He certainly doesn’t look like somebody I would normally take advice from. Not to judge by appearances. He would definitely appeal to the more radical.
He certainly doesn’t look like somebody I would normally take advice from. Not to judge by appearances. He would definitely appeal to the more radical.
Are you referring to the guy's vanity stamps (tattoos)?
Look, I'm as radical as you're ever likely to come across. This is no vacuous boast. It is in my thinking, choices, and actions that I express an incurably, irredeemably radical non-conformity. But you wouldn't notice me just standing there in a crowd or on the street. And I certainly don't need tattoos to proclaim this. On the other hand, instead of appealing to me, the appearance of the person we're discussing here actually denigrates him in my assessment. I need to remind myself that appearances are only skin deep and such intentional garishness, though very likely manifesting internal problems and deficiencies, should be put aside or dismissed lest I overlook something else genuinely worthwhile about the person.
Leaving aside the significance as a rite of passage in some indigenous cultures, such as with Samoan traditions, in western cultures in the past, tattoos were largely confined to certain marginalized groups, almost exclusively or predominantly of men such as sailors and criminals. The incarcerated were often self-tattooed, with crude designs or slogans, such as "F#%K the police". A good friend of mine was in the French Foreign Legion and during his career he assembled a suite of rough tattoos all over his arms, shoulders, torso, and legs. He knows they're dreadful, but he has seen, been through, and done dreadful things. There was a therapeutic aspect to chronicling those things in this way.
On the other hand, a professional tattooists will be engaged, and both the client and the tattooist will assert that what they are doing is art. Bu to me both the will to be so disfigured and the performance of the act itself is probably little more than tasteless ostentation, if not just cheap trashiness. The tattooed will often express a trite rationalization for their adherence to this fashion - because that is all that this contemporary mass social phenomenon of tattooing really is, a fashion - as a need to express themselves and their individuality, while being completely unaware of how lacking in self-consciousness, and how unexamined this so-called kind of self-expression really is. So many are doing it, so in exactly what way and how is individuality being betokened?. A more explicit and, arguably, more tenable expression would be of the wearer's lamentable herd mentality. Though they'll believe the ink indicates their undeniable urban edginess, I've read somewhere that tattooing in this way reveals the lack of character of someone who does not even have the courage of their lack of convictions.
He certainly doesn’t look like somebody I would normally take advice from. Not to judge by appearances. He would definitely appeal to the more radical.
I have heard him before and for what it’s worth thought him credible. Just have to look past his appearance.
.
"He would definitely appeal to the more radical."
Are you referring to the guy's vanity stamps (tattoos)?
Look, I'm as radical as you're ever likely to come across. This is no vacuous boast. It is in my thinking, choices, and actions that I express an incurably, irredeemably radical non-conformity. But you wouldn't notice me just standing there in a crowd or on the street. And I certainly don't need tattoos to proclaim this. On the other hand, instead of appealing to me, the appearance of the person we're discussing here actually denigrates him in my assessment. I need to remind myself that appearances are only skin deep and such intentional garishness, though very likely manifesting internal problems and deficiencies, should be put aside or dismissed lest I overlook something else genuinely worthwhile about the person.
Leaving aside the significance as a rite of passage in some indigenous cultures, such as with Samoan traditions, in western cultures in the past, tattoos were largely confined to certain marginalized groups, almost exclusively or predominantly of men such as sailors and criminals. The incarcerated were often self-tattooed, with crude designs or slogans, such as "F#%K the police". A good friend of mine was in the French Foreign Legion and during his career he assembled a suite of rough tattoos all over his arms, shoulders, torso, and legs. He knows they're dreadful, but he has seen, been through, and done dreadful things. There was a therapeutic aspect to chronicling those things in this way.
On the other hand, a professional tattooists will be engaged, and both the client and the tattooist will assert that what they are doing is art. Bu to me both the will to be so disfigured and the performance of the act itself is probably little more than tasteless ostentation, if not just cheap trashiness. The tattooed will often express a trite rationalization for their adherence to this fashion - because that is all that this contemporary mass social phenomenon of tattooing really is, a fashion - as a need to express themselves and their individuality, while being completely unaware of how lacking in self-consciousness, and how unexamined this so-called kind of self-expression really is. So many are doing it, so in exactly what way and how is individuality being betokened?. A more explicit and, arguably, more tenable expression would be of the wearer's lamentable herd mentality. Though they'll believe the ink indicates their undeniable urban edginess, I've read somewhere that tattooing in this way reveals the lack of character of someone who does not even have the courage of their lack of convictions.