This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
I had an argument (I'd guess this is what spurs many top level comments) about tattoos, and how much you're allowed to judge people for them.
My argument was that I think tattoos are a sign of distasteful character and went something like
These, I think, give me plenty of room to be wary of strangers with tattoos, especially where I am located in a pretty methed up rural area. The beautiful thing is that it's not a protected characteristic, so you can actually judge it as much as you like!
The other party's argument was
I actually don't think I could agree with that, ever! While it is more true the more "normal" people get tattoos, it is still a fact that pretty much any mugshot I see of any likely violent incarcerated individual is going to have a ton of them. They are also something you have to go out of your way to get, and thus, they make a decent indicator that you shouldn't trust someone if they're in the Venn diagram of "has tattoos".
But now I'm curious what is acceptable to judge people about. Let's say you're walking to your workplace or your university class or your school and you see, purposely avoiding anything like a bumper sticker or T-shirt that makes any more clearly identifiable statement or symbol:
Or perhaps we could change the context of how you're seeing this person. Let's say you work at a gas station or other commonly-visited public-facing third-place and you see people
The stance of the refuses-to-judge-on-tattoos individual is a little perplexing to me. I'm certain that I am similarly perplexing to him. But for me, pretty much all of these, plus other considerations like height, sex, and age add up to an impression of the character and of the threat level of said individual. Personally, I think everyone has this kind of unconscious thinking, even if they don't know it or if they have suppressed it significantly. My guess is that people left of center tend to be uncomfortable with associating behaviors like that with anything negative, even though they are not protected characteristics, and even though they almost certainly do it themselves for various things, like word choice (do you say gay people or do you say queer people?), vehicle choice (drives a truck...), or sex and likely choice of gender.
How much should you judge people? On what should you judge them by? Is there something you think it's wrong to judge people for?
I agree with the general sentiment, yet I'm not sure how much room for nuance your argument with the other party had, since you haven't mentioned it.
Are all tattoos the same? Is a full body tattoo equivalent to a tiny flower on a wrist you could barely see? Perhaps you would consider all tattoos to be negative, but surely there would be varying levels of how much of a negative impact a tattoo could have on your perception of a person based on what that tattoo is and/or how large it is.
I find both sides taken to the extreme a bit absurd. If one were to think all tattoos are bad and/or reflect poorly on the person and all tattoos are superficial fashion choices - I would think someone defending either position would have to start granting exceptions or resorting to logical fallacies to maintain their position. It's possible neither side actually has this black and white position, but the post certainly gives off that impression.
Perhaps in your personal experience, every person you met with tattoos gives off the quality of the type of individual you don't want to associate with. While on the other hand, the person you were arguing with might have a lot of friends that have tattoos (or even have tattoos themselves), so they don't associate negativity with tattoos as much, if at all.
Personally, I think both sides of the argument you presented are pretty weak.
This does technically support your position of you personally finding tattoos distasteful but will do nothing to convince others of why they should find tattoos distasteful. Also, beauty is subjective. Is there not a single tattoo you could find any artistic quality in? If someone drew something that wasn't ugly on a piece of paper, what is it that makes it ugly once it's put on the human skin? You need to expand on this point.
It's likely many younger people with tattoos aren't even considering that. Tattoos are becoming more common in the United States. This Pew survey from 2023 found 32% of Americans have a tattoo. That's 1/3 of Americans. 41% of people aged 18-29 and 46% of people aged 30-49 have at least one tattoo. That's a lot of people, and I highly doubt most of them are making the conscious decision that they are associating themselves with criminals or other undesirable groups. While there is still a social stigma with tattoos, it's largely gone now, at least amongst the newer generation.
This doesn't seem to really support your argument in any way. Also, you can pay money to get tattoos removed. It's going to cost money and time but tattoos aren't as "permanent" as they used to be. You need to expand on this point more.
To me, it seems only your first two points seem to support why you dislike tattoos and only the 2nd point seems to support why tattoos should be considered distasteful.
Meanwhile, assuming you have summarized your opponent's position accurately and fairly, it does not address your points at all and takes on an easily disproven absurd position. Superficial fashion statement? As you pointed out, tattoos are expensive and time-consuming to get. Referring back to the Pew study from before, 69% of people who have a tattoo stated its purpose was to remember or honor someone or something and 47% to make a statement about something they believe in. That doesn't seem like superficial to me. Only 32% of people stated their tattoo was to improve their personal appearance, which would qualify as a superficial fashion statement. At best, your opponent's position would need to be mended to "some tattoos are superficial fashion statements."
Also, even if I did grant your opponent's position that tattoos are superficial fashion statements, there aren't any reasons provided to argue why it's wrong to judge people for superficial fashion statements. People make judgments based on superficial fashion statements all the time. Of course, your opponent isn't here and would likely be able to provide some reasons as to why that is wrong, but considering you didn't flesh out their argument, I'm just going to assume your conversation with them didn't progress much further.
I think it's perfectly reasonable to make on the spot judgments based on characteristics because you can't perform any actions without judgments, otherwise you're no different from a random number generating machine. At the same time, acknowledging that your judgments could be wrong, or being open to the possibility that your judgments are based on falsehoods, will make you a better person. I tend to find the "you can never judge someone based on x factor" crowd to usually be hypocrites that want to feel morally superior, but it doesn't mean their points are always without merit either.
What you should judge people by are the factors that are relevant for what you are judging them for.
I think those reasons are post hoc because they can be achieved by much simpler and more effective means. I'm sceptical that they set out with the idea of honouring someone, making a statement, or improving their appearance and then arrived at a tattoo as the best solution. I suspect they set out to get a tattoo because there's something about the idea of people who get tattoos that they admire and want to be associated with. Maybe it's about being visibly committed to something. I'm not sure what that says about them.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link