I’m not bothered by the amount of tattoos. I’m bothered by the nazi swastika front and center. I would be just as bothered if they were just wearing a nazi arm band or Trump hat.
No, I think I’m on the point. I don’t care about other people’s appearances and I don’t care to subject other people to what I think self respect looks like. I’m bothered by what their morals are and how they’re going to make that my problem. Nazi tattoos mean that person wants to make life worse for other people. I’m not bothered by the dye, but by the ideas they represent. The woman in the picture doesn’t have any hate symbols that I recognize.
You find the tattoos distasteful for a reason of your own. I share such a reason, but it’s your own. Therefore you find the display graffiti-like: a blight on the visual landscape (in that interpretation of grafatti)
Edit The significance of Nazi iconography being distasteful is an easy one, and that’s why it was used as an alternative display to prove the point.
I’ve already stated that I do not find the tattoos themselves distasteful. It’s the meaning behind them.
We’re assuming that the owner of the building didn’t do that themselves, but if they did it’s not my problem.
I’ve already stated elsewhere that the real difference between a women getting her body tattooed and a building getting tagged is one consented and the building owner(presumably) didn’t.
Consent is not part of the point being made. The woman, the Nazi dude, whatever. It’s the perceived appeal. You identified you have no issue with the art of the woman, but do with the art of the man. That’s the point. Don’t conflate into other topics, of course the woman is free to choose her art, even a swastika. The point is the others perception of that.
We really didn’t need to bring the “criticizing our community in the third person” farce over from reddit. You are Lemmy too, and I suspect you can handle abstract reasoning, yes?
Telling of what? The dude brought up something that didn’t happen in the image and being like “Oh yeah well you’re wrong because of something irrelevant”
Why the reference to illegal Nazi iconography in Frankfurt? The building posted looks to me to be in the contiguous US.
You posted an image of a person’s mugshot who has a swastika on their forehead and I assumed you were conflating their tattoos to the person in the original image of this post.
There’s no Portuguese in any of those tags. Three of the tags are east coast crews. If I were to have to put a location down I’d say North East Miami FL.
I don’t see any nazi iconography in the image OP posted, can you point them out to me?
I was applying the claim to something else
If you are talking about graffiti on buildings then you haven’t been to Frankfurt if you’ve not seen nazi imagery
Lemmy cannot handle abstract reasoning. If you change the scenario at all to make a point, they shit circuit
I’m not bothered by the amount of tattoos. I’m bothered by the nazi swastika front and center. I would be just as bothered if they were just wearing a nazi arm band or Trump hat.
You’re pretty close to the point.
The point is that it’s subjective, and given the right content or quantity, it looks bad to you.
No, I think I’m on the point. I don’t care about other people’s appearances and I don’t care to subject other people to what I think self respect looks like. I’m bothered by what their morals are and how they’re going to make that my problem. Nazi tattoos mean that person wants to make life worse for other people. I’m not bothered by the dye, but by the ideas they represent. The woman in the picture doesn’t have any hate symbols that I recognize.
You find the tattoos distasteful for a reason of your own. I share such a reason, but it’s your own. Therefore you find the display graffiti-like: a blight on the visual landscape (in that interpretation of grafatti)
Edit The significance of Nazi iconography being distasteful is an easy one, and that’s why it was used as an alternative display to prove the point.
I’ve already stated that I do not find the tattoos themselves distasteful. It’s the meaning behind them.
We’re assuming that the owner of the building didn’t do that themselves, but if they did it’s not my problem.
I’ve already stated elsewhere that the real difference between a women getting her body tattooed and a building getting tagged is one consented and the building owner(presumably) didn’t.
Consent is not part of the point being made. The woman, the Nazi dude, whatever. It’s the perceived appeal. You identified you have no issue with the art of the woman, but do with the art of the man. That’s the point. Don’t conflate into other topics, of course the woman is free to choose her art, even a swastika. The point is the others perception of that.
We really didn’t need to bring the “criticizing our community in the third person” farce over from reddit. You are Lemmy too, and I suspect you can handle abstract reasoning, yes?
Thinking you’re a special online community is also a reddit trope.
If you have to change the scenario to make your point then your point doesn’t belong in this comment section.
It’s a common way to illustrate a point, by describing it with other variables.
Your reply is telling lol
Telling of what? The dude brought up something that didn’t happen in the image and being like “Oh yeah well you’re wrong because of something irrelevant”
What are you applying the claim to?
Why the reference to illegal Nazi iconography in Frankfurt? The building posted looks to me to be in the contiguous US.
You posted an image of a person’s mugshot who has a swastika on their forehead and I assumed you were conflating their tattoos to the person in the original image of this post.
The building is most likely in São Paulo. Not that it matters for for the point you’re making :)
There’s no Portuguese in any of those tags. Three of the tags are east coast crews. If I were to have to put a location down I’d say North East Miami FL.
Well, look at this documentary and see if it might change your mind ;)
People with nazi tattoos
I thought you might not have known racist graffiti existed
Oh no, nothing about her. Just the “Tattoos = graffiti, guys” part was applied to the person I posted
Oh ok, sorry for the misunderstanding on my part. Thanks for the clarification.