I removed the post that Sean put up earlier which was causing such controversy. I didn’t want the discussion to keep revolving around one person’s tattoos because we don’t know if that person is a racist or just an idiot (if it’s the first then it looks like the answer would be both).
Shannon and I have been discussing the post via email earlier and he reminded me of this old post of a Hitler portrait from a tattooer in Singapore. As it stands now and has been the policy for years, racist and hategroup tattoos go into the Political Section of BME. Similar to the Animal Tattoo & Piercing sections, we don’t support it but BME’s mandate is to archive and catalog the evolution and history of our community, even the ignorant aspects of it. However, that doesn’t expand to other parts of BME like IAM.
IAM’s long standing TOS states the following:
“IAM is a community built around principles of tolerance. You may not post hatespeech (race, gender, or sexuality-based attacks). This includes use of terms like “gay” or “fag” or “kike” in a derogatory manner, even in jest. This rule is very strict, and extends to racist codes and iconography (“14″, “88″, and so on), as well as NSBM and racist band lists and so on. This includes verifiable offsite posts. To be very clear about this: if you are a bigot, onsite or off, stay off IAM. This is not a ban on racism. This is a total ban on bigots.”
This begs the question as far as political commentary on racist tattoos. I personally don’t want to see them get any more attention than they deserve, which is why they’re generally quietly filed away, along with other ill advised modifications. We can’t sit back and pretend that they don’t exist but we also don’t need to give them any room in the spot light that is Modblog.
As both Sean and I have said in the comments section, neither of us recognized the tattoo as a Totenkopf. At first glance I thought it was three skulls because you couldn’t see the entire tattoo. I was sent some messages stating that the racist aspect of the tattoo should be ignored because it wasn’t the focus of the post. The focus of the post was the small boobs and not tattoos. I don’t agree with that line of thinking. One of the other reasons we can’t flat out reject racist tattoos is that we simply don’t have the manpower to be fully adept at all the secret racist codes out there. As none of the staff on BME are racists, we don’t know the secret handshakes. So we try to file the tattoos where they belong. Maybe it would be more helpful if racists grew balls and weren’t so embarrased by their beliefs that they have to disguise them.
The reasoning for this post was to give you guys a post to comment on that wasn’t attacking a specific individual. So let your thoughts fly.
Comments
303 responses to “The politics of Body Modification?”
wow she really is a huge racist, and shock horror, no backbone. good riddance TBH
Think you guys at BME, Shannon and Rachel, are doing a GREAT job. Can’t please everybody, but I certainly think you guys are both doing a fantastic job with the whole racist thing by not censoring it (by having it available in the galleries) but not featuring it 🙂
Think you guys at BME, Shannon and Rachel, are doing a GREAT job. Can’t please everybody, but I certainly think you guys are both doing a fantastic job with the whole racist thing by not censoring it (by having it available in the galleries) but not featuring it 🙂
Think you guys at BME, Shannon and Rachel, are doing a GREAT job. Can’t please everybody, but I certainly think you guys are both doing a fantastic job with the whole racist thing by not censoring it (by having it available in the galleries) but not featuring it 🙂
“As it stands now and has been the policy for years, racist and hategroup tattoos go into the Political Section of BME. Similar to the Animal Tattoo & Piercing sections, we don’t support it but BME’s mandate is to archive and catalog the evolution and history of our community, even the ignorant aspects of it. However, that doesn’t expand to other parts of BME like IAM.”
This strikes me as a remarkably slippery statement and policy. It strikes me that it has to be a bright line, not a murky one: either you support such attitudes and behaviours, or you don’t. If you don’t, as you say, then why would you provide a forum for the promotion and display of such things, a forum ultimately paid for by members of a community supposedly “built around principles of tolerance”? Justifying the promotion of such things by allowing images of them on certain parts of the site and not on others is rather like an officially vegetarian restaurant that offers meat dishes but simply doesn’t place them on its main menu: you can’t have it both ways. Either you support and therefore provide a forum for racist/hate tattoos, images of animal abuse, and dangerous, ill-advised modifications, or you don’t permit such images anywhere on your site; which is it?
“As it stands now and has been the policy for years, racist and hategroup tattoos go into the Political Section of BME. Similar to the Animal Tattoo & Piercing sections, we don’t support it but BME’s mandate is to archive and catalog the evolution and history of our community, even the ignorant aspects of it. However, that doesn’t expand to other parts of BME like IAM.”
This strikes me as a remarkably slippery statement and policy. It strikes me that it has to be a bright line, not a murky one: either you support such attitudes and behaviours, or you don’t. If you don’t, as you say, then why would you provide a forum for the promotion and display of such things, a forum ultimately paid for by members of a community supposedly “built around principles of tolerance”? Justifying the promotion of such things by allowing images of them on certain parts of the site and not on others is rather like an officially vegetarian restaurant that offers meat dishes but simply doesn’t place them on its main menu: you can’t have it both ways. Either you support and therefore provide a forum for racist/hate tattoos, images of animal abuse, and dangerous, ill-advised modifications, or you don’t permit such images anywhere on your site; which is it?
“As it stands now and has been the policy for years, racist and hategroup tattoos go into the Political Section of BME. Similar to the Animal Tattoo & Piercing sections, we don’t support it but BME’s mandate is to archive and catalog the evolution and history of our community, even the ignorant aspects of it. However, that doesn’t expand to other parts of BME like IAM.”
This strikes me as a remarkably slippery statement and policy. It strikes me that it has to be a bright line, not a murky one: either you support such attitudes and behaviours, or you don’t. If you don’t, as you say, then why would you provide a forum for the promotion and display of such things, a forum ultimately paid for by members of a community supposedly “built around principles of tolerance”? Justifying the promotion of such things by allowing images of them on certain parts of the site and not on others is rather like an officially vegetarian restaurant that offers meat dishes but simply doesn’t place them on its main menu: you can’t have it both ways. Either you support and therefore provide a forum for racist/hate tattoos, images of animal abuse, and dangerous, ill-advised modifications, or you don’t permit such images anywhere on your site; which is it?
While im certainly not going to defend hatred or pride based on something one can not change nor control like skin colour or heritage, I can understand why people that feel strongly about something feel the need to hide it.
For example i am an atheist and i avoid sharing that in certain situations because of how much aggression it causes. If i had a flying spaghetti monster tattoo i wouldnt brag about it if i was around my friends that are religious.
Even though i think its completely ridiculous to be proud or the judge based on things out of ones control i can understand the desire to hide the true meaning of certain things.
While im certainly not going to defend hatred or pride based on something one can not change nor control like skin colour or heritage, I can understand why people that feel strongly about something feel the need to hide it.
For example i am an atheist and i avoid sharing that in certain situations because of how much aggression it causes. If i had a flying spaghetti monster tattoo i wouldnt brag about it if i was around my friends that are religious.
Even though i think its completely ridiculous to be proud or the judge based on things out of ones control i can understand the desire to hide the true meaning of certain things.
While im certainly not going to defend hatred or pride based on something one can not change nor control like skin colour or heritage, I can understand why people that feel strongly about something feel the need to hide it.
For example i am an atheist and i avoid sharing that in certain situations because of how much aggression it causes. If i had a flying spaghetti monster tattoo i wouldnt brag about it if i was around my friends that are religious.
Even though i think its completely ridiculous to be proud or the judge based on things out of ones control i can understand the desire to hide the true meaning of certain things.
And the argument that hosting such images is necessary to “archive and catalog the evolution and history of our community, even the ignorant aspects of it,” is frankly nonsense. There’s a difference between writing about something in a scholarly, dispassionate way — such as would be possible at BMEzine Encyclopedia, and promoting it by giving people a special image gallery where they can post photos of their racist/hate tattoos.
By the way, the Swastika entry at BMEzine Encyclopedia currently has no image of a Nazi swastika, suggesting that archiving and cataloging Nazi tattoo imagery for scholarly purposes isn’t going on there either. In fact, the entry currently reads: “Contrary to popular Western belief, the swastika is a culturally universal symbol of peace and love, and has been used literally by every society in history for this purpose”, a claim which isn’t even remotely close to being true.
And the argument that hosting such images is necessary to “archive and catalog the evolution and history of our community, even the ignorant aspects of it,” is frankly nonsense. There’s a difference between writing about something in a scholarly, dispassionate way — such as would be possible at BMEzine Encyclopedia, and promoting it by giving people a special image gallery where they can post photos of their racist/hate tattoos.
By the way, the Swastika entry at BMEzine Encyclopedia currently has no image of a Nazi swastika, suggesting that archiving and cataloging Nazi tattoo imagery for scholarly purposes isn’t going on there either. In fact, the entry currently reads: “Contrary to popular Western belief, the swastika is a culturally universal symbol of peace and love, and has been used literally by every society in history for this purpose”, a claim which isn’t even remotely close to being true.
And the argument that hosting such images is necessary to “archive and catalog the evolution and history of our community, even the ignorant aspects of it,” is frankly nonsense. There’s a difference between writing about something in a scholarly, dispassionate way — such as would be possible at BMEzine Encyclopedia, and promoting it by giving people a special image gallery where they can post photos of their racist/hate tattoos.
By the way, the Swastika entry at BMEzine Encyclopedia currently has no image of a Nazi swastika, suggesting that archiving and cataloging Nazi tattoo imagery for scholarly purposes isn’t going on there either. In fact, the entry currently reads: “Contrary to popular Western belief, the swastika is a culturally universal symbol of peace and love, and has been used literally by every society in history for this purpose”, a claim which isn’t even remotely close to being true.
Bob are you on something? of corse the swastika has been used by almost ever society at some point in history do your research, nor dose the BMEzine Encyclopedia need an image of the nazi swastika, we all know what it looked like, and we all know the nazi’s used it once, and because of that alot of western people see it as nazi and only nazi, when in fact it has been in use for 100′s if not 1000′s of years before and will carry on being used for good.
Bob are you on something? of corse the swastika has been used by almost ever society at some point in history do your research, nor dose the BMEzine Encyclopedia need an image of the nazi swastika, we all know what it looked like, and we all know the nazi’s used it once, and because of that alot of western people see it as nazi and only nazi, when in fact it has been in use for 100′s if not 1000′s of years before and will carry on being used for good.
Bob are you on something? of corse the swastika has been used by almost ever society at some point in history do your research, nor dose the BMEzine Encyclopedia need an image of the nazi swastika, we all know what it looked like, and we all know the nazi’s used it once, and because of that alot of western people see it as nazi and only nazi, when in fact it has been in use for 100′s if not 1000′s of years before and will carry on being used for good.
in fact it evan states “This single exception is the brief period where the Nazis attempted to tarnish it and twist it to their purposes. “
in fact it evan states “This single exception is the brief period where the Nazis attempted to tarnish it and twist it to their purposes. “
in fact it evan states “This single exception is the brief period where the Nazis attempted to tarnish it and twist it to their purposes. “
I, for one, would like to see this person removed from iam.
Anyone who cites censorship in this instance is coming from a place of white privilege. People of colour have to put up with racist bullshit on a daily basis and therefore (speaking as a white, western person) it is our responsibility to maintain the safety of spaces, be they online or otherwise and that means not giving a platform to anyone who threatens the wellbeing of a group of people based on racial background.
I, for one, would like to see this person removed from iam.
Anyone who cites censorship in this instance is coming from a place of white privilege. People of colour have to put up with racist bullshit on a daily basis and therefore (speaking as a white, western person) it is our responsibility to maintain the safety of spaces, be they online or otherwise and that means not giving a platform to anyone who threatens the wellbeing of a group of people based on racial background.
I, for one, would like to see this person removed from iam.
Anyone who cites censorship in this instance is coming from a place of white privilege. People of colour have to put up with racist bullshit on a daily basis and therefore (speaking as a white, western person) it is our responsibility to maintain the safety of spaces, be they online or otherwise and that means not giving a platform to anyone who threatens the wellbeing of a group of people based on racial background.
gandy, the article says the swastika has been used by LITERALLY EVERY SOCIETY; this is not even close to true. It has been, and continues to be, used in *many* cultures, but even to say “most” cultures would be untrue, let alone “literally every society.”
And if, as you claim, BMEzine Encyclopedia doesn’t need an image of the Nazi swastika because “we all know what it looked like, and we all know the Nazi’s used it once,” then by the same logic BME doesn’t need an image gallery of racist/hate tattoos in order to “archive and catalog the evolution and history of our community” either. Get it?
gandy, the article says the swastika has been used by LITERALLY EVERY SOCIETY; this is not even close to true. It has been, and continues to be, used in *many* cultures, but even to say “most” cultures would be untrue, let alone “literally every society.”
And if, as you claim, BMEzine Encyclopedia doesn’t need an image of the Nazi swastika because “we all know what it looked like, and we all know the Nazi’s used it once,” then by the same logic BME doesn’t need an image gallery of racist/hate tattoos in order to “archive and catalog the evolution and history of our community” either. Get it?
gandy, the article says the swastika has been used by LITERALLY EVERY SOCIETY; this is not even close to true. It has been, and continues to be, used in *many* cultures, but even to say “most” cultures would be untrue, let alone “literally every society.”
And if, as you claim, BMEzine Encyclopedia doesn’t need an image of the Nazi swastika because “we all know what it looked like, and we all know the Nazi’s used it once,” then by the same logic BME doesn’t need an image gallery of racist/hate tattoos in order to “archive and catalog the evolution and history of our community” either. Get it?
having Nazi Imagry included in tattoos and art work does not always mean a “person is a racist or just an idiot (if it’s the first then it looks like the answer would be both)”
Nazi imagery has been used in American counter culture since WW2.
When soldiers came home from the war (particularly popular in motorcycle culture) they would wear pins of killed enemies on their vests.
It has continued to be popular in motorcycle and hot rod culture. not necessarily as a racist symbols but going with a fuck the world mentality. Its also frequently used by those with and intrest in the occult.
look at Ed “big daddy” Roth, creator of rat fink. One of the most popular artists in American counter culture.
uses Tons of Nazi imagery.
i can’t say exactly why each individual uses it.
May be simply because it is so offencive to mainstream culture?
who knows. don’t pass off judgement in every case so easily. their are many other motives a person may have.
having Nazi Imagry included in tattoos and art work does not always mean a “person is a racist or just an idiot (if it’s the first then it looks like the answer would be both)”
Nazi imagery has been used in American counter culture since WW2.
When soldiers came home from the war (particularly popular in motorcycle culture) they would wear pins of killed enemies on their vests.
It has continued to be popular in motorcycle and hot rod culture. not necessarily as a racist symbols but going with a fuck the world mentality. Its also frequently used by those with and intrest in the occult.
look at Ed “big daddy” Roth, creator of rat fink. One of the most popular artists in American counter culture.
uses Tons of Nazi imagery.
i can’t say exactly why each individual uses it.
May be simply because it is so offencive to mainstream culture?
who knows. don’t pass off judgement in every case so easily. their are many other motives a person may have.
having Nazi Imagry included in tattoos and art work does not always mean a “person is a racist or just an idiot (if it’s the first then it looks like the answer would be both)”
Nazi imagery has been used in American counter culture since WW2.
When soldiers came home from the war (particularly popular in motorcycle culture) they would wear pins of killed enemies on their vests.
It has continued to be popular in motorcycle and hot rod culture. not necessarily as a racist symbols but going with a fuck the world mentality. Its also frequently used by those with and intrest in the occult.
look at Ed “big daddy” Roth, creator of rat fink. One of the most popular artists in American counter culture.
uses Tons of Nazi imagery.
i can’t say exactly why each individual uses it.
May be simply because it is so offencive to mainstream culture?
who knows. don’t pass off judgement in every case so easily. their are many other motives a person may have.
I’m not going to debate the issue of censorship again because it’s apparently clear we can’t come eye to eye on that discussion. We’re not going to change minds by bickering.
I would like to comment that the restriction of issues it was makes it taboo. The restriction of a word is what makes it vulgar. If everyone used a certain word, or image, or expression that was previously restricted and with very negative connotations, it usually takes a whole new form after the fact.
God, of course I’ll have this example and I’m sure this isn’t a very popular view, but here goes.
Some people don’t think being called a “bitch” is a bad thing. In fact, some people think it’s endearing. Of course, it upsets LOTS of women but not all. It’s like the reclamation of a word that was once used as hate. Nigger is used predominantly and publicly by black people. Faggot is a term embraced by much of the gay community. Women have reclaimed a lot of what was once used against them. Comedy has been a way to dispel racism by making the stark reality of racism or sexism a joke and bringing light to it.. Maybe this is sort of their way of poking fun at the nazi world and icons in general. It’s so taboo, which makes it that much more funny in a way. Vulgar jokes are the best kind..
I’m not saying this was her intent, or the intent of Sean or Modblog to describe this idea, it’s just a social commentary on why people might get joke racist tattoos. You might see it as childish and vulgar and stupid, but if you make a mockery of something, or don’t make it a big deal, the image doesn’t mean anything anymore. She might be a racist who loves to get stumped on her birthday by her black friend, but I think the irony of it all is what makes it so ridiculous. “Yeah I have this white power tattoo, but it plays to no factors in my life. Socially, ideologically, or even genealogically..” Maybe people do it to make a mockery of the whole damn thing and your sensibilities be damned. Maybe white people are sick of being called a racist, so they reclaim racist imagery? That might be a stretch… but if it’s a phenomenon, there’s a reason..
I know for sure that just because you use a word, or have an image, provoke a taboo response by using or making jokes about something, doesn’t mean you go out and blame an entire race for your problems, try to rid the world of their existence, or make it a criterion for your experience with those of other creeds. Or promote propaganda believing that or showing any signs of violence towards other races or anything else.
That being said, I knew a black jewish woman that got a Nazi Swastika in flames tattooed on her. Explain that to me? No really, it blew my mind..
I’m not going to debate the issue of censorship again because it’s apparently clear we can’t come eye to eye on that discussion. We’re not going to change minds by bickering.
I would like to comment that the restriction of issues it was makes it taboo. The restriction of a word is what makes it vulgar. If everyone used a certain word, or image, or expression that was previously restricted and with very negative connotations, it usually takes a whole new form after the fact.
God, of course I’ll have this example and I’m sure this isn’t a very popular view, but here goes.
Some people don’t think being called a “bitch” is a bad thing. In fact, some people think it’s endearing. Of course, it upsets LOTS of women but not all. It’s like the reclamation of a word that was once used as hate. Nigger is used predominantly and publicly by black people. Faggot is a term embraced by much of the gay community. Women have reclaimed a lot of what was once used against them. Comedy has been a way to dispel racism by making the stark reality of racism or sexism a joke and bringing light to it.. Maybe this is sort of their way of poking fun at the nazi world and icons in general. It’s so taboo, which makes it that much more funny in a way. Vulgar jokes are the best kind..
I’m not saying this was her intent, or the intent of Sean or Modblog to describe this idea, it’s just a social commentary on why people might get joke racist tattoos. You might see it as childish and vulgar and stupid, but if you make a mockery of something, or don’t make it a big deal, the image doesn’t mean anything anymore. She might be a racist who loves to get stumped on her birthday by her black friend, but I think the irony of it all is what makes it so ridiculous. “Yeah I have this white power tattoo, but it plays to no factors in my life. Socially, ideologically, or even genealogically..” Maybe people do it to make a mockery of the whole damn thing and your sensibilities be damned. Maybe white people are sick of being called a racist, so they reclaim racist imagery? That might be a stretch… but if it’s a phenomenon, there’s a reason..
I know for sure that just because you use a word, or have an image, provoke a taboo response by using or making jokes about something, doesn’t mean you go out and blame an entire race for your problems, try to rid the world of their existence, or make it a criterion for your experience with those of other creeds. Or promote propaganda believing that or showing any signs of violence towards other races or anything else.
That being said, I knew a black jewish woman that got a Nazi Swastika in flames tattooed on her. Explain that to me? No really, it blew my mind..
I’m not going to debate the issue of censorship again because it’s apparently clear we can’t come eye to eye on that discussion. We’re not going to change minds by bickering.
I would like to comment that the restriction of issues it was makes it taboo. The restriction of a word is what makes it vulgar. If everyone used a certain word, or image, or expression that was previously restricted and with very negative connotations, it usually takes a whole new form after the fact.
God, of course I’ll have this example and I’m sure this isn’t a very popular view, but here goes.
Some people don’t think being called a “bitch” is a bad thing. In fact, some people think it’s endearing. Of course, it upsets LOTS of women but not all. It’s like the reclamation of a word that was once used as hate. Nigger is used predominantly and publicly by black people. Faggot is a term embraced by much of the gay community. Women have reclaimed a lot of what was once used against them. Comedy has been a way to dispel racism by making the stark reality of racism or sexism a joke and bringing light to it.. Maybe this is sort of their way of poking fun at the nazi world and icons in general. It’s so taboo, which makes it that much more funny in a way. Vulgar jokes are the best kind..
I’m not saying this was her intent, or the intent of Sean or Modblog to describe this idea, it’s just a social commentary on why people might get joke racist tattoos. You might see it as childish and vulgar and stupid, but if you make a mockery of something, or don’t make it a big deal, the image doesn’t mean anything anymore. She might be a racist who loves to get stumped on her birthday by her black friend, but I think the irony of it all is what makes it so ridiculous. “Yeah I have this white power tattoo, but it plays to no factors in my life. Socially, ideologically, or even genealogically..” Maybe people do it to make a mockery of the whole damn thing and your sensibilities be damned. Maybe white people are sick of being called a racist, so they reclaim racist imagery? That might be a stretch… but if it’s a phenomenon, there’s a reason..
I know for sure that just because you use a word, or have an image, provoke a taboo response by using or making jokes about something, doesn’t mean you go out and blame an entire race for your problems, try to rid the world of their existence, or make it a criterion for your experience with those of other creeds. Or promote propaganda believing that or showing any signs of violence towards other races or anything else.
That being said, I knew a black jewish woman that got a Nazi Swastika in flames tattooed on her. Explain that to me? No really, it blew my mind..
look, and look hard you will sooner or later find someform of a swastika from all corners of the world and from all times and dates.evan during the 2nd world war it was beeing used out side of the nazi party on greetings cards and best of all, a ration book! i can go outside (in the uk) and see them in quite a few places from peoples front gates, to stone work at railway stations, and garden centres! the swastika is such a basic shape, like curcles, triangles, squares and so on, that you will find a swastika shape somewhere, almost everywhere, from the past, and today
bme dosnt need a gallery of racist/hate tattoos because why should bme be a platform for racists/white power etc, there are probly sites already for it and as already stated by rachel ” One of the other reasons we can’t flat out reject racist tattoos is that we simply don’t have the manpower to be fully adept at all the secret racist codes out there. As none of the staff on BME are racists, we don’t know the secret handshakes”
so in other words the odd one will get past them, then sink away in the gallery that the staff think it should be in, but because one sliped past and made it onto modblog some are now acusing all sorts of BME.
look, and look hard you will sooner or later find someform of a swastika from all corners of the world and from all times and dates.evan during the 2nd world war it was beeing used out side of the nazi party on greetings cards and best of all, a ration book! i can go outside (in the uk) and see them in quite a few places from peoples front gates, to stone work at railway stations, and garden centres! the swastika is such a basic shape, like curcles, triangles, squares and so on, that you will find a swastika shape somewhere, almost everywhere, from the past, and today
bme dosnt need a gallery of racist/hate tattoos because why should bme be a platform for racists/white power etc, there are probly sites already for it and as already stated by rachel ” One of the other reasons we can’t flat out reject racist tattoos is that we simply don’t have the manpower to be fully adept at all the secret racist codes out there. As none of the staff on BME are racists, we don’t know the secret handshakes”
so in other words the odd one will get past them, then sink away in the gallery that the staff think it should be in, but because one sliped past and made it onto modblog some are now acusing all sorts of BME.
look, and look hard you will sooner or later find someform of a swastika from all corners of the world and from all times and dates.evan during the 2nd world war it was beeing used out side of the nazi party on greetings cards and best of all, a ration book! i can go outside (in the uk) and see them in quite a few places from peoples front gates, to stone work at railway stations, and garden centres! the swastika is such a basic shape, like curcles, triangles, squares and so on, that you will find a swastika shape somewhere, almost everywhere, from the past, and today
bme dosnt need a gallery of racist/hate tattoos because why should bme be a platform for racists/white power etc, there are probly sites already for it and as already stated by rachel ” One of the other reasons we can’t flat out reject racist tattoos is that we simply don’t have the manpower to be fully adept at all the secret racist codes out there. As none of the staff on BME are racists, we don’t know the secret handshakes”
so in other words the odd one will get past them, then sink away in the gallery that the staff think it should be in, but because one sliped past and made it onto modblog some are now acusing all sorts of BME.
Maybe we should be worrying more about the rampant fucking stupidity of a great deal of people in the body modification community as opposed to the racists?
Maybe we should be worrying more about the rampant fucking stupidity of a great deal of people in the body modification community as opposed to the racists?
Maybe we should be worrying more about the rampant fucking stupidity of a great deal of people in the body modification community as opposed to the racists?
Also, why should racist tattoos be so stigmatised but gang related tattoos not?
Also, why should racist tattoos be so stigmatised but gang related tattoos not?
Also, why should racist tattoos be so stigmatised but gang related tattoos not?
gandy, it’s not a case of a few odd images slipping past the staff. Rachel explicitly said that BME policy is that “racist and hategroup tattoos go into the Political Section of BME” because “BME’s mandate is to archive and catalog the evolution and history of our community, even the ignorant aspects of it.” This means that BME IS a platform for “racists/white power etc” because a gallery is explicitly provided for them, with the rationale that hosting such images is necessary to catalogue body modification history. The argument that BME can’t outright reject such images due to lack of manpower is nonsense. It’s as simple as making a site-wide policy that such images aren’t tolerated, deleting accounts that post them, and investigating “secret” images that are brought to the attention of staff on a case-by-case basis.
And I agree with Jacques, above. Certain things shouldn’t be posted to a responsible body modification site: if people don’t think that images on BME are being used for the idiotic experiments of people who read the site, then they need only look at a recent episode of “Lockup,” which featured prisoners who were injecting their eyes with inks made from disposable pens using shared hypodermic needles. They got the idea from postings on Modblog.
gandy, it’s not a case of a few odd images slipping past the staff. Rachel explicitly said that BME policy is that “racist and hategroup tattoos go into the Political Section of BME” because “BME’s mandate is to archive and catalog the evolution and history of our community, even the ignorant aspects of it.” This means that BME IS a platform for “racists/white power etc” because a gallery is explicitly provided for them, with the rationale that hosting such images is necessary to catalogue body modification history. The argument that BME can’t outright reject such images due to lack of manpower is nonsense. It’s as simple as making a site-wide policy that such images aren’t tolerated, deleting accounts that post them, and investigating “secret” images that are brought to the attention of staff on a case-by-case basis.
And I agree with Jacques, above. Certain things shouldn’t be posted to a responsible body modification site: if people don’t think that images on BME are being used for the idiotic experiments of people who read the site, then they need only look at a recent episode of “Lockup,” which featured prisoners who were injecting their eyes with inks made from disposable pens using shared hypodermic needles. They got the idea from postings on Modblog.
gandy, it’s not a case of a few odd images slipping past the staff. Rachel explicitly said that BME policy is that “racist and hategroup tattoos go into the Political Section of BME” because “BME’s mandate is to archive and catalog the evolution and history of our community, even the ignorant aspects of it.” This means that BME IS a platform for “racists/white power etc” because a gallery is explicitly provided for them, with the rationale that hosting such images is necessary to catalogue body modification history. The argument that BME can’t outright reject such images due to lack of manpower is nonsense. It’s as simple as making a site-wide policy that such images aren’t tolerated, deleting accounts that post them, and investigating “secret” images that are brought to the attention of staff on a case-by-case basis.
And I agree with Jacques, above. Certain things shouldn’t be posted to a responsible body modification site: if people don’t think that images on BME are being used for the idiotic experiments of people who read the site, then they need only look at a recent episode of “Lockup,” which featured prisoners who were injecting their eyes with inks made from disposable pens using shared hypodermic needles. They got the idea from postings on Modblog.
Suggestion:
watch “Gangland”
4 seasons on DVD, of information about racist/gang symboligy, tattoos, graphitti, etc
Suggestion:
watch “Gangland”
4 seasons on DVD, of information about racist/gang symboligy, tattoos, graphitti, etc
Suggestion:
watch “Gangland”
4 seasons on DVD, of information about racist/gang symboligy, tattoos, graphitti, etc
“we don’t support it but BME’s mandate is to archive and catalog the evolution and history of our community”
CHEERS
“we don’t support it but BME’s mandate is to archive and catalog the evolution and history of our community”
CHEERS
“we don’t support it but BME’s mandate is to archive and catalog the evolution and history of our community”
CHEERS
Bob, I’ll respond to that because I was the one who made the decision initially to include these images.
It was my feeling that rejecting images from the main image galleries of BME was problematic for three reasons:
1. Censoring really does have the potential to become slippery slope, and to be unevenly applied. Where is the line drawn? Whose politics are OK and whose are not? How do we explain this rule so people know what’s OK and what’s not? This was even more true when it was me running it because my politics tended to be more extremist than the current BME team (some will recall my militant vegan period)… So I set the policy that for the main galleries, and the main galleries alone (not IAM, not ModBlog), these tattoos could be included.
2. With BME’s role being to document the community, it’s important to include “racist” and otherwise difficult tattoos… To show how many people are doing it, what sort of trends exist in these subcultures, and so on. To a lesser extent to show the world which shops are doing these tattoos so they can avoid them (or patronize them I suppose). I think it’s disingenuous to try and manipulate the demographics of the community to give a false impression. In addition, keeping the “rotten apples” visible shows people that we still have to work inside our own walls to make the world a better and more enlightened place.
3. Because of the “secret codes” that are rampant in racist subculture, it’s unrealistic to attempt to try and censor. It means you end up missing a lot of images and letting some slip through (as well as some “false positives”), and it means that a racist subculture bubbles secretly under the surface rather than being visible. To me this is more dangerous that seeing it out in the open.
Anyway, these were the original justifications for including racist tattoos in the politics section. All things considered — and there is no answer that’s going to make everyone happy, nor is there an answer that’s going to make ME completely happy because there are pros and cons in each — I am happy with the compromise that I made and I continue to stand by it… Although of course Rachel is welcome to change it if she feels there is a better solution (and like I said, there are good arguments for everything in the spectrum of possibilities). But I hope the above helps explain why it was originally instituted.