Tongue Splitting

[Hish]

Tongue splitting (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tongue_splitting) is a body modification where the front part of the tongue is surgically split. With a bit of practice, a person can learn to control both sides of the tongue independently.

What do the people here think about it?

[Elanasaurus]

If this allows the person to say two things at the same time, I'm all for it.

Otherwise it just looks weird.
:elan:

[Rynjin]

Tongue splitting (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tongue_splitting) is a body modification where the front part of the tongue is surgically split. With a bit of practice, a person can learn to control both sides of the tongue independently.

What do the people here think about it?

I'll sum up my thoughts in a single word.

Why?

[2D8HP]

Seems like a fad from the late 1980's/early '90's ("Modern Primitives" et cetera).

I'm suprised it continues, but I suppose it's a big world and somewhere someone is doing most anything.

[Knaight]

I'm not into body modification personally (tattoos as an art form appeal, but I don't actually have any, let alone piercings, let alone tongue splitting), but it's been a part of human behavior for approximately forever, and this particular one seems harmless enough. It should be relatively reversible, and while it's a bit more extreme than most ear piercings (though not big gauges) it's not exactly foot binding.

[Eldan]

My opinion on body modifications of all kinds is "GAAAAAAH! WHHHHYYYYY! PUT THAT AWAY!". I find it painful and a bit nauseating to even look at a picture of a split tongue. Piercings, really, aren't much better, but I got at least used to seeing them. I also find tattoos both weird and a bit disgusting. Like, people stick needles in their skin and then pump it full of paint. Why would you even do that.

[Cespenar]

The thing I don't personally understand about tattoos is that, while the concept is cool, it looks like it would get boring real fast. I can't think of the deepest word, picture or reference in the world that wouldn't turn cheesy or boring after just a month, let alone a year.

Now, if they could be changed instantly like something out of a cyberpunk setting, that'd be actually pretty cool.

Though then there would be lots of tattoo ads, realistically. Hmph. Cyberpunk settings find a way to ruin everything. :smalltongue:

[Fyraltari]

This is a lot of dedication for a lizardfolk cosplay.
I can respect that.

AlsoI would guess everything tastes weird after that.

[Tvtyrant]

There is always a subset of people who are into body modifications. I find it pretty gross, but I assume that my natural ick factor is switched for people who like gauges/facial piercings/split tongues/tattoos and scars.

[AuthorGirl]

I have pierced ears, but this feels like a whole different level of harm.

[sktarq]

Honestly, I don't find it any more weird than gauges, prince alberts, subdermal implants etc.

I know/knew a couple people who had this and frankly it always just struck me as a party trick/attention getter for people who needed affirmation/self affirmation of a particular kind of identity.

Now that could have just been the raver crew I hung with but really it just seemed kinda try-hard

Also none of the people I knew with this were nice people so I may have negative connotations with it from that.

[tomandtish]

Could be worse. I saw a book on body mutilation once that had an entire section dedicated to men who had split a certain .... other... appendage.

WHY?!? In the name of Zeus's butthole, WHY?!?

Don't get me wrong. I support the right of a mentally competent, fully informed adult to do that to themselves. But WHY would you WANT TO?!?

[Anonymouswizard]

I'm agreeing with the WHYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY!!!!s. Then again I can get that way about 'normal' body modifications like piercings and tatoos.

You're not an Epideromancer, and so don't need this to get your charges. And unlike implanting rare earth magnets in your fingers there's no practical benefits (not that I'm doing that one either, I have enough problems with normal needles).

[NontheistCleric]

My only objection to it would be a personal one, which is that I am strongly opposed to having any part of my body messed with on purpose unless absolutely necessary. You just never know what might go wrong.

[tomandtish]

My only objection to it would be a personal one, which is that I am strongly opposed to having any part of my body messed with on purpose unless absolutely necessary. You just never know what might go wrong.

Case in point (https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2017/09/29/dont-tattoo-your-eyeball-just-dont-do-it/715855001/)....

[farothel]

It's not really my thing, but as said by tomandtish, as long as they are fully informed adults, it's their body and they can mutilate it like they please. As long as it's a voluntary thing and it's not forced.

[Random Sanity]

Ew. Ew ew ew ew. :smalleek:

Just EW.

[Lvl 2 Expert]

I don't know, it might be kinda funny to kiss someone with a split tongue ones.

Aside from that little giggle it doesn't really do anything for me.

Plus, you know, if I wanted to get cosmetic surgery I'd have better places to start. And I'm not doing any of those things either.

[SaintRidley]

I can see certain bedroom benefits that I won't get into because of the rules. Suffice to say a split tongue may allow some benefits to your partner if you use it well.

I dunno. I probably wouldn't split my tongue, but only probably. I can't say I've seen someone and felt they were less attractive upon seeing that their tongue was split (nor do I understand the visceral horror some here seem to feel about any form of body mod - honestly, I think the only people I've ever encountered to be that grossed out by all forms of body modification have been here).

[Elanasaurus]

I can see certain bedroom benefits that I won't get into because of the rules. Suffice to say a split tongue may allow some benefits to your partner if you use it well.

I dunno. I probably wouldn't split my tongue, but only probably. I can't say I've seen someone and felt they were less attractive upon seeing that their tongue was splitWell of course you would be the most receptive to tongue-splitting. You're a linguist.

What's that? Linguists are interested in a meaning of "tongue" different from the two mentioned here?
(nor do I understand the visceral horror some here seem to feel about any form of body mod - honestly, I think the only people I've ever encountered to be that grossed out by all forms of body modification have been here).Some people just can't stand needles, or the idea of injecting poison into a person.
:elan:

[Tvtyrant]

I dunno. I probably wouldn't split my tongue, but only probably. I can't say I've seen someone and felt they were less attractive upon seeing that their tongue was split (nor do I understand the visceral horror some here seem to feel about any form of body mod - honestly, I think the only people I've ever encountered to be that grossed out by all forms of body modification have been here).
I think people who see body modification and recoil are people with a lot of physical empathy, and imagine it being done without anesthetics to them whenever they see it. I can't watch anything involving human eyes without recoil in horror for instance.

[Anonymouswizard]

(nor do I understand the visceral horror some here seem to feel about any form of body mod - honestly, I think the only people I've ever encountered to be that grossed out by all forms of body modification have been here).

As an autistic person, one of my hyperaware senses is touch, which normally isn't a problem (not a lot of touching over here in repressionland), but does cause me to dislike needles (it's literally the only reason I've never given blood, needles sting). Which is why I'll never get a tattoo, it's a needle going into you repeatedly so you can get ink in you skin.

For other stuff I can understand modifications with a practical benefit done under anesthetic. But once either of those are out, what's the point?

[Grey_Wolf_c]

For other stuff I can understand modifications with a practical benefit done under anesthetic. But once either of those are out, what's the point?

Traditional forms of body mutilation are wealth signifier: you are so rich you can 1) afford to get it done (or more commonly, afford to have a wife who had it done) 2) do so because it will tell anyone that sees that you are rich enough to get it done and 3) in some extreme cases you are so rich you can afford to permanently cripple your (or rather, their) ability to perform certain forms of labor.

Think foot binding in China ("I'm so rich my wife will never need to walk, we have servants for that"), the Kayan neck stretching, but also western medieval preference for wives with no practical skills, etc. It is hard to say if these can be considered voluntary mutilations, though (foot binding definitely wasn't, I'm not familiar enough with Kayan society to say how much girls are compelled to follow the tradition).

Many forms of tattooing are also social signifier - not unlike being given the right to wear sword in public or a specific number of pips on the shoulder of your clothing (outside of a military context), it told other members of the society what your social rank was even when they didn't know you personally. Again, I'm not qualified to comment on how voluntary these mutilations are.

So circling back to the original topic, the point is to transmit an impression of the individual even to those that don't know them. In this case, "I am the kind of person capable and willing to split my tongue". What social impact that has is hard to predict, not being a common mutilation at this time, but it would certainly signify something to most people that encountered it.

Grey Wolf

[AMFV]

As an autistic person, one of my hyperaware senses is touch, which normally isn't a problem (not a lot of touching over here in repressionland), but does cause me to dislike needles (it's literally the only reason I've never given blood, needles sting). Which is why I'll never get a tattoo, it's a needle going into you repeatedly so you can get ink in you skin.

For other stuff I can understand modifications with a practical benefit done under anesthetic. But once either of those are out, what's the point?

Well the thing is that for a person getting a tattoo there is a practical benefit. That's the catch. If I get a tattoo it signals all kinds of things about me to others, that can certainly be a practical benefit. I can appreciate the artistry there, and that artistry would be difficult to take from me.

I mean a woman who gets her ears pierced is going to have a practical benefit in that there are more ways that she can enhance her appearance. She has more options for accessories, and can demonstrate her wealth or creativity or good taste to a wider audience (the same holds true for men getting their ears pierced, but that has a lot of other social baggage associated with it).

[Scarlet Knight]

Don't get me wrong. I support the right of a mentally competent, fully informed adult to do that to themselves. But WHY would you WANT TO?!?

Question: Can you do this and still be considered mentally competent? In all my training, mutilating a functioning part of your body is one of the biggest red flags for mental illness.

[sktarq]

Question: Can you do this and still be considered mentally competent? In all my training, mutilating a functioning part of your body is one of the biggest red flags for mental illness.

is it mutilated if it still functions? For some bedroom application it is probably considered an improvement (the promise/thought of which was certainly part of those I knew reason's for doing so-even if it mostly a seduction tool/peacocking)

and an earlobe that is pierced is not be considered mutilated even if one does so with a potato? How about a pierced tongue?

where is that line and who gets to draw that line?



as is forming an identity in part defined by being trangressive being mentally ill?

[Zea mays]

What signal does putting a grommet in one’s earlobe send? Everday I see folks who have done so, and just can not fathom why.

[AMFV]

What signal does putting a grommet in one’s earlobe send? Everday I see folks who have done so, and just can not fathom why.

It says something in their own particular subculture. A lot of these kind of symbols are not General cultural things but rather kind of Niche subculture things.

[tomandtish]

I can see certain bedroom benefits that I won't get into because of the rules. Suffice to say a split tongue may allow some benefits to your partner if you use it well.

I dunno. I probably wouldn't split my tongue, but only probably. I can't say I've seen someone and felt they were less attractive upon seeing that their tongue was split (nor do I understand the visceral horror some here seem to feel about any form of body mod - honestly, I think the only people I've ever encountered to be that grossed out by all forms of body modification have been here).

I should be clear. 99% of body piercing, etc. doesn't bother me. Want gauges in your ears? Bars in your nipples? More power to you. Not something I'm personally interested in or find attractive, but more power to you.

Tattoos in general don't bother me. I question the concept of fully tattooing your face, but from a "You realize you're stuck with that" point of view, not a "the horror" POV.

The things that freak me out are the major body alterations that 1) Stand a chance of disabling a body part AND 2) have little to no chance of being reversed.

Tattoo your eyeballs? Risking blindness? No thanks.

Split a certain male appendage? And risk there being some form of dis-function? And then I also imagine the pain involved in the healing process. I may be overestimating it, but my mind still shuts down at the thought.

[Scarlet Knight]

is it mutilated if it still functions? For some bedroom application it is probably considered an improvement (the promise/thought of which was certainly part of those I knew reason's for doing so-even if it mostly a seduction tool/peacocking)

and an earlobe that is pierced is not be considered mutilated even if one does so with a potato? How about a pierced tongue?

where is that line and who gets to draw that line?

as is forming an identity in part defined by being trangressive being mentally ill?

The gray area between eccentric and crazy has always been difficult to define; which is one reason mental illness in teens often goes untreated until it's severe.

However, most of society knows appropriate and inappropriate when we see it. A teen may not do alot of damage when they cut themselves, but the fact that they're doing it at all tells you there is a real problem.

Someone who cuts off their finger because they identify with Frodo is the very definition of insanity, even if the hand still functions. If you see crazy behaviour, call it for what it is.

[AMFV]

Question: Can you do this and still be considered mentally competent? In all my training, mutilating a functioning part of your body is one of the biggest red flags for mental illness.

A tattoo is a mutilation of a functional body part. So are earrings, nose rings, any brands. The problem is that you're conflating something that is a "red flag" with being "proof positive" which it is not. A mentally deranged person might be more likely to do something like this. But not all people who do are going to be mentally deranged, that's why it's a red flag, not a case closed, because you need more evidence before jumping to conclusions in that regard.

I mean, 3-5 times a week I go and tear my muscles deliberately for hours. Sometimes until I'm too sore to move properly and I can lose up to 50% of my ROM. But I don't think I'm mentally ill.


The gray area between eccentric and crazy has always been difficult to define; which is one reason mental illness in teens often goes untreated until it's severe.

I think it's more that teens behave pretty erratically anyways because of their hormones, not because of any kind of eccentricity. Because their mental state is changing it can be very difficult to pin down abnormal behavior. Also most teens are away from their parents for the first time for the longest time, which means that it's now the job of random adults to have the attention to notice if they're having problems and that isn't going to be something that they're going to be sufficiently motivated to do.



However, most of society knows appropriate and inappropriate when we see it. A teen may not do alot of damage when they cut themselves, but the fact that they're doing it at all tells you there is a real problem.

A teenager isn't typically deemed to be mentally competent with regards to any kind of body alteration though. Even earrings typically require parental consent. So introducing teenagers isn't very useful since that whole thing changes the dynamic since they are not mentally competent by default.

[2D8HP]

The gray area between eccentric and crazy has always been difficult to define...


I always thought that distinction was clear:

An "eccentric" is someone with enough power or wealth that if you flatter them they can benefit you, while "crazy" is someone begging from you.

Seems simple enough, what's the "grey area"? :confused:

[Lvl 2 Expert]

I always thought that distinction was clear:

An "eccentric" is someone with enough power or wealth that if you flatter them they can benefit you, while "crazy" is someone begging from you.

Seems simple enough, what's the "grey area"? :confused:

People who don't have a lot of money, but might be willing to spend what they have on a whim.

[snowblizz]

I always thought that distinction was clear:

An "eccentric" is someone with enough power or wealth that if you flatter them they can benefit you, while "crazy" is someone begging from you.

Seems simple enough, what's the "grey area"? :confused:
This guy gets it.:smallbiggrin:


People who don't have a lot of money, but might be willing to spend what they have on a whim.

Those are crazy. See it's easy.:smallwink:

[Lvl 2 Expert]

Those are crazy. See it's easy.:smallwink:

Your loss, their magic beans, my cruise.

[halfeye]

I always thought that distinction was clear:

An "eccentric" is someone with enough power or wealth that if you flatter them they can benefit you, while "crazy" is someone begging from you.

Seems simple enough, what's the "grey area"? :confused:

That's a joke though, and significant mental illness isn't.

[Lord Joeltion]

I think there are bigger red flags for mental stability than body mutilation. Eating disorders, to name one. The thing with fooling around with your body is that you don't get as many tries with it. When you screw it, you usually screw it once and for good, like Eyeball Girl (I won't sleep well tonight, thank you). Either you do it good (slowly fill yourself with tattoos/piercings all on sensible places) or you slip beyond any possible help (people who literally become more humanoid than human). Self-destructiveness tends to be a lot more subtle than what people into body mods usually do.

From what I gathered in my life, most people into that kind of thing do it to signal something. Cultural identity, status, fashion, show the world how they see themselves, etc. For instance, my GF did her piercing both because of fashion and (more importantly) because she was trying to prove herself a point. Doesn't matter which point really, some people just like daring themselves and taking calculated risks (or what they believe are "calculated"). Some people like to go beyond, because "nobody else" does. I can totally picture Tongue Splitting Person feeling smug about their bravery/wild life/freewill.

In my case, I did it for completely different reasons than the common ones. My tattoo isn't for show. It's just there for me. It's my Wilson in my castaway trip through time and space :smalltongue:

[Fyraltari]

I question the concept of fully tattooing your face from a "You realize you're stuck with that" point of view

French revolutionnary turned king of Sweden and Norway, Karl XIV Johan Bernadotte alledgedly refused to take off his shirt when having sex and, contrary to royal etiquette, took all his baths alone.

The legends say that when he died, the undertakers discovered a tatoo on his chest that explained that behaviour. It read:
Death to Kings!

[Scarlet Knight]

I always thought that distinction was clear:

An "eccentric" is someone with enough power or wealth that if you flatter them they can benefit you, while "crazy" is someone begging from you.
Seems simple enough, what's the "grey area"? :confused:

Drat! I always forget to add variables! *scribbles exceptions to include: the wealthy, moody artists, colorful athletes, etc...*



A tattoo is a mutilation of a functional body part. So are earrings, nose rings, any brands. The problem is that you're conflating something that is a "red flag" with being "proof positive" which it is not. A mentally deranged person might be more likely to do something like this. But not all people who do are going to be mentally deranged, that's why it's a red flag, not a case closed, because you need more evidence before jumping to conclusions in that regard.

I mean, 3-5 times a week I go and tear my muscles deliberately for hours. Sometimes until I'm too sore to move properly and I can lose up to 50% of my ROM. But I don't think I'm mentally ill. Don't equate minimal damage with severe. An ear pierced closes itself with time, a split tongue doesn't. I assume you mean you weightlift, which reverses itself in a few weeks. Stop lifting and you get flabby again. If you were truly tearing your muscles so that you couldn't move your arms again even after rest, you would be deranged. But as I said, it's a "red flag", which means: call in a professional.




I think it's more that teens behave pretty erratically anyways because of their hormones, not because of any kind of eccentricity. Because their mental state is changing it can be very difficult to pin down abnormal behavior. Also most teens are away from their parents for the first time for the longest time, which means that it's now the job of random adults to have the attention to notice if they're having problems and that isn't going to be something that they're going to be sufficiently motivated to do.
Hormones can explain abnormal behaviour, but they don't make it less abnormal. I agree it takes the random adult, usually a boss who fires them, that identifies that the mentally ill youngster is in trouble because his behaviour has continued past his teens.




A teenager isn't typically deemed to be mentally competent with regards to any kind of body alteration though. Even earrings typically require parental consent. So introducing teenagers isn't very useful since that whole thing changes the dynamic since they are not mentally competent by default. I use teens as an example because everyone is aware of them behaving in a crazy manner ( mood swings, depression, anger), but having the behaviour dismissed "as a phase" or with a "he's just an excitable boy" to quote Warren Zevon. Suicide in young men is often under-reported because many deaths get lumped in as accidents that befall boys taking stupid risks ( driving too fast, falling off high spots, etc.).

[Jay R]

What somebody else chooses to do is none of my business.

But it's not for me. In the words of a great 20th century philosopher, "I yam what I yam, and that's all what I yam."

[dps]

What signal does putting a grommet in one’s earlobe send? Everday I see folks who have done so, and just can not fathom why.

Extreme body modification signals that you're stupid enough to be obsessed with your appearance to the point of not caring about how you're limiting your employment prospects. Or rich enough that you never have to worry about working for a living.

[Knaight]

Extreme body modification signals that you're stupid enough to be obsessed with your appearance to the point of not caring about how you're limiting your employment prospects. Or rich enough that you never have to worry about working for a living.

A gauge isn't that extreme, and largely limits prospects that were likely never realistic in the first place.

[dps]

A gauge isn't that extreme, and largely limits prospects that were likely never realistic in the first place.

Some employers won't even consider applicants with visible tattoos. Not even for entry-level or menial jobs like janitor.

[Knaight]

Some employers won't even consider applicants with visible tattoos. Not even for entry-level or menial jobs like janitor.

This is fairly rare, and likely to be a sign of incompatible company cultures anyways. Meanwhile other employers are more likely to take applicants with visible tattoos, again under that squishy company culture metric.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Some employers won't even consider applicants with visible tattoos. Not even for entry-level or menial jobs like janitor.
This is fairly rare, and likely to be a sign of incompatible company cultures anyways. Meanwhile other employers are more likely to take applicants with visible tattoos, again under that squishy company culture metric.

I would hope that neither situation would actually happen, since the ability to pay for ink to be quasi-permanently inserted under your skin should not be the basis by which to judge someone's employable ability.

But I'm a cynic, so I am sure both are absolutely true, although I would not hazard a guess as to which is more common.

(I also wonder if you could game it with non-permanent skin art)

Grey Wolf

[tomandtish]

I would hope that neither situation would actually happen, since the ability to pay for ink to be quasi-permanently inserted under your skin should not be the basis by which to judge someone's employable ability.

But I'm a cynic, so I am sure both are absolutely true, although I would not hazard a guess as to which is more common.

(I also wonder if you could game it with non-permanent skin art)

Grey Wolf

It's not employable ability that gets judged, but employable appearance. Right or wrong, many companies want all their employees (even those in menial positions) to look clean and respectable. Visible tattoos/piercings are often not seen that way (unfortunately).

[dps]

It's not employable ability that gets judged, but employable appearance. Right or wrong, many companies want all their employees (even those in menial positions) to look clean and respectable. Visible tattoos/piercings are often not seen that way (unfortunately).

It's not just that--some old-fashioned business owners see getting a tattoo as a sign of rebelliousness, and figure they wouldn't get along with you, so why would they hire you?

Also, what a lot of people don't realize, in a lot of smaller workplaces where the hiring decision is being made by someone who will actually be working with you on a regular basis, the main question on their minds when interviewing an applicant is, "Do I want to have to actually work with this person?". If the person doing that interview has a negative view of tattoos, and you have visible tats, you're probably not getting hired, even if there is no formal policy against them.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

It's not employable ability that gets judged, but employable appearance. Right or wrong, many companies want all their employees (even those in menial positions) to look clean and respectable. Visible tattoos/piercings are often not seen that way (unfortunately).

Yes, but, again, employee appearance should not be the basis by which to judge someone's employable ability.

GW

[Scarlet Knight]

I respectfully disagree. While employee appearance should not be the ONLY basis by which to judge someone's employable ability, appearance is a message a person sends to the world, & therefore you can get alot of accurate information about a person by their appearance.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

I respectfully disagree. While employee appearance should not be the ONLY basis by which to judge someone's employable ability, appearance is a message a person sends to the world, & therefore you can get alot of accurate information about a person by their appearance.

You can get very inaccurate information about a person from their appearance - mostly based on prejudice - but you cannot get any information about their employable abilities, which is what an employment offer should be based on. Even for customer-facing positions, such judgements are irrelevant, if the individual to be hired is to be given explicit instructions post-hire of appearance expectations and one of the actual employable abilities is their ability to accept and follow such instructions.

Grey Wolf

[halfeye]

I very strongly feel that employees should be rated on their ability to do the job, and not a lot else. Unfortunately, there are no tests for that at this time, for almost all jobs. There are many mostly suitable applicants for almost all jobs, so employers pick the ones that most appeal to them, in whichever ways they choose.

[2D8HP]

I very strongly feel that employees should be rated on their ability to do the job, and not a lot else. Unfortunately, there are no tests for that at this time, for almost all jobs. There are many mostly suitable applicants for almost all jobs, so employers pick the ones that most appeal to them, in whichever ways they choose.

I don't.

I don't feel that those with lousy jobs should be cursed and those with good jobs rewarded just because they're good at them.

If I was King of California I'd like time spent doing both good and lousy jobs be more equitably distributed.

I'd rather more who have spent time in their lives as Alaskan fishermen and California tomato pickers (the two lousiest jobs I can think of) get to be tenured professors (the best job that I can think of).

Or in other words, I'd like every minute that I've spent doing heavy lifting or pulling hair out of the drains in the autopsy room be compensated with time in a classroom or library.

I'm decidedly underwhelmed by the "skilled" who have the gravy jobs (chiefly because their parents had gravy jobs), and "ability" just doesn't matter that much to me.

I'd rather a lottery and periodic rotations.

As to those who say "But efficiency"?

Bah!

Increasingly time spent at work by many people is just on flattering someone, enduring abuse, or on meetings and reports the results of which are hardly noticed (see
....Bull[censored] Jobs: A Theory by David Graeber (https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/34466958-bull****-jobs)

Which is about the proliferation of jobs that those doing them don't see any purpose of the work done.

I've found it engaging reading, that reminds me a bit of

Shop Class as Soulcraft: An Inquiry into the Value of Work by Matthew Crawford (https://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/shop-class-as-soulcraft),

and along with

How to Tell When You're Tired: A Brief Examination of Work by Reg Theriault (https://www.kirkusreviews.com/book-reviews/reg-theriault/how-to-tell-when-youre-tired/),

I'd recommend all three, especially to those who are about to leave school.). so there's enough "slack in the system" to handle people doing different tasks then the "same-old-same-old".

I don't like it that some go their lives without having to get dirty (real dirt) earning a living and I don't like it that it's often hard to earn a living without feeling dirty (metaphorically) i.e. the soul destroying nature of working for employers who insist that you lie.

Pretty much I'd abolish almost every job that had "market", "marketing", and "sales" in the title, I really don't care how good people are at them (yes, I'm totally fantasizing, I don't expect any of this)!

Instead (in my fantasies) time spent working would go towards things that would do people good other than flattering managers or enriching owners, so instead of desperate for income people having to "cold-call" me to buy something they'd be fixing leaks with me and then we'd both chill at a bookstore, classroom, library, or tavern.

Though I suppose "ability" is a (slightly) better meter than just whom the employer likes to look at being hired, but I'm still think "ability" has more to do with luck than anything else, and as the old saying goes "What's the reward for hard work? More work.", so as well the reward for being lucky is more good luck.

[halfeye]

I don't.

I don't feel that those with lousy jobs should be cursed and those with good jobs rewarded just because they're good at them.

If I was King of California I'd like time spent doing both good and lousy jobs be more equitably distributed.

I'd rather more who have spent time in their lives as Alaskan fishermen and California tomato pickers (the two lousiest jobs I can think of) get to be tenured professors (the best job that I can think of).

Or in other words, I'd like every minute that I've spent doing heavy lifting or pulling hair out of the drains in the autopsy room be compensated with time in a classroom or library.

I'm decidedly underwhelmed by the "skilled" who have the gravy jobs (chiefly because their parents had gravy jobs), and "ability" just doesn't matter that much to me.

I'd rather a lottery and periodic rotations.

As to those who say "But efficiency"?

Bah!

Increasingly time spent at work by many people is just on flattering someone, enduring abuse, or on meetings and reports the results of which are hardly noticed (see). so there's enough "slack in the system" to handle people doing different tasks then the "same-old-same-old".

I don't like it that some go their lives without having to get dirty (real dirt) earning a living and I don't like it that it's often hard to earn a living without feeling dirty (metaphorically) i.e. the soul destroying nature of working for employers who insist that you lie.

Pretty much I'd abolish almost every job that had "market", "marketing", and "sales" in the title, I really don't care how good people are at them (yes, I'm totally fantasizing, I don't expect any of this)!

Instead (in my fantasies) time spent working would go towards things that would do people good other than flattering managers or enriching owners, so instead of desperate for income people having to "cold-call" me to buy something they'd be fixing leaks with me and then we'd both chill at a bookstore, classroom, library, or tavern.

Though I suppose "ability" is a (slightly) better meter than just whom the employer likes to look at being hired, but I'm still think "ability" has more to do with luck than anything else, and as the old saying goes "What's the reward for hard work? More work.", so as well the reward for being lucky is more good luck.

I think I sort of probably agree with most of that (haven't looked at the links).

Being unemployed was very bad, and not being accepted for or at interviews was no fun at all.

I'm not saying being stuck in a rubbish job is good or necessary, but being stuck on none because there is no relevant aptitude test is probably marginally worse. Not having any aptitude might be worse still, I'm not denying that.

[2D8HP]

I think I sort of probably agree with most of that (haven't looked at the links).

Being unemployed was v. ery bad, and not being accepted for or at interviews was no fun at all.

I'm not saying being stuck in a rubbish job is good or necessary, but being stuck on none because there is no relevant aptitude test is probably marginally worse. Not having any aptitude might be worse still, I'm not denying that.


The links are just book reviews, and I well remember being unemployed, and the indignity of the application and interview process.

My grandparents gave me a motor scooter for my 18th birthday, and my job of 1993 to 2000 (motorcycle shop) basically happened because I had hair that pleased the lady who was the parts department manager (ironically the owner hated it and I had to cut it after getting hired) and because I got the microfiche that listed parts numbers (which I would read using the machines at the library), so I ordered parts by number as their customer, so I demonstrated that ability despite knowing very little about mechanics (I was a fast learner back then), my jobs of 2000 to 20011 was because I did well on the test to apply to be an apprentice plumber, and for my current job I did well on the test the City made up to work for them, so more luck than anything else.

My brother got his job because his father-in-law, who worked for the State of Maryland, along with me, my mother and my grandparents all chipped in so he could go to college, and with his diploma he got a job...
....with the State of Maryland.

School admittance, hiring, et cetera could be done by lottery, saving a lot of wasted time.

[Anonymouswizard]

The links are just book reviews, and I well remember being unemployed, and the indignity of the application and interview process.

My grandparents gave me a motor scooter for my 18th birthday, and my job of 1993 to 2000 (motorcycle shop) basically happened because I had hair that pleased the lady who was the parts department manager (ironically the owner hated it and I had to cut it after getting hired) and because I got the microfiche that listed parts numbers (which I would read using the machines at the library), so I ordered parts by number as their customer, so I demonstrated that ability despite knowing very little about mechanics (I was a fast learner back then), my jobs of 2000 to 20011 was because I did well on the test to apply to be an apprentice plumber, and for my current job I did well on the test the City made up to work for them, so more luck than anything else.

My brother got his job because his father-in-law, who worked for the State of Maryland, along with me, my mother and my grandparents all chipped in so he could go to college, and with his diploma he got a job...
....with the State of Maryland.

School admittance, hiring, et cetera could be done by lottery, saving a lot of wasted time.

Yeah, I can't get a job in my degree field by the luck of having a heavily exam based degree, and really sucking at them. Seriously, I got solid Bs in my coursework easily, but Ds and Es on my exams. I'm currently trying to work out some form of project that'll make me look better, because I've got one more year before I've lost my chance at the graduate schemes :smallsigh: Maybe two, it all depends on if the fact I technically graduated this year despite my degree finishing nearly a year ago counts for everything.

EDIT: I got the current job I have essentially because I talk posh enough to empress people and work quickly enough that I'd already picked it up by the end of the trial shift. Oh, and because I have amazing curly hair.

[Random Sanity]

Yes, but, again, employee appearance should not be the basis by which to judge someone's employable ability.

GW

Employers really don't give two flips about what their standards should be. They want obedient corporate drones, not human beings.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Employers really don't give two flips about what their standards should be. They want obedient corporate drones, not human beings.

I have worked for at least 20 different companies, and I can assure you that employers do want competent people. Working with, for or in close proximity to incompetents (whether due to ability or attitude) is not desirable.

But hey, you want to build strawman about how everyone working at any company is evil, you do you. But on the other hand, "if you don't fit at one job, maybe the problem is them. But if you don't fit in any job, maybe the problem is you".

Grey Wolf

[Scarlet Knight]

I have worked for at least 20 different companies, and I can assure you that employers do want competent people. Working with, for or in close proximity to incompetents (whether due to ability or attitude) is not desirable.


I agree with Grey Wolf here; every job wants workers who know what they're doing. It makes worklife better for everyone.

I find the problems with appearance fall with the phrase "Working with, for, or in close proximity to..." & I believe where we disagree is the quality of information gathered from appearance. When I was young I fought to be judged on my skills and not the length of my hair or my apache tie.

As the years have passed I realized when someone tells you something about themself, you should listen.

No one wants to hire a worker who's appearance declares "I am a rebel & I stick it to 'the Man!'" (unless you're looking for a teen idol) because you would not expect him to follow instructions if he disagreed with them.

Martha Graham said " Each of us tells our own story even without speaking." Appearance is a message we send to the world about ourselves. So in the end, do you think your potential hire is a person who will get along well with you, your patrons , and other employees?

[Red Fel]

Everyone wants competent workers with whom they get along, true. But sometimes they want more than that, and frankly it's a bit unreasonable to call that unreasonable.

I work in a field where there is a surplus. A lot of people go to school for this kind of work, a lot of people enter the job market, and as a result, the bosses have their pick.

Yes, they want someone qualified. That's obvious. And yes, they want someone competent and with whom they'll get along. 90% of the interview process is just that - does this person know one hand from the other, and can I walk into the office and see this person without wanting to vomit? That's the bulk of it.

But a premium is placed on good judgment and good presentation. This is an industry built around the appearance of professionalism and sound decisionmaking. And part of that is how you show.

If you show up to an interview in a t-shirt and jeans, no matter how glowing your resume, charming your personality, and brilliant your skills, you will not get the job. You are not showing off your good judgment and professionalism.

Similarly, if you have tattoos, you cover them up. If they're on your arms, wear sleeves; on your forearms, wear thick bracelets. (On your face, you're out of luck.) Employers won't necessarily kick you out simply for having them, but having them in a prominent, unavoidable place, or refusing to cover them up, shows that you either make bad decisions or aren't professional about it.

You can say, "But bosses shouldn't do that." You're not entirely wrong. You can say, "Your competence and personality should matter more than your appearance," and that's generally true. But, particularly in some industries, those things do matter. And if you can't - or won't - pay attention to these details, you're sending a signal to a potential employer about what matters to you.

And in a densely-packed industry where a dozen people are waiting right outside to take your spot, that's lethal.

[Knaight]

No one wants to hire a worker who's appearance declares "I am a rebel & I stick it to 'the Man!'" (unless you're looking for a teen idol) because you would not expect him to follow instructions if he disagreed with them.

It's not 1950. Tattoos fundamentally don't say that anymore, at least not by just being tattoos (specific things absolutely can) - and long hair certainly doesn't.

[2D8HP]

It's not 1950. Tattoos fundamentally don't say that anymore, at least not by just being tattoos (specific things absolutely can) - and long hair certainly doesn't.


I'm not so sure.

I've learned from this Forum that some cultural changes that I thought were done in the 1970's and '80's are far from universal.

Some posts seem to even come from the attitudes of the 1850's!

[Red Fel]

It's not 1950. Tattoos fundamentally don't say that anymore, at least not by just being tattoos (specific things absolutely can) - and long hair certainly doesn't.

Some employers are still around who grew up in those days. (Maybe not the 50s specifically, but still.) They carry those prejudices, and they are the ones who decide who does and doesn't get hired.

Sure, if you find a business run by a 20- or 30-something boss who has a laid back attitude about attire and such, that's great. But if you're in an office where people wear suits and carry briefcases, that stuff still matters.

Frankly, it doesn't matter whether your tattoo "says that anymore" just by being a tattoo. In some industries, the boss will see it and simply think, "There are a dozen people in line for this job who don't have body art which may or may not offend a client. I can take a chance on this one, or pick one of the numerous sure things waiting outside. Next!"

[Friendly Mimic]

I thought a very, very long time about getting that done. Talking about years here. I already had a lot of piercings at that time (none of which you could see when I was dressed, except two earrings). I then didn't do it. Mostly because I knew that because of a medical condition I had and still have very poor wound healing.

But still to this day I think that it is extremely... hot. That's pretty also pretty much the reason why I even considered it.

[Knaight]

Some employers are still around who grew up in those days. (Maybe not the 50s specifically, but still.) They carry those prejudices, and they are the ones who decide who does and doesn't get hired.

Sure, if you find a business run by a 20- or 30-something boss who has a laid back attitude about attire and such, that's great. But if you're in an office where people wear suits and carry briefcases, that stuff still matters.
Maybe this is a regionalism (Colorado formal attire is minimally formal compared to, say, the East coast), but even in the context of 50-something bosses I've yet to see one person who cares, and that's as someone who presents very conservatively (no tattoos, no piercings, clean cut, etc.).


Frankly, it doesn't matter whether your tattoo "says that anymore" just by being a tattoo. In some industries, the boss will see it and simply think, "There are a dozen people in line for this job who don't have body art which may or may not offend a client. I can take a chance on this one, or pick one of the numerous sure things waiting outside. Next!"

My point is that this list of industries is limited, and often to industries that people are vanishingly unlikely to get into anyways unless they have a particular background. The options closed off are often already closed, and calling it stupidity to recognize that and not let those closed options dictate behavior is just inaccurate.

[AMFV]

I'm not so sure.

I've learned from this Forum that some cultural changes that I thought were done in the 1970's and '80's are far from universal.

Some posts seem to even come from the attitudes of the 1850's!

Well you have to remember that the area you live in is extremely likely to embrace those particular kind of social reforms. Once you strip away that regional constraint and you explore the internets you'll find that there quite a few different kind of normative things in different locales.

The other important thing to remember is that not all cultural change is good just by virtue of being change. Sometimes there are values from the 1950s (or even the 1850s) that were not necessarily bad values, that we've lost or abandoned. Of course, there are some changes that were exceptionally positive.

It's important to remember that the same environment that had things like slavery, also spawned people willing to fight tooth and nail (and literally give their lives) to fight against it. So it can't have been all bad).


Some employers are still around who grew up in those days. (Maybe not the 50s specifically, but still.) They carry those prejudices, and they are the ones who decide who does and doesn't get hired.

Sure, if you find a business run by a 20- or 30-something boss who has a laid back attitude about attire and such, that's great. But if you're in an office where people wear suits and carry briefcases, that stuff still matters.


I think it's much more dependent on the particular industry you're in and the culture that surrounds your particular industry. I mostly work with older guys. Cause that's who is in construction right now. And I can tell you that even among people who were born in the 1950s and the 1960s (there probably aren't that many 1950s guys anymore) I would be in the minority in that none of my tattoos are visible. However when I worked in an office job, it was exactly the opposite. The only visible tattoos that were deemed acceptable were small ones and always on women. Well I don't know for sure if others would have been accepted, I just know that the people I knew that had tattoos that were men did not have them in visible places.



Frankly, it doesn't matter whether your tattoo "says that anymore" just by being a tattoo. In some industries, the boss will see it and simply think, "There are a dozen people in line for this job who don't have body art which may or may not offend a client. I can take a chance on this one, or pick one of the numerous sure things waiting outside. Next!"

Yep, and that's why it's pretty important to consider your industry before getting one. But since it's nearly permanent or at least will cost a significant chunk to remove, one should consider it carefully in either case.


Maybe this is a regionalism (Colorado formal attire is minimally formal compared to, say, the East coast), but even in the context of 50-something bosses I've yet to see one person who cares, and that's as someone who presents very conservatively (no tattoos, no piercings, clean cut, etc.).

Well because you're somebody who "presents very conservatively" you probably wouldn't be subjected to negative opinions about your body art or what-not. I imagine that it may be the case in your industry or region that it might not matter. But it might matter more than you think, but you wouldn't be aware of that, because you just wouldn't notice that there were no other tattooed guys around.



My point is that this list of industries is limited, and often to industries that people are vanishingly unlikely to get into anyways unless they have a particular background. The options closed off are often already closed, and calling it stupidity to recognize that and not let those closed options dictate behavior is just inaccurate.

I don't think that's necessarily the case. I worked in a non-profit for a while, and I did not see anybody with tattoos, except for women with ankle tattoos or really small ones. The only guy I knew who had a tattoo had one that was not visible in a t-shirt, much less in business wear. And this was an office that had a really casual wear policy. My own tattoo isn't visible unless I take my shirt off, so I've never really thought about it much.

In any case, it's really important to know about what culture you're going into, and banking, which is not a closed off field. Would be one where I could see that. Office Management (also not closed off). Certain sales positions. Definitely it's somewhat regional, but you should definitely consider that before getting a tattoo. Now if you're in a business like mine, you could cover probably your entire body completely in ink and nobody would bat an eye.

[Scarlet Knight]

This may also be regionalism as I come from NY, the business capital of America and also a hotbed of co-existance, where CEOs and punk rockers fight for a cab driven by a woman from Pakistan. The place where stars from Hollywood move to be left alone.

To survive among so many people you need to understand degrees of crazy. A man in his underwear with a guitar singing is different from a man in his underwear with a bible preaching from man in his underwear with a knife yelling. Yes, I’ve seen all three.

We understand people with split tongues can get jobs, but also know those jobs are a tiny percentage of what’s available. You might find some tolerant kid with a business but the overwhelming majority of employers are older and have the outlook of those who have lived life and learned its lessons. A person with a split tongue is not getting most jobs. But, yo, good luck with dat, pally!



I thought a very, very long time about getting that done. Talking about years here. I already had a lot of piercings at that time (none of which you could see when I was dressed, except two earrings). I then didn't do it. Mostly because I knew that because of a medical condition I had and still have very poor wound healing.

But still to this day I think that it is extremely... hot. That's pretty also pretty much the reason why I even considered it.

Please, if you ever truly consider getting you tongue split, speak with a mental health professional to see why you would like to do this.

[2D8HP]

Well you have to remember that....


+1 to the whole post.

Besides industry, there's also placement.

At my job I've seen lots of visible "ink" on cops, deputies, and fire-fighters, but not on any of the higher ranked ones.

[AMFV]

This may also be regionalism as I come from NY, the business capital of America and also a hotbed of co-existance, where CEOs and punk rockers fight for a cab driven by a woman from Pakistan. The place where stars from Hollywood move to be left alone.

To survive among so many people you need to understand degrees of crazy. A man in his underwear with a guitar singing is different from a man in his underwear with a bible preaching from man in his underwear with a knife yelling. Yes, I’ve seen all three.

We understand people with split tongues can get jobs, but also know those jobs are a tiny percentage of what’s available. You might find some tolerant kid with a business but the overwhelming majority of employers are older and have the outlook of those who have lived life and learned its lessons. A person with a split tongue is not getting most jobs. But, yo, good luck with dat, pally!

Well not most office type jobs. But that's not really the majority of jobs. I mean in my field nobody would care that much. They'd probably give you **** for it, but you'd still get hired. And it's not like my field is a small field. And there's plenty other fields that would likely have a similar lack of pointed interest in caring about that sort of thing.



Please, if you ever truly consider getting you tongue split, speak with a mental health professional to see why you would like to do this.

I mean, I'm not sure that you'd need to "see a mental health professional". It's not that big a deal, certainly you'd have to consider your future employment stuff and what-not, but if you're in a field and a culture where it won't hurt that much, it's probably not a big deal.


+1 to the whole post.

Besides industry, there's also placement.

At my job I've seen lots of visible "ink" on cops, deputies, and fire-fighters, but not on any of the higher ranked ones.

I've seen the same gap in the military with Enlisted and Officers, officers with tats tended not to have ones that were as intense as the enlisted. Which also would make them less likely to be selected for promotion, since Officer promotion is a lot more based around things like that than enlisted promotions are. Or at least the particular appearance things that enlisted boards tend to care about tend to not involve tattoos.

I imagine that in the case of Cops, Deputies and Fire-Fighters, there's a bit of a class divide. Also the type of guys who are likely to ink up probably wouldn't really want to be promoted to a level where they're "driving a desk", at least in my experience. So in a sense, inking up and creating that kind of blue collar tough image is a way to avoid that. I'm not sure if it's a conscious one, but I would imagine that in some cases it certainly is.

Although in construction, especially heavy and roadway type construction. I've seen plenty of supers with tats, and plenty of foremen with them. I would imagine that it doesn't really matter for those industries since you're supposed to be "rougher" around the edges.

[Florian]

Speaking as a company owner and employer:

My priorities are: (1) The customers, (2) laws & regulations, (3) Skilled labor.

Tackling (2) first: This is non-negotionable. The production and storage area of my company falls under the laws and regulations of food production, as well as counting as a minor hazard zone, so that means standardized safety workwear, hair nets, no beards or piercings/ear rings above a certain size and so on.

Point (1) is the big one here: I doesn't matter what I personally think or how my tastes run. I pay the wages, but the customers pay me, so it´s just prudent to avoid anything that can lead to a loss of customers. For example, we've got a blanket ban of showing any visible signs of any affiliation outside this company in place, no matter if that's religion, political party, NGO or soccer club.

International business often seems a bit outdated and conservative to outsiders. In truth it´s a necessary common ground to meet when you're coming from often vastly different cultures. People "talk to the suit, not the person" when it comes to that and anything really drawing the focus on the person is pretty contra-productive.

[AMFV]

Speaking as a company owner and employer:

My priorities are: (1) The customers, (2) laws & regulations, (3) Skilled labor.

Tackling (2) first: This is non-negotionable. The production and storage area of my company falls under the laws and regulations of food production, as well as counting as a minor hazard zone, so that means standardized safety workwear, hair nets, no beards or piercings/ear rings above a certain size and so on.

That's fair, although I don't imagine that tattoos or tongue splitting would constitute something that would be a violation of safety regulations in most places. Although possibly immediately after getting one they might not want you working in every environment because of the risk of infection or what-not. (I know people who have worked building sanitation plants, which for some reason falls under my local rather than the commercial carpentry one, and I imagine they wouldn't want somebody with a recent tattoo working in **** water unless they were properly covered up).



Point (1) is the big one here: I doesn't matter what I personally think or how my tastes run. I pay the wages, but the customers pay me, so it´s just prudent to avoid anything that can lead to a loss of customers. For example, we've got a blanket ban of showing any visible signs of any affiliation outside this company in place, no matter if that's religion, political party, NGO or soccer club.

This is an interesting one. I mean obviously you wouldn't want people with political slogan t-shirts or what-not. But do you include like Yarmulkes in "obvious religious affiliations"? Or like beards and turbans (in the case of Sikhs)? What if somebody has their soccer club name tattooed on their person somewhere, possibly somewhere discrete? I mean it might be our different cultures here but it seems that you'd wind up excluding several major religions entirely by that measure. Which would obviously be bad.

[Honest Tiefling]

Building on the issue of employment, I've heard stories of employers and interviewers looking more for someone who can dress the part for the interview, even if the workplace itself had absolutely no dress code. The employer didn't want to bother wasting time enforcing it, but they wanted prospective employees to be able to demonstrate basic social competence before getting hired. Some tattoos can be hidden, most piercings taken out, and hair dyed back to a semi-natural color. Split tongue? Less so.

And even if you were in San Francisco or Las Vegas, consider if you might move away due to family, work or romantic obligations. Can't say I can think of many places outside of those (maybe Portland?) that are going to offer a lot of jobs in many sectors. Even then, I doubt you'd get much work as a banker.

Also, I'd look into the possible effects of this, as ALL body modification runs the risk of infection, yes, even if you get your ears pierced. Tongue piercings are notoriously hard to keep clean, and what are the possible effects if it goes wrong?

[AMFV]

Building on the issue of employment, I've heard stories of employers and interviewers looking more for someone who can dress the part for the interview, even if the workplace itself had absolutely no dress code. The employer didn't want to bother wasting time enforcing it, but they wanted prospective employees to be able to demonstrate basic social competence before getting hired. Some tattoos can be hidden, most piercings taken out, and hair dyed back to a semi-natural color. Split tongue? Less so.

That's definitely true. But again, it's really important to know what the rules in your particular industry and culture are. Since they are not universal rules, by any means. So I would say that you should have been working in your industry long enough to have a firm grasp on what's acceptable or not before considering this kind of body modification.



And even if you were in San Francisco or Las Vegas, consider if you might move away due to family, work or romantic obligations. Can't say I can think of many places outside of those (maybe Portland?) that are going to offer a lot of jobs in many sectors. Even then, I doubt you'd get much work as a banker.


Seconded. Although most cities have jobs in "many sectors". It's not like we import people to do different kinds of work in Pittsburgh. Basically you'll have the same sort of spread of jobs everywhere, just with differences in the number of people competing for those jobs. Depending on how "fashionable" the city is. In some place like Portland you'll have really fierce competition for any "trendy" job or job you can get with a trendy degree since it is where the young peoples want to live. Whereas in some older cities you might have shortages of those jobs and gluts in other jobs.


Generally I would make sure that you can pass in the most conservative environment possible for your field. Which you might be able to do with a split tongue. I mean every city I have been to has multiple tattoo parlors, I'm sure that they are fine with that, if that's your career. Construction, I can't imagine anybody caring that much, outside of maybe thinking you're odd or what-not.



Also, I'd look into the possible effects of this, as ALL body modification runs the risk of infection, yes, even if you get your ears pierced. Tongue piercings are notoriously hard to keep clean, and what are the possible effects if it goes wrong?

Also true.

[Honest Tiefling]

Seconded. Although most cities have jobs in "many sectors". It's not like we import people to do different kinds of work in Pittsburgh.

Most cities will have most jobs, but if you are say, in the Tech Indrustry (which can sometimes have laxer codes for certain professions) you stand a good chance of being on the West Coast. Larger employers like Microsoft, Boeing, Google, Amazon, and Bayer are just going to change the job market, and it'll be useful to note what the standards are, even if you might not work for those companies. At this point it wouldn't surprise me if either Microsoft or Google had heavily tattooed employees with multicolored hair with more metal on their face than in the segway they're riding around.

Through I think I would have questions about tattoo parlors NOT being okay with a bifurcated tongue. THAT'S the line for them!?

[Knaight]

Well because you're somebody who "presents very conservatively" you probably wouldn't be subjected to negative opinions about your body art or what-not. I imagine that it may be the case in your industry or region that it might not matter. But it might matter more than you think, but you wouldn't be aware of that, because you just wouldn't notice that there were no other tattooed guys around.
I don't have any body art - I just know a lot of people that do, because every industry I've ever worked in has (at least in Colorado) had a general attitude of total apathy towards tattoos. If anything not having any has made me the exception more often than not.


Most cities will have most jobs, but if you are say, in the Tech Indrustry (which can sometimes have laxer codes for certain professions) you stand a good chance of being on the West Coast. Larger employers like Microsoft, Boeing, Google, Amazon, and Bayer are just going to change the job market, and it'll be useful to note what the standards are, even if you might not work for those companies. At this point it wouldn't surprise me if either Microsoft or Google had heavily tattooed employees with multicolored hair with more metal on their face than in the segway they're riding around.
Tech is a famous example, but it's far from the only one. Basically any artistic profession has a culture of not caring, basically anything blue collar has a culture of not caring, even engineering (reputed to be very conservative, though the actual data doesn't back that up as well as you'd think) often has a culture of not caring.


Through I think I would have questions about tattoo parlors NOT being okay with a bifurcated tongue. THAT'S the line for them!?
Putting some ink under the skin or a piercing through some cartilage or skin is a totally different deal than making a deep cut that goes all the way through a muscle. Bifurcated tongues are pretty extreme.

[Honest Tiefling]

Putting some ink under the skin or a piercing through some cartilage or skin is a totally different deal than making a deep cut that goes all the way through a muscle. Bifurcated tongues are pretty extreme.

I still would have questions, especially since many have ear gauges or bright pink mohawks. But no, the tongue thing is where we will draw the line. I feel like the person with a bifurcated tongue might be able to demonstrate a working knowledge of mouth hygiene. Extreme yes, but undesirable for a tattoo shop? Maybe not.

[Florian]

This is an interesting one. I mean obviously you wouldn't want people with political slogan t-shirts or what-not. But do you include like Yarmulkes in "obvious religious affiliations"? Or like beards and turbans (in the case of Sikhs)? What if somebody has their soccer club name tattooed on their person somewhere, possibly somewhere discrete? I mean it might be our different cultures here but it seems that you'd wind up excluding several major religions entirely by that measure. Which would obviously be bad.

That's how the local anti-discrimination laws work. Either you include all or exclude all, everything in-between would be discrimination. So, no exceptions, no grey areas.

[LordEntrails]

As said previously, how you present yourself to the world matters. People will make assumptions based upon your appearance. And I don't see any problem with that. Until you get to interact and know someone, all you have to go on is their appearance and behavior.

If I meet someone (on the street, in a business, elsewhere) and they are dressed like and portray themselves as a gangster/thug/hooker/scum (pick your stereotype), I am going to treat them that way until they prove themselves otherwise. Through their dress and self-portrayal, that is how they want me to react to them.

If they act like a dangerous criminal, I am going to be defensive if we are in a dark alley. And if I am interviewing them for a job, I will not be hiring them. If they portray themselves as a clean, respectful and pleasant person, I am going to treat them as such. Until they prove themselves otherwise.

Is that fair? Sure, that is how the person portrays themselves and therefore how they want people to react, and interact, with them.

A true story:
I walked up to the service counter at a warehouse store with my daughter. Who was a teenager at the time with bright pink hair. The guy at the counter (early/mid 20's) looked at her, smiled and said, "I love your hair! I used to have a blue mohawk, until I had to get a job." And that was a minimum wage job that required no special training (just the right attitude and appearance).

A second story:
The receptionist at a company I worked for always wore long sleeves and high collared shirts. A nice woman who always presented professionally. I asked her one day when it was 115F outside why she was wearing such a warm top. She replied quietly that it was because she had to hide her ink. I doubt she was paid minimum wage, but again, not a high-paying or highly skilled job.

So, you can argue all you want as to what's fair. But, just understand what is reality and that life is not, nor will it ever be, fair by everyone's standards. You can chose to live within societal norms, or you can chose to fight them. But its your choice.

[Knaight]

As said previously, how you present yourself to the world matters. People will make assumptions based upon your appearance. And I don't see any problem with that. Until you get to interact and know someone, all you have to go on is their appearance and behavior.

There's a huge, unstated jump here - it's going from people making assumptions based on appearance being okay, to specific assumptions inherently being okay. That doesn't follow - if said assumptions don't comport with reality, the assumptions are the problem.

[Red Fel]

There's a huge, unstated jump here - it's going from people making assumptions based on appearance being okay, to specific assumptions inherently being okay. That doesn't follow - if said assumptions don't comport with reality, the assumptions are the problem.

No.

Nobody is expected to be psychic. If assumptions don't comport with reality, that's the nature of assumptions - they're what we think based on initial impressions, before we know. Most assumptions won't comport with reality, and that's fine.

Not one of my coworkers expects that I can spit sick until they've heard my flow. That's fine.

You're saying that certain specific assumptions are inherently not okay. And I get where you're coming from with that, and to any extent that an assumption labels a person as "less than," I agree, those kinds of assumptions are not okay.

This isn't that. This isn't an assumption based upon a condition of birth, for example. This is an assumption based upon a choice - a choice a person decides to share with the world. Whether it's tongue splitting, tattoos, or the particular logo you wear on a shirt, you're saying, "This reflects me. This makes me comfortable. This is who I am."

That's not the same as making an assumption based on, for instance, skin color or sex. Those assumptions are problematic. Those assumptions are not based on something a person chooses to share with the world, but based upon something with which life has saddled them.

This isn't that. This is a choice. I will always judge people based on the choices they make, especially those they choose to share. I am willing to change my judgments once I know them, but I will look at that first impression. And that is okay.

My assumptions are not "the problem." Neither are your choices. Neither is a "problem." This isn't about a "problem." It's about how one presents oneself to the world. You cannot reasonably present yourself one way, and expect people to see you another, and then claim that their failure to do so is their problem.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

If I meet someone (on the street, in a business, elsewhere) and they are dressed like and portray themselves as a gangster/thug/hooker/scum (pick your stereotype), I am going to treat them that way until they prove themselves otherwise. Through their dress and self-portrayal, that is how they want me to react to them.

This is racism in a nutshell: judging someone as member of a group based on looks alone is the most basic form of prejudice (or "stereotype"), which is the main component of racism (or its broader cousin, xenophobia). It doesn't matter that "hoodie" is not, in fact, a signifier of being a thug. You have decided it is, and by your own words, you will treat them as such - including calling the police or worse.

Grey Wolf

[LordEntrails]

This is racism in a nutshell: judging someone as member of a group based on looks alone is the most basic form of prejudice (or "stereotype"), which is the main component of racism (or its broader cousin, xenophobia). It doesn't matter that "hoodie" is not, in fact, a signifier of being a thug. You have decided it is, and by your own words, you will treat them as such - including calling the police or worse.

Grey Wolf
*lol* Nice, when did I say anything about race? So no, you are absolutely wrong, race has nothing to do with it.

Now, it is discrimination. Discrimination based upon how people present themselves. And as Red Fel makes clear, is and should be normal. Discrimination of people based upon how they present themselves is exactly what every person should be doing. It doesn't mean it forms your opinion, and if you are discriminating based upon things like race or sex then that's a problem you have.

But if I discriminate in a job interview because the applicant walks in for a job as a bank teller wearing a ripped jeans, daisy dukes, flip-flops and a t-shirt that says "F*ck Authority!" Would you hire them if you their appearance and that they are qualified on paper were the only things you knew about them? I wouldn't.

If I am in a cafe and a guy sits next to me and he's sporting prison Nazi tattoos, studded leather, a shaved head and a sidearm (perfectly legal where I live), am I going to think he's might be a threat to me and my daughter? Am I going to get up and move or leave with my family? Damn right. This person is intentionally emitting an aura of danger. I would be negligent to my family if I kept them in such obvious danger just to prove I don't "discriminate".

Now, if the job applicant was a neighbor for years and knew that they felt such attire was funny or a statement of independence and they knew, and agreed, to present themselves to expected standards, and the interview was in their living room, the appearance at that point in time wouldn't matter.

And if I had met the guy in the cafe at church and new him (perhaps a past he had "reformed" from) and I knew his aura was a legacy of his past and not a threat, then it wouldn't be a concern.

BUT, until you know someone, all you can, and should assume, about them are the stereotypes they portray themselves as.

Grey Wolf, you've said some thoughtful things, but are you trying to claim that you make no assumptions about someone until you have spent time with them?

[Grey_Wolf_c]

*lol* Nice, when did I say anything about race? So no, you are absolutely wrong, race has nothing to do with it.

Which is why I also called it xenophobia. Racism does not necessarily relate to discrimination based on race, but it has been co-opted to mean many other forms of discrimination . Such as deciding someone with ripped jeans, a hoodie or visible underwear is a thug. Because, curiously, as it turns out, such attire is preferred by certain races more than others, and allows racists to discriminate against them and them claim the defence "I never said anything about race".

Whether you are just lying to me or are also lying to yourself is no concern of mine. I don't know you from Adam. But it should concern you.


Now, it is discrimination. Discrimination based upon how people present themselves. And as Red Fel makes clear, is and should be normal.
No, it should not. But your preference towards discrimination based on your own prejudices is noted.


But if I discriminate in a job interview because the applicant walks in for a job as a bank teller wearing a ripped jeans, daisy dukes, flip-flops and a t-shirt that says "F*ck Authority!" Would you hire them if you their appearance and that they are qualified on paper were the only things you knew about them? I wouldn't.
Yes, because as we've already established you are a xenophobe. As to me, not only would I hire them, I have approved such people for hiring (the final decision never rested on me [nor on any other single individual], but my recommendation was a requirement for the position). Yes, even for customer-facing positions in banking.


BUT, until you know someone, all you can, and should assume, about them are the stereotypes they portray themselves as.
Or you could just stop believing stereotypes. But it is easier for you, it seems, to be prejudiced and to perpetuate the cycle of prejudice under the guise of "protecting your family".


Grey Wolf, you've said some thoughtful things, but are you trying to claim that you make no assumptions about someone until you have spent time with them?
Yes, I do claim so. The question now is: who do you think has the problem here, me, or you for, it seems, assuming such thing is not possible?

You are part of a major problem in this world. You can choose to do something about it, or you can choose to continue to delude yourself to think that what you are doing is the right way to deal with strangers. But one way or another, I am not interesting on hearing from you ever again.

Grey Wolf

[2D8HP]

.....judging someone as member of a group based on looks alone is the most basic form of prejudice (or "stereotype"), which is the main component of racism (or its broader cousin, xenophobia). It doesn't matter that "hoodie" is not, in fact, a signifier of being a thug. You have decided it is, and by your own words, you will treat them as such - including calling the police or worse.

Grey Wolf


Hoodie wearing Silicon Valley CEO's have a history of law breaking and other "robber baron" acts, so I think prejudice against CEO's is entirely reasonable.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Hoodie wearing Silicon Valley CEO's have a history of law breaking and other "robber baron" acts, so I think prejudice against CEO's is entirely reasonable.

I'm fairly certain that robber baron acts were not illegal at the time. In fact, part of the problem with excessive accumulation of wealth is their ability to skirt or rewrite the law so that their actions are not in fact illegal, despite clearly being abuses of power and immoral. It is a problem that I know for a fact goes back all the way to the Roman Republic, and I would not be surprised if it predates that (I seem to recall a tale of a wealthy Athenian building a mausoleum for his "pet fly" as a way to skirt some land redistribution scheme, but cannot verify its accuracy).

I do thank you for the excellent example of the absurdity of clothes prejudices: no more does a hoodie signify a thug than it signifies a robber baron CEO.

Grey Wolf

[Honest Tiefling]

I do thank you for the excellent example of the absurdity of clothes prejudices: no more does a hoodie signify a thug than it signifies a robber baron CEO.

Ah, Norcal, the land where everyone wears jeans and hoodies, especially the rich. What is business suit?

Through when I was in high school, 'thug' style was just...A style of clothing, so many a fashionable lad of various backgrounds wore, so I try not to judge on that. I mean, I know people who had that style bought for them by their mothers.

[Knaight]

No.

Nobody is expected to be psychic. If assumptions don't comport with reality, that's the nature of assumptions - they're what we think based on initial impressions, before we know. Most assumptions won't comport with reality, and that's fine.

I'm not talking about the assumptions not comporting reality in the sense of them being accurate at the population trend level and just not fitting the particular individual - that's excused by people not being expected to be psychic, though even there there's questions of necessary confidence level. I'm talking about the assumptions relying on the existence of a population trend that doesn't actually exist.

The idea that anyone with a tattoo is somehow rebellious is firmly in that second category. That alleged population trend is completely fictional, and has been completely fictional for decades - at most a tattoo indicates that someone is less likely to be in certain groups which are (largely fictitiously) associated with not rocking the boat, at least in areas where said groups are socially dominant.

[tomandtish]

Maybe this is a regionalism (Colorado formal attire is minimally formal compared to, say, the East coast), but even in the context of 50-something bosses I've yet to see one person who cares, and that's as someone who presents very conservatively (no tattoos, no piercings, clean cut, etc.).



My point is that this list of industries is limited, and often to industries that people are vanishingly unlikely to get into anyways unless they have a particular background. The options closed off are often already closed, and calling it stupidity to recognize that and not let those closed options dictate behavior is just inaccurate.

Regionalism certainly applies. Also the nature of the work.

I live in the Austin area. You are much more likely to see someone with numerous piercings/visible tattoos working out in the public eye.

OTOH, go to the part of East Texas where my in-laws live and that drops WAY down. Even the local Dairy Queen won't generally hire them.

And even in Austin, while it is more open, it's not totally open. Applying for an upper level corporate position at Dell, or one of the state's high level employee positions? You're taking a big gamble if your modifications aren't coverable.

[Darkseal]

Tongue splitting is a body modification where the front part of the tongue is surgically split. With a bit of practice, a person can learn to control both sides of the tongue independently.

What do the people here think about it?


I honestly find it gross enough to not wanting to know anything more about that practice :)

[Red Fel]

Which is why I also called it xenophobia. Racism does not necessarily relate to discrimination based on race, but it has been co-opted to mean many other forms of discrimination . Such as deciding someone with ripped jeans, a hoodie or visible underwear is a thug. Because, curiously, as it turns out, such attire is preferred by certain races more than others, and allows racists to discriminate against them and them claim the defence "I never said anything about race".

Going to disagree with this. Discriminating against or pre-judging someone on the basis of attire (e.g. a hoodie) is not racism. Discriminating or pre-judging on the basis of attire when viewed in addition to ethnicity is racism. Because of the second part of what I just said.

Also, saying that "such attire is preferred by certain races more than others"? Actually technically racism.

Here's an easy benchmark: If you have an ethnic group, call them X, and a trait, say Y, and announce that "all X are Y," or "X are more likely to be Y than anybody else," that's the first step of racism. (The second step is saying, "this specific person is X, and therefore is likely Y.")

We're not talking about that. We're talking about clothing, or tattoos, or body modifications. Basically: Optional accessories. Choices.

Comparing that to race is a false equivalence.


Yes, because as we've already established you are a xenophobe. As to me, not only would I hire them, I have approved such people for hiring (the final decision never rested on me [nor on any other single individual], but my recommendation was a requirement for the position). Yes, even for customer-facing positions in banking.

Yes. And that's admirable. Nobody is faulting you for that.

But not everyone is you.


Or you could just stop believing stereotypes. But it is easier for you, it seems, to be prejudiced and to perpetuate the cycle of prejudice under the guise of "protecting your family".

Back town, tiger. Nobody here is under attack.

The fact is, it is easier to stereotype. It saves time. It's not always right, in any sense of the word you like, but it is easier.


Yes, I do claim so. The question now is: who do you think has the problem here, me, or you for, it seems, assuming such thing is not possible?

Third option. Nobody has a problem, because - and I've already pointed this out - this isn't a problem.

This isn't systemic racism, or pervasive abuse. This isn't a societal ill that needs curing. This is the hiring practices of a few individuals in certain parts of the world. Some people won't hire folks to client-facing roles when those folks choose to wear things which might worry or offend said clients.

It's a thing. It's not necessarily somebody's "problem," except for that somebody who wants a job.

And frankly, if you're the sort of person who takes pride in your ink, do you really want to work in an environment that acts ashamed of it?


You are part of a major problem in this world. You can choose to do something about it, or you can choose to continue to delude yourself to think that what you are doing is the right way to deal with strangers. But one way or another, I am not interesting on hearing from you ever again.

See above.


I'm not talking about the assumptions not comporting reality in the sense of them being accurate at the population trend level and just not fitting the particular individual - that's excused by people not being expected to be psychic, though even there there's questions of necessary confidence level. I'm talking about the assumptions relying on the existence of a population trend that doesn't actually exist.

The idea that anyone with a tattoo is somehow rebellious is firmly in that second category. That alleged population trend is completely fictional, and has been completely fictional for decades - at most a tattoo indicates that someone is less likely to be in certain groups which are (largely fictitiously) associated with not rocking the boat, at least in areas where said groups are socially dominant.

That's completely fair. Somebody with ink isn't necessarily a rebel, or a punk, or incompetent, or any other negative trait. I'm not disagreeing with you on that at all.

But they made choices. And those choices closed some doors to them. That's how life works. If I chose to go to law school, and then changed my mind and decided I wanted to be a doctor, that door is closed unless I go back and spend years and lots of money changing my educational background. I made one choice based on what I wanted, it closed one door and opened another, and changing that decision is hard and expensive.

How you present yourself is a choice. And that choice may close some doors. If that choice involves something more permanent, like tattoos or body modification, then it's that much harder to go back and re-open those doors. That's unfortunate, but it's how life works.

[Knaight]

Regionalism certainly applies. Also the nature of the work.

I live in the Austin area. You are much more likely to see someone with numerous piercings/visible tattoos working out in the public eye.

OTOH, go to the part of East Texas where my in-laws live and that drops WAY down. Even the local Dairy Queen won't generally hire them.
I can say I've had one job where nobody had tattoos - and it was in Japan, where there still is a stigma, because they're associated with the Yakuza (though even there I have suspicions that being in Kobe instead of somewhere like Tokyo mattered a great deal).

Also, speaking as someone who has no tattoos, getting a concrete incentive not to ever move to East Texas is, if anything, a benefit. Similarly I suspect LordEntrails is in the south somewhere, and a concrete incentive to never move there is similarly a benefit.


And even in Austin, while it is more open, it's not totally open. Applying for an upper level corporate position at Dell, or one of the state's high level employee positions? You're taking a big gamble if your modifications aren't coverable.
Sure, but the vast majority of people getting non-coverable tattoos have essentially no chance of ever applying to those positions in the first place. It's a case of closing doors that are already closed, and describing that as "stupid" (which is what got this whole tangent started) is just ridiculous. Letting remote to the point of negligible opportunities dictate your decisions is hardly a sign of intelligence.

[sktarq]

I will say that most people don't actually notice a split tongue.

it is really only noticeable when one moves the sides away from each other or one sticks the tongue well out beyond the teeth and there are few professions where sticking one's tongue out is considered proper behavior.

Sure those people who I knew who had it showed it off constantly but they had to do that by choice or you really had to know what you were looking for.

[dps]

Sure, but the vast majority of people getting non-coverable tattoos have essentially no chance of ever applying to those positions in the first place. It's a case of closing doors that are already closed, and describing that as "stupid" (which is what got this whole tangent started) is just ridiculous. Letting remote to the point of negligible opportunities dictate your decisions is hardly a sign of intelligence.

I don't know what doors you think are closed to which individuals, but let me be a bit more specific here. I've had jobs in the past in which I had to make hiring decisions for entry-level and low-level jobs in fast food restaurants and retail stores, and some of those companies had official policies against employees having visible tattoos. So it's not just "good" jobs you're closing off for yourself by having a lot of tats and other body modifications; you might be closing yourself off from getting a minimum wage job flipping burgers. And if "good" jobs are closed off to you, you might need that job flipping burgers.

[AMFV]

That's how the local anti-discrimination laws work. Either you include all or exclude all, everything in-between would be discrimination. So, no exceptions, no grey areas.

So Orthodox Jews literally cannot work for you? That seems like not a great direction, particularly given certain historical things in your own regional area. I mean not to put too fine a point on it. But that's an issue to me, far more than tattoos or what-not.

[Florian]

So Orthodox Jews literally cannot work for you? That seems like not a great direction, particularly given certain historical things in your own regional area. I mean not to put too fine a point on it. But that's an issue to me, far more than tattoos or what-not.

The EU is a more secular place than you think. You are free to practice any religion that is not outlawed, but it´s still your private matter and you are not granted any special privileges because of that. Discrimination has two side to it, and yes, positive discrimination is also a thing that is covered by anti-discrimination laws.


Also, speaking as someone who has no tattoos, getting a concrete incentive not to ever move to East Texas is, if anything, a benefit. Similarly I suspect LordEntrails is in the south somewhere, and a concrete incentive to never move there is similarly a benefit.

Pot. Kettle. Black.

[Knaight]

Pot. Kettle. Black.

No. That would be if I was talking about how people would make assumptions based on a southern accent, and that if those assumptions are made they're thus totally reasonable by default, and a reasonable basis for hiring decisions, where not hiring people who don't learn to cover up their southern accents is entirely reasonable. After all, they made a choice. That's the equivalent. This regionalism being just one more (incredibly minor, by comparison to the rest) reason to dislike a region is something entirely different.

[Velaryon]

My stance on body modification is generally twofold. Ethically, I have no reason to oppose it, and believe that anyone of sound mental state should have the reason to do as they like in this capacity.

On a personal level, ewwwwwwwwwwwww no. Gross.

Yeah, I know, not exactly a hot take here.

[The Ari-tificer]

Tongue splitting (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tongue_splitting) is a body modification where the front part of the tongue is surgically split. With a bit of practice, a person can learn to control both sides of the tongue independently.

What do the people here think about it?

one word: ouch.

[LordEntrails]

...
Grey Wolf
Well, personal attacks and insulting people is against the rules on this forum. I will not reciprocate, so you can now feel good that you have "won" this discussion.


...
You have attributed negative traits to me, and you then made the statement that I am therefore probably from the South. That is pretty much the definition of a negative bias (or 'racism' if you consider Southerners a race). See the comments from Fell about X & Y.

But, I'm sure you won't believe me since you have already judged me. I'm so glad there are perfect people like you in this world to help all of the rest of us know where we stand.

[Knaight]

You have attributed negative traits to me, and you then made the statement that I am therefore probably from the South. That is pretty much the definition of a negative bias (or 'racism' if you consider Southerners a race). See the comments from Fell about X & Y.

I've assessed your depiction of what is portrayed as "normal" culture as likely being based on your local culture, and made an educated guess about where those sort of cultural traits are likely to show up given knowledge of other cultural traits.


But, I'm sure you won't believe me since you have already judged me. I'm so glad there are perfect people like you in this world to help all of the rest of us know where we stand.
For someone so openly supportive of judging people based on incredibly small amounts of information and defending the practice of others doing so you're sure hostile to the idea of being judged. How should I put it:


As said previously, how you present yourself to the world matters. People will make assumptions based upon your appearance. And I don't see any problem with that. Until you get to interact and know someone, all you have to go on is their appearance and behavior.

...

Is that fair? Sure, that is how the person portrays themselves and therefore how they want people to react, and interact, with them.

Yeah, this works. I don't have appearance, but I do have behavior, and you've outright said there's no problem making assumptions and that it's fair to make judgments based on that. Deal with it.

[LordEntrails]

I've assessed your depiction of what is portrayed as "normal" culture as likely being based on your local culture, and made an educated guess about where those sort of cultural traits are likely to show up given knowledge of other cultural traits.
I'm going to take my ball and go home now *crying*

Oh, by the way, I'm not from the southern US. Not born there, never lived there, have no family that has or does live there. So you were at least wrong with that.

Maybe you were wrong about other things too.