Well I documented on page 2 that we have but a single example of unambiguous threadshitting sustained over a 9 year period. That particular missive lasted all of 31 horrific words.
Maybe we should cut Clothahump some slack. It’s not like he was joking about eating meat, selling feral cats to violin string makers[sup]1[/sup] or making derogatory comments about furries. That would be truly outrageous.
Not that Clothahump is the brightest light on the porch. A wiser man might have noticed rachellogram’s 180 turn on page 2, and wouldn’t have inserted his foot into his mouth with laughable citations on page 3. Clothahump: I’ve been trying to defend you here, but you gotta work with me a little!
Oh I agree. I’m saying one incident of this sort doesn’t amount to much.
Look at the banner. It says, “Fighting ignorance”. Threadshitting involves submitting unwanted information in inappropriate threads so as to shield overly-delicate sensibilities. I say, “Toughen up, honcho.”
The guideline also helps avoid thread derailment, which of course is estimable. But that’s a 2nd order sin: the jerk rule should only apply to repeat offenses following mod warnings, IMHO, speaking generally. Topicality infractions only cause real problems when compounded with other sins or rule violations.
As for feelings, let’s review what happened:
Poster #1: I’m having a mid-life crisis. What kind of tattoo should I get?
Clothahump: A: Don’t get a tattoo. (Graphic but brief characterization follows.)
Mod: Let’s stay on topic.
Pit thread: OMG! IT’S AN OUTRAGE!!!
Seriously, I doubt whether Poster #1 was especially traumatized by Cloth’s comment, so I don’t think the cardinal rule applies.
Sure. I’m just saying he wasn’t being a jerk about it. That’s what I was referring to when I wrote “Cardinal rule”. I’m also saying feeling weren’t hurt, at least on the part of the OP of the referenced thread – that’s not trivial, right?
In the proper forum, parade-raining is an inevitable side effect of any worthwhile analysis, though a diplomatic presentation is always desirable. Lack of diplomacy is boorish of course, but hardly unusual on this board. The real problem with parade raining is that it tends to derail the thread – but the OP hasn’t demonstrated that particular pattern of behavior.
All in all it was a good call by the moderator and a praiseworthy retraction by the OP on page 2.
Not even in, say Polynesian or Maori culture, where tattoos are a mark of status or rank?
OK, that might seem a bit of an unfair example, but if it can happen there, then it could happen anywhere else.
It’s subjective - there’s no way it could be anything but subjective - because it’s about people’s expectations and perceptions. The graped statement in the quote above is about your expectations and perceptions.
As I understand it (…mostly from watching Once Were Warriors :o) even among the Maori these days only scary gangster people and hardcore nationalists (ethnonalists ?) go for extensive mokos, especially the face ones. Mostly thanks to whitey’s “civilizing” influence.
That being said, I’m quite tickled by the fact that in his arch-patriarchal ways, **Clothahump **somehow lapses into Tyler Durden. Self-improvement is masturbation !
Tattoos are pretty far past the risk taking behavior side of the fence at this point. They are entirely mainstream. The largest consumers of tattoo services in many areas of North America are middle class and upper middle class 20-40 year old women (ie soccer moms).
I’m not sure if this is what you were going after, but ever since that statement, something has been bugging me…not everyone wants to be classier…not everyone gets tattoos to be classier. I’d be willing to bet very few people walk in to a tattoo parlor hoping to walk out with more class.
To me, that’s like saying “I hate expressionist* paintings, I’ve never seen one that looks at all realistic.” If you want realistic paintings, look for a different style…if you want to like expressionist paintings you need to tweak your views.
Similarly, if you want to see classy people doing classy things, go hang out at $1000 per plate dinners (where the tattoos are covered) for some rich persons pet cause, if you want to enjoy amazing body art, you’ll need to tweak your views because they simply don’t meet most people’s definitions of classy…The statement just didn’t seem fair to me.
*I don’t know that much about art so I just picked something that I think worked. If there are expressionist works that are realistic, then just pick something else that makes sense.
I think you’re all probably right, in that most people don’t get a tattoo for the classiness factor, but I still maintain that they don’t increase your classiness. It’s mostly moot - classy isn’t what people are aiming for when they decide to get a tattoo, but I think it is still slightly germane in a discussion of what people think of tattoos and people who have tattoos.
Certainly there’s a difference between “a tattoo cannot make you more classy” and “a tattoo must make you less classy”, too.
While I agree that I’d be hard-pressed to come up with an example of a tattoo that made one more classy, that doesn’t imply the second statement at all.
There’s also a built-in assumption that “classy” is a useful aesthetic goal, which in my experience it rarely is (out of place, it generally looks “pretentious”).
You know what though? The word ‘Classy’ itself sounds tacky to me - when I hear it, I think of Harry and Zinnia Wormwood in the movie Matilda - whose notion of ‘classy’ is just some ostentatious display of consumption or wealth.
I don’t mean anything by this other than to illustrate that the whole notion of what is and is not a superior look, is entirely subjective. Sometimes, it’s entrenched in societal expectations, but it’s no more worthy or real for it.
For the record, I have no tattoos, and I don’t personally even like them much - but that’s just my own subjective notion of what I like and don’t like.