White Power Tattoos at Work

[Spaced Out Ace]

Nevermind; assjack mcasshat is already fired. Good riddance.

 

[Overtone]

I have a Zyklon ninja star logo on my right forearm with a black band going around my arm and people seem to think it is some kind of neo Nazi club tattoo or something.

I think that just means this:

with a black band, and not the actual word "Zyklon".

 

[fenderbender4]

Damn. Got to love business. Claim to be efficient and offering solutions to everything. Yet millions of qualified people are unemployed or underemployed and the ones who get hired are white supremacists who get fired in two weeks.

I am sorry to hear this situation happened at all.

 

[MaxOfMetal]

I know this situation has passed, but I'm drinking which means it's time to put my two cents in.

I'm of Jewish decent, non-practicing atheist though, and I don't care if he had the most antisemitic thing ever tattooed on every square inch of his body. Applying these "right to not be offended" policies is way too slippery of a slope for me to be comfortable with.

What's next? Firing folks with gay pride tattoos because some will be offended?

Exiling them from society is not how you take care of the racism problem.

My

 

[Explorer]

It's not that there is a right to not be offended.

It's a right to be free from harassment in the workplace.

So if someone wore a T-shirt which stated that a German employer was therefore supportive of the Nazi genocide of the Jews, that would probably be a problem for the employee.

If someone put up a sign that said "Kykes are a problem," that could be seen as problematic. In fact, a lot of those employee manuals which people get in their orientation in different companies actually outline that this is not acceptable behavior.

If you have someone who insists on displaying a sign, that is reasonably interpreted as an attempt at intimidation. They're not only gone, but get no unemployment benefits because it's for cause.

----

As far as I know, there are no "gay power" groups which have embraced violence. I therefore think you've made a questionable attempt at finding an equivalent.

Also... I do know people who cover really horrifying ideas which they once thought were worthy of aggressively inking on their skin.

Why do they cover them up?

Because they want to be part of the diverse society they once rejected.

If you're being in-your-face with that stuff, as the white-power-tattoo guy was in the OP's stories, that person isn't attempting to fit in.

And if someone doesn't care about others, it doesn't matter how much you might want to make them part of society. That's like a woman who keeps forgiving her husband and giving him more second chances after he's beaten the tar out of her more than once. Forgiveness and reconciliation only happens when the person who is being forgiven actually wants to change.

Proudly displaying those tattoos doesn't indicate change.

Quick, before you sober up... do *you* think him actually displaying that stuff meant he wanted to change?

 

[ThatCanadianGuy]

It's not that there is a right to not be offended.

It's a right to be free from harassment in the workplace.

So if someone wore a T-shirt which stated that a German employer was therefore supportive of the Nazi genocide of the Jews, that would probably be a problem for the employee.

If someone put up a sign that said "Kykes are a problem," that could be seen as problematic. In fact, a lot of those employee manuals which people get in their orientation in different companies actually outline that this is not acceptable behavior.

If you have someone who insists on displaying a sign, that is reasonably interpreted as an attempt at intimidation. They're not only gone, but get no unemployment benefits because it's for cause.

----

As far as I know, there are no "gay power" groups which have embraced violence. I therefore think you've made a questionable attempt at finding an equivalent.

Also... I do know people who cover really horrifying ideas which they once thought were worthy of aggressively inking on their skin.

Why do they cover them up?

Because they want to be part of the diverse society they once rejected.

If you're being in-your-face with that stuff, as the white-power-tattoo guy was in the OP's stories, that person isn't attempting to fit in.

And if someone doesn't care about others, it doesn't matter how much you might want to make them part of society. That's like a woman who keeps forgiving her husband and giving him more second chances after he's beaten the tar out of her more than once. Forgiveness and reconciliation only happens when the person who is being forgiven actually wants to change.

Proudly displaying those tattoos doesn't indicate change.

Quick, before you sober up... do *you* think him actually displaying that stuff meant he wanted to change?

Here's an interesting question. If he was trying to change, would you even care? Or would you let preconceived notions of what HIS ink means to YOU colour your view of him?

What ever happened to being the bigger man?

On a slightly related note, I usually walk around with a shaved head and visible tattoos. I was approached once by a man who had a lot of prison ink. (Head and neck covered) He liked my tattoos, so I started telling him about them. He said he had gotten away from everything gang and drug related, and was trying to start his own business. Also admitted he'd never get rid of the ink because it was a part of his life once. Uses it as a reminder how shitty it was. Nice guy, wish I could get in touch with him.

The point is, you're literally judging a proverbial book by its cover, and I haven't seen anyone on this site come out about how offended they are about Cain Velasquez's "Brown Pride" tattoo.

 

[Explorer]

Here's an interesting question. If he was trying to change, would you even care? Or would you let preconceived notions of what HIS ink means to YOU colour your view of him?

What ever happened to being the bigger man?

First off... I get the impression that you didn't read what information was given in the very first post of this topic.

Talking about being the bigger man in the context of someone who was apparently unconcerned about the niceties seems odd.

The fact that the person was let go also makes your comment seem odd.

However, for what it's worth, I've talked with interviewees in my capacity as an HR rep, including our rules about tattoos when we have to interact with customers. No business wants to alienate customers, and as much as someone might want to argue for freedom of expression on one's own time, one doesn't have that freedom of expression on the business' time. That's why you get paid, instead of doing the job in your "free time."

I also outlined, from an HR perspective, how one needs to take the health and security of one's employees into consideration. If I have an employee who says, "I don't care how my white power tattoos might be perceived by other employees," that can reasonably be used to establish attitude problems when defending a firing for cause in a potential future lawsuit.

I've hired people with tattoos. I've worked with people with tattoos.

Somehow I don't see white power tattoos in the same way that I think of a encircling wrist/hand tattoo of a plant of the same name as the person's recently deceased grandmother (a real example).

----

I do think it's interesting to argue that one cannot use what one has chosen to put on one's skin as a clue to one's attitudes at some point or another. I'm assuming that you're saying, with the "book/cover" idea, that one can't make *any* assumptions about a clearly stated idea held in a tattoo.

When you combine a tattoo with a defense of displaying that tattoo, that also gives clues about where that person is coming from, and those clues are just from the cover the book actually chose, but from continuing to show that cover.

Both getting particular tattoos, and then defending the need to show something no matter who such tattoos might denigrate, are *behaviors*. They're not the color of that person's skin, or their sexuality. They are choices the person makes.

At least that's my understanding of how tattoos arrive on a person's skin. What's yours?

 

[ThatCanadianGuy]

First off... I get the impression that you didn't read what information was given in the very first post of this topic.

Talking about being the bigger man in the context of someone who was apparently unconcerned about the niceties seems odd.

The fact that the person was let go also makes your comment seem odd.

However, for what it's worth, I've talked with interviewees in my capacity as an HR rep, including our rules about tattoos when we have to interact with customers. No business wants to alienate customers, and as much as someone might want to argue for freedom of expression on one's own time, one doesn't have that freedom of expression on the business' time. That's why you get paid, instead of doing the job in your "free time."

I also outlined, from an HR perspective, how one needs to take the health and security of one's employees into consideration. If I have an employee who says, "I don't care how my white power tattoos might be perceived by other employees," that can reasonably be used to establish attitude problems when defending a firing for cause in a potential future lawsuit.

I've hired people with tattoos. I've worked with people with tattoos.

Somehow I don't see white power tattoos in the same way that I think of a encircling wrist/hand tattoo of a plant of the same name as the person's recently deceased grandmother (a real example).

----

I do think it's interesting to argue that one cannot use what one has chosen to put on one's skin as a clue to one's attitudes at some point or another. I'm assuming that you're saying, with the "book/cover" idea, that one can't make *any* assumptions about a clearly stated idea held in a tattoo.

When you combine a tattoo with a defense of displaying that tattoo, that also gives clues about where that person is coming from, and those clues are just from the cover the book actually chose, but from continuing to show that cover.

Both getting particular tattoos, and then defending the need to show something no matter who such tattoos might denigrate, are *behaviors*. They're not the color of that person's skin, or their sexuality. They are choices the person makes.

At least that's my understanding of how tattoos arrive on a person's skin. What's yours?

You obviously aren't getting the point. They aren't your tattoos. Until those tattoos jump off his skin and assault you, you don't have a right to be offended.

EDIT: If you let words and secret meanings define something's danger, there will be a day where free speech won't be an option. Think about this, and think about this hard... Should we perceive words as weapons, or as what they really are, jumbles of letters?

 

[Explorer]

You obviously aren't getting the point. They aren't your tattoos. Until those tattoos jump off his skin and assault you, you don't have a right to be offended.

EDIT: If you let words and secret meanings define something's danger, there will be a day where free speech won't be an option. Think about this, and think about this hard... Should we perceive words as weapons, or as what they really are, jumbles of letters?

Actually, I have a right to be offended, but I don't have the right to curtail someone's display of those tattoos in public.

And the one displaying said tattoos has a right to do so, but doesn't have the right to freedom from criticism.

(Oddly enough, you seem to be using a right to be offended to argue that others don't have a right to be offended. )

You completely skipped the point about it being in the workplace, and then went off into some defense of freedom of speech... which makes it seem that you're worried that the government is the one who is clamping down on such freedom.

I like that you're arguing that one has a right to support bigotry, but not to be intolerant of bigotry.

 

[ThatCanadianGuy]

Actually, I have a right to be offended, but I don't have the right to curtail someone's display of those tattoos in public.

And the one displaying said tattoos has a right to do so, but doesn't have the right to freedom from criticism.

(Oddly enough, you seem to be using a right to be offended to argue that others don't have a right to be offended. )

You completely skipped the point about it being in the workplace, and then went off into some defense of freedom of speech... which makes it seem that you're worried that the government is the one who is clamping down on such freedom.

I like that you're arguing that one has a right to support bigotry, but not to be intolerant of bigotry.

I'm not so worried about the government curtailing anything than I am idiots trying to report people to a higher power for existing. Help the guy find a job in a warehouse where he doesn't have to interact with customers, and then you have a right to pretend you're better than him.

When he tells you he's racist, then you can hang him from your holier-than-thou crucifix.

Dicky, out.

 

[Dana]

wow. Babies.... get back to work

 

[Explorer]

Dicky, out.

On the plus side, I now have a shorter name to type in reply than CanadianGuy....