[Noisebridge-discuss] [SPAM] Tattoos vs. behavior
linkreincarnate at gmail.com
Thu Jun 20 23:28:29 UTC 2013
Comparing judgements based on a tattoo (which someone was not born with)
with judgements based on a person's ancestry (which they were born with)
is where your logic is failing, Link
I guess I wasn't clear the first time I posted this but I have reworded it
a bit for the sake of clarity.
I was never blaming the victim or asking people to approach this person
directly. The idea that the only option for a person in a group targeted by
white supremacists are to leave or "get over it" and ask them about it is a
false choice and never one that I put forward. I was asking that we look
into the situation to find a more optimal solution.
Is a tattoo a choice? Yes but so is sagging your pants. I hope you see
that laws banning sagging pants are racist despite the fact that they are
not based on ancestry.
Is it normally reasonable to expect that a person with white
power tattoos is a racist. Sure it is. That still doesn't make it true
though. It's the same as a bottle marked poison could be reasonably
expected to contain poison but not unequivocally know to contain poison.
Reasonable expectations are not the truth.
On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 3:53 PM, Leif Ryge <leif at synthesize.us> wrote:
> I was trying to avoid participating in this thread, as I felt like
> enough reasonable people had already done so, but since you're repeating
> the same faulty-logic faulty-logic here on the list again after I talked
> to you in person about it I'm replying here now...
> On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 01:42:23PM -0700, LinkReincarnate wrote:
> > I was saying (and won't apologize for because it's true) that their
> > assumptions of another person's values based on their appearance were
> > faulty and that racists fall to the same faulty logic.
> Comparing judgements based on a tattoo (which someone was not born with)
> with judgements based on a person's ancestry (which they were born with)
> is where your logic is failing, Link.
> I totally understand that some people have tattoos that they wish they
> didn't have, and it sounds like that might be the case here. But, being
> in public without covering it up is a choice that must be made on an
> ongoing basis.
> People feeling uncomfortable around symbols that represent hate and
> violence is hardly surprising. I don't think it is reasonable to expect
> everyone at Noisebridge to either "not look at it if it bothers them"
> (as Mik has said) or to go talk to the person with the frightening
> tattoos to see if they actually hold the views they're broadcasting to
> the world.
> Many people don't feel like having that conversation, and they shouldn't
> need to just to feel safe while using Noisebridge.
> I'm willing to discuss this further offline, but am going to try to
> refrain from posting any more on this list about it as I think enough
> has been said here already.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Noisebridge-discuss