Mysterious Stranger wrote:
You didn't answer the question.
Another aspect of business tattoo policies isn't so much they don't want people to have tattoos but rather don't want to have a policy to regulate said tattoos. A blanket 'no visible tattoos' is easy to handle. But what if the tattoos are offensive in nature? And how is this defined? Who makes up these guidelines? And what if a customer finds a tattoo offensive but is acceptable per these guidelines? Do they fire the employee, make him cover it up, lose the business? Speaking from a managerial viewpoint I'd much rather enforce 'no visible tattoos' then try to explain to someone why a half-naked woman on their forearm isn't acceptable for a server to display because I just dealt with a customer ranting for an hour about it.
Same as any other offensive clothing/etc rule that workplaces also have? Tattoos don't need to be ruled differently.
Man that's wrong on like every count.
1. Someone who doesn't bathe can affect the work of people around them.
And that's pretty much garbage and I can't wait until we get rid of that ruling. The decision is always made by a person, an actual living sentient person, not a legal fiction.
1a. So a choice to get visible requires others to overlook the tattooed person in employment consideration? Or is this just a subjective judgement?
1b. Actually, tattoos were originally a declaration of faith or accomplishment. But that reason, as well as the old non-conformist reason, are pretty much moot nowadays. Who wants someone with outdated social understanding working for them?
3. These consequences are not absolute. Each one is a conscious decision made by a person. People can grow up and decide tattoos aren't scary or counter-cultural or anti-business.
4. Ugh, yes it is. A prejudice is a prejudice is a prejudice. Whether or not it's a choice doesn't matter.
1. What rights does "a business" have? And what right is it I'm supposedly trampling on by having hypothetical visible tattoos?
3. It does impact my right to work if my choices that should affect only me restrict my job opportunities because the prejudices held by employers.
4. If I were a minority (racial, religious, etc.), would my status impact my employer's perception by racist/whatever customers? (I know having tattoos isn't as serous or a legally-protected class, but it's the exact same logic)
Oh, I understand some people don't like tattoos and that businesses cater to them because business is business. I just don't like other people's attitudes indirectly affect ownership of my own body if I want to do things like pay rent.
Edit: if one don't like tattoos, fine, don't get them. But someone else's opinion shouldn't affect what I can do with my body so long as I'm not hurting anybody.
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
Hey Anklebiter - are you AnCom?
Kain Darkwind wrote:
Kain Darkwind wrote:
And I disagree on all your points.
Unlike all those "feminist" studies and SJW, right? Those are completely unbiased and totally objective.
Maybe you should use fewer pejoratives when trying to make a point.
Even when that point is not relevant to what was brought up. I was discussing the AEI, not whatever straw man you're trying to interject into the discussion.
Then when discussing the other issues you need to be specific, because in the larger picture "privlidge" is a giant timey whimey ball of confusing and contradictory ideas that implies a lot of things that simply aren't true. If you're shown espousing something that isn't true then it undermines all of your other arguments.
Not really, no.
I'm not that worried. I'm pretty sure that blowing someone's pixilated head off with a rocket launcher is always going to result in some very unlady like language whether or not there are ladies around to hear it or say it.
That's not really the argument at all. Sexism in video games has more to do with how women in game, or women in gaming culture, are treated.