…

I see. In that case we'll chalk it up to his "self-expression." Maybe the only difference between him and his subject matter is the medium on which the ink is laid! Lol.
Post reply on HN