the "tramp stamp", what do we think about it?

[ParadigmShifter]

Is your dominant friend a teacher by any chance

 

[Mise]

And we're back to the chicken&egg issue.

But FWIW, I agree that interviewing is a lost art these days.

I don't understand - what part's chicken and egg?

 

[CurtSibling]

See, now you sound like a jerk. Didn't take much, did it?

Very clever of you to change my words to spuriously justify your biased view!

And pray tell, why are you dragging culture/race into it?

Granted, yes, my comparison is hyperbolic, but it stands. To judge people solely on irrelevant superficial grounds is illogical, unreasonable and counter-productive, as is judging them upon irrelevant aspects of their personal life. If the "slacker" was otherwise turned out in a professional manner, proved to be the most capable applicant, and the job was in no way effected by the wearing of dreadlocks, on what reasonable basis could you refuse him? Certainly, at that point it appears no more reasonable a bias than one against a particular religious or cultural group.

I did say I would employ him if he was capable, regardless if he was a freak.

So this kind of leaves you screaming in an empty room, sir.

 

[Brighteye]

If it is acceptable to expect candidates to accept and make allowance for the employer's irrational prejudices and aesthetic desires, then we will allow employers to employ pretty women. And when they have lots of pretty women, then why not pander to their desires by allowing the pretty women to seduce them?
And then why don't we just allow people to give employers favours? Or to have people employ their friends for advertised jobs?

 

[Yeekim]

If it is acceptable to expect candidates to accept and make allowance for the employer's irrational prejudices and aesthetic desires, then we will allow employers to employ pretty women. And when they have lots of pretty women, then why not pander to their desires by allowing the pretty women to seduce them?
And then why don't we just allow people to give employers favours? Or to have people employ their friends for advertised jobs?

Dude, everything you speak of already happens.

Is your dominant friend a teacher by any chance

To be honest, that's what I thought as well.

 

[Brighteye]

Dude, everything you speak of already happens.

What happens and what is acceptable and allowable are different.

 

[Souron]

It's basically an arrow pointing to the butt. Possibly with parts that are obscured by the pant line so that you are made to wonder how it continues. Now I'm not an ass person, so it doesn't do anything for me.

Getting a tattoo that highlights your sexuality of course demonstrates one's priorities. There are various slogans that get this across, but I won't bother with them here. Of course It's still just an indicator.

 

[Yeekim]

What happens and what is acceptable and allowable are different.

Find a way to prevent that and you can claim a Nobel, or possibly several.

 

[scherbchen]

a bit of an expansion on the OP, seeing as we are, maybe a tad unfairly, talking only about girl tattoos and one in particular but we have branched out into hairstyles by now so I guess this is fitting and I am surprised this has not come up before.

we already covered the infamous "tramp stamp" to some extent but men have a typical tattoo as well. I should know, I have one of those. the dreaded band around the biceps or slightly above it. not going to repeat again all I said about the location of the tramp stamp being pretty much optimal but it applies to the male... thingie... as well, is there a (preferably derogatory) term for it?

another thing I wanted to mention is the perception many people have expressed in this thread about people looking "different" (not that much really, tbh, since it has entered the mainstream some decades ago) and sticking to their own crowd, how much the style you portray can be viewed as a self-inflicted stigmata or brand you as an outcast.

meet this man (well this is terribly old news but nobody has brought it up so it might as well be me)

married to this lady

what happened there? different standards for the genders? is Mrs Bullock a freak in hiding? can you be a nice guy but merely sport a macho image? if it is the latter can't you be a nice girl even though you portray yourself as a femme fatale/easy girl?

 

[BCLG100]

Tbh Sandra Bullock looks and acts so high maintenance it would not surprise me if she had a whole closet devoted to S&M.

This has nothing to do with the tattoo issue however.

 

[scherbchen]

Tbh Sandra Bullock looks and acts so high maintenance it would not surprise me if she had a whole closet devoted to S&M.

This has nothing to do with the tattoo issue however.

sorry to paraphrase The Simpsons but nobody who speaks German can possibly be high maintenance.

say, does this avatar make me look fat?

 

[warpus]

There's nothing wrong with looking different or having a cool tattoo, but a tramp stamp does not qualify.

 

[ParadigmShifter]

I like Sandra even if she has a bumchin.

She is a bit kooky though.

Never mind the bullocks, here's the sex pistols.

 

[Elrohir]

Careful now, I'm not comparing sexuality to outward appearance; I'm comparing prejudice against sexuality to prejudice against appearance. It's the same prejudice -- he's different to us, he must be weird, I'll steer clear of him. "I want to dine with people who are like me" -- i.e. whites, non-gays, christians, etc. The wellspring of prejudice is the same in all instances, regardless of what is being prejudiced aganist.

But it's not. If you look like this, then you look frightening and anti-social. That's an extreme case, but I don't think you can seriously argue that it's unreasonable to have any response to something like that. The fact is, what you do to your body says something about who you are, and is thus a legitimate way of judging someone's character, although admittedly in a very limited way. Judging someone a great deal on their appearance usually isn't good, but how they choose to portray themselves does say something about their attitudes and ideas. But with something like race, or gender, it's not something that's chosen at all, so judging based on them is pretty unreasonable.

Saying all prejudice is the same is absurd. Thinking "Wow, the guy who had a skull tattooed onto his face might be kinda scary, or strange" is not nearly in the same league as "That guy's black! He must smoke crack, rob banks, or something!" Even if you want to say that it's the same kind of idea, it's not nearly on the same level.

 

[Mise]

Except that's not the reason at all... Evolutionary biology tells us that identifying and discriminating against people who are obviously different is an evolved response that helps us survive when resources are limited. When there's not enough resources to go round, you just want to share the stuff that you hunt and gather with a limited number of people. First, you share it with your family, or extended family. But after that, then who? Our basic instinct is to discriminate by physical appearance -- so we are hardwired to include in our group or clique or tribe people who are similar to us, and exclude people who are obviously different. We're hardwired to identify and discriminate against people who are physically different to us. That's how societies formed. And it's the origin of all kinds of discrimination -- against blacks, gays, and, yes, people with blue hair. It's also why different religions have different customs and hairstyles and clothes and churches -- to identify who is "one of us" and "one of them", so that we can share limited resources among only those who are similar to us.

This is all part of the way our species evolved. And when we were primitive and tribal, it was necessary, and it worked. But in modern society, where resources are essentially limitless, it's an irrational and counterproductive vestigial feature of evolution. We need to recognise our shortcomings as human beings, and not simply add window dressing to our vestigial irrationality.


NOTE: There are other evolved reasons for discriminating against people who are different, such as the "ugh, he looks sickly, I'll steer clear of him." That may be at play also. Also note that tattoos, piercings, and easily identifiable hairstyles were themselves, in their tribal origins, a consequence of the above -- it's easy to identify who's an "insider" and who's "outsider" by highly distinctive physical alterations! Nowadays, fashion and culture has moved well beyond that instinct as its primary motivator. Unfortunately, our brains' discriminator functions haven't.

 

[Yeekim]

Except that's not the reason at all... Evolutionary biology tells us that identifying and discriminating against people who are obviously different is an evolved response that helps us survive when resources are limited. When there's not enough resources to go round, you just want to share the stuff that you hunt and gather with a limited number of people. First, you share it with your family, or extended family. But after that, then who? Our basic instinct is to discriminate by physical appearance -- so we are hardwired to include in our group or clique or tribe people who are similar to us, and exclude people who are obviously different. We're hardwired to identify and discriminate against people who are physically different to us. That's how societies formed. And it's the origin of all kinds of discrimination -- against blacks, gays, and, yes, people with blue hair. It's also why different religions have different customs and hairstyles and clothes and churches -- to identify who is "one of us" and "one of them", so that we can share limited resources among only those who are similar to us.

This is all part of the way our species evolved. And when we were primitive and tribal, it was necessary, and it worked.

Everything correct, so far.

But in modern society, where resources are essentially limitless...

Economists would be interested in this revolutionary discovery...

... it's an irrational and counterproductive vestigial feature of evolution. We need to recognise our shortcomings as human beings, and not simply add window dressing to our vestigial irrationality.

It is entirely possible to rationally profile people based on how they choose to present themselves (which includes dressing, makeup, hairstyle etc). And it is being done daily by people who know bloody well what they are doing - in intelligence, in policework, in marketing ... essentially everywhere where results are important enough to ignore overdone PC.

 

[Mise]

It is entirely possible to rationally profile people based on how they choose to present themselves (which includes dressing, makeup, hairstyle etc). And it is being done daily by people who know bloody well what they are doing - in intelligence, in policework, in marketing ... essentially everywhere where results are important enough to ignore overdone PC.

Except I talked specifically about two candidates with identical credentials and who interviewed equally well. That is to say, in a situation where two candidates are identically suited for the job, the employer would pick the brown haired girl over the pink haired girl for no other reason than because the pink haired girl is different -- no logic, no rational reason, nothing. Just because she is different. That is not a result of any kind of rationality, that is purely a result of the evolutionary revulsion to people who are different.

The reason why people discriminate against pink-haired people is not due to deliberate "profiling" -- that's the post-hoc rationalisation that people apply on top of the innate evolutionary response, but it is not the reason. The reason is that they are different, and we are hardwired to respond negatively to people who are different.

Put it this way, everyone knows that what people say and what people do are often two completely different things. People say they're employing some kind of "profiling" regime, based on some elusive and vague "past experience" (which somehow counts on par with probabilistic profiling employed by marketing departments with access to vast data only decipherable through complex statistical modelling...), but what they actually do is respond negatively to people who are different, due to the way our brains are hardwired.

 

[BCLG100]

I like Sandra even if she has a bumchin.

She is a bit kooky though.

Never mind the bullocks, here's the sex pistols.

Oh i still would indulge! Though when hollywood stars are knocking at my door she wouldn't be my first choice.

 

[IglooDame]

And we're back to the chicken&egg issue.

But FWIW, I agree that interviewing is a lost art these days.

I don't understand - what part's chicken and egg?

The part where the interviewer will react (probably negatively) to the tattoo/haircolor/whatever, but the interviewee knows it going in and does not change/hide it in advance.

 

[IglooDame]

Except I talked specifically about two candidates with identical credentials and who interviewed equally well. That is to say, in a situation where two candidates are identically suited for the job, the employer would pick the brown haired girl over the pink haired girl for no other reason than because the pink haired girl is different -- no logic, no rational reason, nothing. Just because she is different. That is not a result of any kind of rationality, that is purely a result of the evolutionary revulsion to people who are different.

But they aren't identical. Their preparation for the interview was different.

If you want to argue about negative impact of, say, a facial tick, a nose the size of Delaware, whether one wears a blue shirt or a green shirt (by the way, what color clothes you wear - even if all relatively conservative shades - also has an impact), and why it is irrational, fine, I'd agree with you. But the person with the pink hair is going into the interview aware of the potential negative prejudice against pink-haired applicants and yet declining to change their hair color. Like it or not, that makes them legitimately different from the brown-haired applicant in terms of evaluating the results of the interview.