Continue with onX Maps
Sign in with Facebook
Judge My Climbing Tattoos
Dakota from North Dakota wrote: I'll award a black Totem to any Boomer that can translate this from Zoomer into English. Note: your actually being a boomer will require verification via telling me your opinions on the housing market. |
F r i t z wrote: Great tattoos man, love the heavy black style. Like 90s tribal except with meaning and much cooler. Are you a Christian? A lot of people get stuck on the “one-artist-for-life” or they’ll tell you that their tattoo artist is “the guy,” but don’t limit yourself in this way. You wouldn’t go to Van Gogh for a Picasso and you wouldn’t go to Dali for the Sistine Chapel. Then again, if you find a style you like from an artist you like, stick with it and do whatever the hell you want hahaha. |
Eric Marx wrote: Thanks! Yeah, I knew early on that I wanted to commit to monochrome and thick line work for the sleeve. I designed my first at 18 but didn't get it until 26. If I ever switch up styles and incorporate more pictorial/representational in another body region, I'd totally consider including another artist. Salvador Dali doing an interpretation of the Sistine is something I would totally trade a c3 to see. Just imagine the Creation panel but with melting clocks instead of the faces of God and Adam. Super gnar! Spiritually open-minded but with a fairly established worldview that lands on the orthodox Christian spectrum. I'm always open to the possibility of being "wrong" and try not to be a hypocritical assclown ... but often fail in that regard. #badchristiangreatsavior et al. Tomorrow is new ink day! |
Ricky Harline wrote: How I read Dakota's post: "These fuck" -- These are awesome "Shout out to the Listener" -- Shout out to https://www.iamlistener.com/ an emo/indie band "Deep cuts" -- a "cut" is typically a song on an album; deep cuts are usually more obscure or lesser-known cuts Not sure if one of the OP's tats reminded Dakota of a cut from Listener?! --- Housing market: idk... colorado is insane. Wyoming is better but then you're in wyoming... |
Dakota from North Dakota wrote: I believe the authorial intent behind DnD's laconic statement can be extrapolated into something along these lines. These fuck: "These needleborne masterpieces have such a deeply animated soul, they may as well be sentient beings who are impelled by an inchoate awareness of their own intrinsic beauty to procreate. Shout out: Possibly a cryptic invocation of the titular line from Goethe's lost tryptich "Schau Taut," which literally translates to "I shall now feast upon the sallow flesh of mine enemies." For the [g]listener: In Zoomer, an initial "G" is always silent, and often omitted. Here Dakota refers to his repressed desire to become consensually carnal with many women simultaneously, specifically women who are deepwater soloing at Summersville Lake and therefore glisten with sweat and the glory of an aqueous soft catch. Deep cut : Contextually analyzed with the previous phrase, this is a rallying cry under the banner of fourth-wave feminism. Here DnD rages against the objectification of female climbers as so many slabs of meat on display at a misogynist abbatoir, from whom are taken many "deep cuts" such as flank steak, tender loin and rump roast. As a #vegan practitioner of Crossfit who is from Boulder, ND, it is of the utmost importance re: street cred that Dakota establish a baseline of cultural salience in this rhetorical situation. |
|
Lol jeez y’all I was just trying to reach out to a kindred musical spirit in an unexpected place. Y’all made me LQTM (laugh quietly to myself) so thanks for that. |
|
Holy shit its getting deep here boys! |
Val wrote: This sounds like some straight-up Rogan/Boomer hot takes. Firstly, the term "woke" started as a way to describe someone being aware of racial injustices here in the states. The word used in this context started in black communities. Naturally, leave it to middle-aged, white dudes to make the word lose its positive connotation into a negative to describe people simply being aware of the past and how those actions of past figures and systems have lasting implications. Secondly, why is "racist" in quotations? Criticizing figures of the past and pointing out the racism of power structures in modern light is how your progress into a more equitable and just society. For example, John Muir was racist, there is no denying that. He also had lasting impacts on the preservation of wild lands, which many see as a good thing. People are complex and have many, contradicting facets in their own views. No one is trying to cancel John Muir, but being aware that he did have some pretty racist views on people with darker complexions. American National Parks have a racist history as well. Removing natives from their homelands to create a park for Americans with European heritage is a pretty shitty thing to do. And then to codify it into law, just to really make sure that these natives can't live on their ancestral lands, is just extra shitty. In modern times, however, the Parks are beautiful chunks of land preserved from destruction of continuous growth. No one is trying to cancel national parks but being aware that they also had their roots in racism and anti-native ideas is a good thing to be aware of and that this modern world we live in is, more often than not, is built upon pre-existing, pretty shitty foundations If you have a problem with things of the past being critiqued under a modern eye, then maybe some introspection is needed as to why you feel the need to defend past people and power structures. |
keefer klenske wrote: oh god, too much critical "theory".... Mad Max please come save us |
Jay Crew wrote: Pretty well thought out reply for Fox news |
keefer klenske wrote: You do realize that this statement suggests you're a racist, right? It's straight up stereotyping based on race. So I guess I will trust you on racism, since you're evidently a practitioner.
https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2020/09/01/john-muir-gets-canceled/
So was virtually every person alive at the time. Imagining that you wouldn't be a racist in a time that virtually 100% of people around you were, is really baseless self-flattery. If you lived in the South in (say) 1820, would you be an outspoken abolitionist? You'd lose your job, your friends, your ability to marry and have children. But you'd give up everything to do what's right, no? 100 years from now our descendants are going to look back and think "how could that have been common practice in 2022" about some thing we're doing now that we don't think much about. Eating meat? Destroying the environment? Indifference to the suffering of the world's poorest? Or some other thing you do on a daily basis that you don't realize will be a horrific crime in the eyes' of our descendants? If we judge every historical figure by today's norms, virtually no one can be celebrated today. And today's heroes will likewise need to be rebuked in a few decades once the new generation figures out its new moral standards. And so it goes...
Alternative take: if you feel that judging people of the past by today's standards, perhaps learning more about history would be helpful. Reflect on what I said above. |
|
As is typical, seems Keefer and John RB are saying similar things and likely agree on most major principles while splitting hairs and arguing about things the other person isn’t saying and doesn’t believe. Should be good for several more pages….but have the guts to put it in a tat |
|
What’s difficult in a discussion of Muir, is the racist acts, statements or sentiments of the person are not clear, stated or sourced. I did not know about this element of Muir’s character. Now that I do know I could not tell a third party much about the extent of Muir’s racism or its impact. Broadening the discussion of historical figures to include their failings is as valid as acknowledging we benefit from their accomplishments. I would not give back the National Parks or stop using them because they were inspired by Muir. But I hope that our reevaluating historical figures gives current leaders an appreciation that their legacies will be judged. |
I'm sure that's was part of the motivation of some people at the time, and maybe your statement includes this assumption, but it was not the primary reason many people at the time were pushing for national parks, they wanted to conserve the most unique/spectacular places for all people to visit. Natives were removed from their homelands long before the National Parks became a thing, again maybe there was some of that when they became parks but natives were driven out of Yosemite long before then. Parks were preserved for the public; were any races prevented from visiting, I haven't heard that? And in any case the idea may be greater than the men who came up with it, i.e. once you say this land is preserved for the public, the idea is it's for everyone. Like the founding fathers and equality. At first it was equality for white, male, land owners, but the idea trumped that and equality means everyone.
I (and many others) define racist as having the belief that races are superior and inferior. Other wise it's prejudice. But people have different definitions. There's also "racially insensitive" vs. racist for similar clarification. But regardless, the referenced statement said middle-aged white dudes can behave this way, not all all middle-aged white dudes act this way, so it's not prejudice or racist. ********************** Again this goes back to having Muir tattooed on your body. To each his own, but I'd be wary of having someone with a mixed legacy on my body. But as I said the artwork was good. And I can compartmentalize the different parts of his legacy and if I saw someone with it I'd assume the best about their intentions. |
|
Getting back to tats.... Good ones are finely detailed and use color only as vibrant as necessary, but those need a good tattooist and those folks cost $$$. The issue with a lot of the tats in this thread are they're monochromatic, chunky, and look like they may have been done in prison or for $20. |
Marc801 C wrote: lets see yours |
|
Glowering wrote: I don’t mean this offensively but you sound a little disillusioned to the racist/tribal past of the entirety of humanity. Native American history is a very violent thing, and not just because of “white settlers” conquering the US. Native American tribes were hardly peaceful with eachother. The inability to cooperate outside of small tribes limited the ability of Native Americans to advance, so much so that they never developed something as simple as the wheel. Blacks were sold into slavery by other blacks. White and black slave owners existed in the south. Let’s totally ignore the white on white slavery that existed in Europe for centuries, or Asian countries. The founder of Planned Parenthood was a famed eugenicist who sought to limit the growth of the black population by pushing abortion on minority communities(which has worked to an extent.) The creator of the transistor(on which your modern life heavily relies) was also a eugenicist. Yet you have no issues tapping away on your IPhone. Should I be wary of you for using an iPhone, or does that not make the cut? Is that fair? These are quick and easy examples, but we could probably parse down every object in your current line of sight to some evil haha. Again, judging the morality of the past by your standard of today is 1.) Not humble at all, you are just as evil as the last guy, but maybe in more easily hideable or more currently socially acceptable ways. You are open to the judgements of the future. 2.) Disillusioned. Your life was built on both beautiful and terrible things. If you want to renounce any trace of evil that you may be benefitting from, you would have to cease to exist. All you can do is try as you might to be better than those that came before you, give yourself some perspective and hope that your legacy is looked upon as kindly. To Marc: The style of my tattoos was purposeful, and some of the fine-line tattoos I have were very expensive. Some of them were dirt cheap. You’re probably from the school of photorealism, which I appreciate as a style, but I find looks like muddled greywash over time with no distinct or interesting composition. Color I find too gaudy. |
Eric Marx wrote: I think we're pretty much in agreement. Past legacies are mixed. And standards were different in the past. It makes sense to look at the past and admit transgressions and learn from them, appreciate the good people did, while acknowledging what we now see was wrong. I think people sometimes put too much focus on the past. I'd rather focus our efforts on looking where unfairness continues to exist and trying to improve that, and using lessons learned from the past to help illuminate and guide that. |
curt86iroc wrote: I have none. Never wanted; don't miss. |
Marc801 C wrote: This is absurdly subjective. |
