By continuing you agree to eChinacities's Privacy Policy .
Sign up with Google
Sign up with Facebook
Q: Tattoo vs Suit person. Is this discrimination ?
We know about the "harrroossment" and "laowai" reception of foreigners in mainland china. Many mainlanders use that as a subtle form of discrimination.
I just read an interesting question on the newspaper.
A person was asking for directions on the street. Two people were in front. The person chose the one wearing a suit carrying a violin over the one with a tattoo on the neck. Is that discrimination?
What is your answer?
Sure it is, but it has to do with the OP's perception of safety. I don't think anyone would fault another for being cautious. Then again, I have no idea what the person needing the directions looks like, i.e. ink or no ink.
Personally, I'd ask the the cat with neck ink. I'm guessing he'd/she'd be a little more street-wise and know their way around. Damn, I just discriminated against violin people in suits!
People rely on the ability to gage character based on visual clues. If that ability is based on sensible factors – Great. If it is based on their culture’s insular, ignorant worldview (e.g. “don’t trust foreign people”) – That’s unfortunate.
If you see your 9-y-o daughter talking to a woman who looks like a librarian in front of her Mini Cooper, will you be worried? No. If you see your 9-y-o daughter talking to a lank-haired, balding man with bad posture and shifty eyes in front of his van, will you be worried? Maybe. The ability to discriminate isn’t necessarily bad.
In regards to the example you gave – The majority of tattooed men are safe to be around. But what then should you base this simple, trivial decision on? I daresay more violent crimes are committed by people with tats than people with violins. The subsection of society most likely to have tats is prison inmates. Men with tats are simply slightly more likely to be dangerous than violinists.
But in reality, one’s assessment of a person would not be solely based on [tats] or [suit + violin]. Facial appearance is of primary importance. The one with the friendlier face is the one I would likely choose. If I couldn't see their faces, I would have a decided preference for the violinist because I’m a middle class boy who likes violin music and feels most comfortable around middle class people.
The bottom line is – A man with a suit and a violin case is a hitman. So I chose wrong.
Thanks everyone for your insightful, humorous reply.
It seems that in this situation regardless of your choice you run the risk of discriminating against the other person.
It also seems that some form of discrimination has some kind of rational, logical reasoning behind whereas others are completely irrational. With the former, the word discernment comes to mind. Is it possible to draw a line between "rationally based discrimination for self-protection" and discernment?
no. not discrimination in the popular, objectionable sense.
it's discrimination in the objective sense, and couldn't possibly be objectional because it is based on choices not constants. a tatto is a choice with constant result.
I'd probably discriminate in favour of the guy with the tattoos......spent my youth/20's-30's hanging around with hippies, bikers, punks, goths, new-age travelers, etc......and feel comfortable in their company & relate more to them than I do guys in suits!
