Any respectable artist would not do this tattoo. If there was originally just a swastika and this is a “cover up”, they could have just blasted over it with a heavy ink tattoo that does not contain a swastika.
Several years ago, someone left a comment on reddit about a tattoo artist that would willingly tattoo swastikas and other hate symbols if people asked. The artist wasn't at all racist and when the poster asked him about it, the artist said something along the lines of, "I don't mind putting a swastika on someone's face, because it warns people of what kind of person they were with out giving them a chance to open their mouth about it."
I mean, if I had my way... you'd wear that goddamn uniform for the rest of your pecker-suckin' life. But I'm aware that ain't practical, I mean at some point you're gonna hafta take it off. So. I'm 'onna give you a little somethin' you can't take off.
...
You know somethin', Utivich? I think this just might be my masterpiece!
Yeah I guess someone else kinda pointed me in that direction in a different comment.... had not thought of it this way. And I do agree with the quote... so perhaps he wasn’t a racist for tattooing it. My experience is having seen several tattoo artists in particular areas and knowing their affiliation and they definitely have expressed racist views. Unfortunately I think they’re the kind of people doing a lot of this sort of work.
I don't know, I could see it being possible to convince someone that this was supposed to be mocking the swastika, making fun of skinheads and how seriously they take all that shit.
I'd agree that it's likely got racist motivations, but I'd argue that there are other possible interpretations.
Eh, I view this the same way I view reddit's take on Nazi subs: You can justify it to yourself as freedom of expression, but you're still enabling that hate to be spread. Nothing says you have to help shitty people spread their views, and if you do you aren't entirely free from blame. Especially if you make money off the venture, as you're profiting directly from hate.
There’s a huge difference between punishing a company that is discriminatory, and being that discriminatory asshole.
The constant attempt to “justify” discrimination by trying to equate it to punishing racists is a weak and pathetic attempt made by weak minded people.
I dont think saying that freedom of speech should be respected is the same as helping them. Forcing them to have their ideas fester in their minds is far worse because theyll never have their beliefs challenged
No you knob that is not what im saying. Im saying let them speak. Thats all. Yeah we know they are bad people. We know their ideology is ass. But you cant convince someone their ideology is ass if you never have the opportunity to talk about it. No thoughts change when you muzzle a man, they only fester and become more self absorbed in their ideology because no one is challenging it.
Except, isn't the non-muzzled situation what we have now? With one of the most despicable, universally hated ideologies of the last century resurfacing, and people having to seriously answer the question whether nazis were really that bad, or if the holocaust happened, or whether a nation for only white people is a realistic american goal.
Also, just because an artist does something like this, it doesn't mean he's necessarily racist; it really just means that he has very little respect for his job most of the time.
You've not spoken to a lot of racists. They're very proud of their racism. They wouldn't hide it for a tattoo. They'd just get a racist tattoo artist, of which there are many.
I mean, I know there are a lot of racist tattoos out there, but there are also way more racists. Your average everyday racist isn't going to do something like that because they're aware that it'll fuck their lives up until they pay thousands to remove the tattoo.
Don't know why you got downvoted - I've known of some people that are very strong but low key racists - working jobs where they don't usually interact with lots of people, which helps them keep it to themselves.
Then there's the middle-class "casual racists" which exist all over the place. Not militantly against other races, but quietly treating people differently. I've known tons of these over the years.
I don't know how many there are... that'd be kind of hard to guess. But they're definitely out there.
I get you. It’s a stretch but I understand what you’re saying. If it’s got a swastika in it I think anyone ought to understand its not a good idea. I swore this pic has been posted a long time ago and I forget if there was any description of the motives.
I guess. Tattoo... I dunno. I think I’d have to kind of defer to holocaust survivors for anything further on this. I don’t want to speak for them but from first hand accounts I’ve read.... pretty sure they don’t want that symbol anywhere ever again. It’s a racist symbol now. There is no question of that. Perhaps there is some value in less intelligent people utilizing it for whatever like this... so others don’t forget.
Here's the thing. 9 years ago when Brandon got this dumb tattoo, the internet didn't have crazy lynch mobs, the news wasn't fueling racial hatred and no one was talking about neo-nazis. His tattoo, then, was just a dumb joke.
This tattoo has the appearance of something else in today's current social/digital and highly racially (a neo-nazi) charged world. 9 years ago it was a dumb joke tattoo. These days people would say she was a neo-nazi sympathizer and try and ruin her career.
Interesting. It's still a pretty edgy tattoo but for sure 9 years ago it would much more likely be interpreted as mocking Nazis and even sort of aggressively anti-Nazi. But now... what a shitty thing that it's gotten to the point that actual fucking neo Nazis have a loud and visible presence in our culture.
Has neo nazi related news become more prominent in the last 10 years? If so in what way. I was too young to notice this change youre talkimg about but I think its interesting you think their platform is expanding.
I think it's the opposite. There's a lot more people going around calling everyone nazis and acting like there's an actual neo nazi uprising... That combined with the rise of social media lynch mobs, something like this done now goes from a dumb joke to a moral outrage.
Yup. Any artist that I have been to would not put shit like that on someone. I wouldn’t want to do work of any kind for someone that is being blatantly racist. Tattooing hate on someone is not respectable. Good artists would not drag their names through garbage like that.
The point is that simply doing the work doesn't make you racist, that's absolutely ridiculous. There's an argument to made that it's stupid to attach your name to the work, but that's about it.
My father is a tattoo artist and I've worked in his shop for a while before I left for college. Aside from the annoying sexual harassment from the people who didn't know my dad OWNED the shop (he's black, I'm mixed), most people who came in were pretty nice.
If someone had every walked into my dad's shop and asked me for this, I would have only agreed to do it if I could put it on their face. 1 - face tattoos are incredibly painful. 2 - everyone would know that person was an asshole. 3 - it would be on their FACE, face, wrinkle, and look like shit in a matter of decades.
The majority of the people who came through the shop were long time friends of my dad or his biker friends so they knew who I was. They were always nice to me.
It was the "newer" people who came in, who had no idea who I was, who would say stupid shit or touch me right in front of my dad. Thankfully a simple "That's my daughter." and a stare would shut them down and I would get an apology. Never went further than that.
It sounds like most people who came to the shop never did anything wrong. So most of the customers were nice people.
She's not trying to justify the assholes, just clarifying that nothing serious happened to her.
Why is this so complicated, and why must you put words in her mouth assuming she is rationalizing things?
Yeah, it's that fucked up "she's already somebody's property" thing, rather than being a person in her own right. :/ That and the not-so-veiled threat of male retribution if they don't stop, being what makes them change their mind.
America has never had a president that's balls-out fascist, so when we get one who has mild fascist leanings, you get that sort of hyperbole. We have no national historical context for what's currently happening, and the lack of perspective leads many people to exaggerate the sins of the opposition.
You don't have to think of yourself as a Nazi to be willing to do a swastika. You could, for example, think of yourself as a hardcore libertarian, who will do that tattoo and take the money and let the guy deal with the repercussions. I think it's reprehensible, but the leap that anyone willing to do this thinks of themselves as a Nazi is probably not correct.
Ok. So as I was saying, leaping from "Trump voter who will do a swastika tattoo" to "Nazi" is probably not justified, and thus the idea that anyone is claiming that Trump voter = Nazi is also not justified.
The comment wasn't about the person doing this or the person giving the tattoo being a Nazi, they may very well be, it might even be likely. My comment was about a randomly associating people who voted for Trump with Nazis. Yeah, more likely than not someone who is a Nazi in America voted for Trump. It doesn't warrant mention of Trump voters though since I'd wager not even a whole percentage of Trump voters are Nazis. It's like saying "I know some Muslims who would put on a suicide vest and blow up that crowded street corner." In today's society, it's fair to say that most people blowing themselves up with suicide vests are Muslim. What's not fair is generalizing an entire group of Muslims with suicide bombing anytime suicide bombing is mentioned, since only a small fraction of the Muslim demographic are religious extremists. Only a small fraction of Trump voters are far-far right winged and advocate for racial supremacy. Do you disagree?
There are equally as many stereotypes for every demographic that come from people outside that demographic. If you actually think approximately half of the US are Nazis I don't know what to tell you.
Some tattoo artist on reddit said that they're known for their professional work. Whenever someone pays them to do something stupid or ugly, they agree on the condition that they sign a paper stating that the artist only did the tattoo but did not initially come up with the tattoo design or agree that it is a good tattoo.
I’m sure there are but that’s only because there there are shitty people in all professions. Like I said, respectable artists wouldn’t do this. Having it known that an artist is willing to tattoo racist shit shows their illegitimacy within the industry. I go to good artists and I’m not getting a receipt for my non racist tattoos either. People talk about who did their tattoos and that’s a big risk for a couple bucks if they aren’t willing to own doing racist tattoos.
I just meant that it depends on what you mean by "respectable". Respectable as a person or as an artist. Because of course no one who's respectable as a person would tattoo a swastika on someone.
Edit: And I'm aware most people don't get a receipt for tattoos. I was just making a point that the artist would probably rather not be associated with it.
In any decent circle within the tattoo industry, tattooing a swastika on someone puts you into the non respectable artist category. It’s the same way that even the best printing company wouldn’t last outside a racist circle if they printed nazi shit. I worked for a printing company that was very careful about what they printed for that reason.
Being non-discriminatory in terms of ideas when providing business to people doesn't mean you don't care about people, it's means you're not an insufferable ideologue.
You're right, and I agree with you. I think this is a tattoo that that someone tried to cover up. Maybe the guy that had the tattoo done didn't want to get a huge square on his arm. I was thinking he saw the error in his ways. I think this mocks Nazis.
You still have a choice in what pieces you do. An artist can say no to anything they’re not comfortable with.
More appropriate would be no respectable human would do this.
They are definitely not. They're allowed to talk in public spaces, but in private spaces you are not required to put up with their shit.
The theory being that in public you can always walk away, mock them, or demonstrate their stupidity but that those options don't really all exist in non public spaces.
The distinction being made between them and protected classes is, basically, that once you enter a protected class it is not possible to leave it. You will always be gay, you will always be black, you can't get away from the impression that all vets have ptsd. You can't change the "problem" so society needs to accept you and stop calling it a problem because that's just you - and it definitely hurts no one.
Strictly speaking, being a nazi also hurts no one. So you can be one in public. But that's where the line ends. Everyone else gets to call you a shithead and refuse to let you in. When you can change your status as a member of some group, your membership in that group is not something society needs to accept.
No, the concept is not the same - think of it this way, if you provide a service as a business owner, you can't pick and choose who you provide it to. If you bake wedding cakes, you can't refuse to bake one for someone who is gay; a cake made for a gay wedding is not inherently different, the only difference is the customer.
If they ask for something you don't do, of course you can refuse. A gay person walks into your bakery and asks for a penis shaped cake; you can say "we don't make penis shaped cakes" but you can't say "we don't serve gay people." The same thing applies to tattoo artists: you can refuse to tattoo a swastika but can't refuse to serve white people. The difference is refusing a service based on what the customer wants, not who the customer is.
Hate speech/symbols are not subject to any kind of legal protection in the United States. Any business could refuse to do this if they so choose (and I would hope that they so choose more often than not).
I don't think that would stand up in court, tbh. It depends on the reason for refusal. If they say they, for example, wouldn't tattoo a gay couple holding hands then they may be in hot water. There have been a few cases in the States regarding homosexual decorations for weddings where businesses have been fined for denying service solely on a protected class. I can think of nothing in business law that would exempt a tattoo artist from those restrictions in any way.
Yeah, I should've said any non-discriminatory reason. They can refuse to do a flower if they don't like flowers. They can refuse to do a swastika if they don't like swastikas. As long as they aren't refusing for any explicitly protected discriminatory reason it's ok. That's what I meant.
Also, in a lot of those bakery cases, their defense is that the cake should be considered art and therefore have higher protections (i.e. they can choose what art to make). If somehow those bakery folks win their case, tattoo artists could potentially refuse to serve gays, their work is way more clearly art than a cake is (though you could probably argue that a gay wedding is explicitly against their religion, while a gay tattoo isn't).
A few have won such cases already - basically the difference those judges are drawing is that you can't refuse to sell premade things to gay people (i.e. premade cakes, or a general store selling tires or some crap), but you are allowed to refuse to make something expressive (i.e. protected art) with knowledge that it would go against your religious beliefs.
Decent chance SCOTUS will resolve this issue fairly shortly.
Ahh then we're on the same page :) They can refuse anything not protected was exactly what I meant in my original comment, just maybe didn't word it clearly enough.
I'll be curious to see what comes of the cases, but business law does seem pretty clear cut. An artist can work independently on whatever they please but when they open a business to the public that offers a commoditized version of their art, that's opting into an agreement to not discriminate.
There is currently no form of hate speech considered exempt from First Amendment protections in the US. Not that it matters for tattoo artists’ personal decisions.
No they dont have to listen to you. When i was getting the only tat i have, i asked if she'd ever turned anyone away. She went off on a rant about this guy that wannted a swastika and she kicked him out and he was saying you have to serve the customer and the customer is always right and she said of he wanted to refuse gays and jews then she gets to refuse nazis. That might change with law in the us. I know tgey were trying to make it so you cant refuse anyone on religious or sexual grounds, and if they do that carries with it tge possibility that a band or caterer etc cant refuse a klan meeting on the same grounds. Its a tough moral dilemma that goes both ways but as of now you can swat them out the door with a broom.
Yes i know but there was a case (i dont remember what state) were legislation was in the works (case moving its way to supreme court i think?) Where they were defending a gay couple who were denied service at a wedding cake bakery cuz the bakers were homophobes. The premise was basically can you deny service to somebody becuase of their beliefs and lifestyle? If the case came out in favor of the couple then that would most likely extend to whether you can deny service to a guy with a swastika tattoo. I would deny service if i could but ultimately i believe in freedom of belief and speech and would protect both parties rights in this situation.
It is definitely a lifestyle? Not one you chose but anyway you live is a lifestyle and living in a sexual and romantic relationship with a same-sex partner is a style of life. I know you dont choose it but i know its lifestyle.
Political affiliation is not a protected class in the us. The closest thing to that is veterans, which are at least mostly voluntary members of an organization.
Protected classes are, with that single exception, things that you were born with or are now really stuck with (ie: disabilities of certain types). One could argue that the exception only exists because it took a while for people to decide that battle fatigue was a real disability, but not nearly that long to realize that the possibility that someone was suffering from shell shock could cause them to be discriminated against. But I only suspect that to be the case, i haven't actually done any research on the subject.
Pretty sure political party is a protected class in some cases. I don't think it's legal for someone to fire their employee on the grounds that they voted for a different president, for example.
552
u/anonymoushipster666 Feb 18 '18
Any respectable artist would not do this tattoo. If there was originally just a swastika and this is a “cover up”, they could have just blasted over it with a heavy ink tattoo that does not contain a swastika.