Well, I’m back sooner than expected to this blog!
I’m getting kind of tired of everyone today talking about some guy who wrote an article for the Mirror (really) about how much he hates tattoos, how stupid he is, how prejudiced he is… whatever. I feel compelled to point out that you shouldn’t even be caring about what a moron like this has to say. He has horrible beady eyes, looks like a bit of a dodgy old man, and he can’t even write properly. Here, let me point out why you shouldn’t be giving a shit about this whatsoever (apart from the obvious reasons, of course), with a quick breakdown of this guy’s “article”.
AS soon as the sun starts shining, I realise with a sinking heart that Britain is now a tattooed nation.
Tattoos are everywhere. You see them on firm young flesh and on wobbly, middle-aged flab, as common now on the school run and in the supermarket queue as they are on some footballer or his wife.
Please see Dr Matt Lodder for additional reading.
[blah blah blah celebrity crap, something about Beckham’s tattoo that no one cares about reading]
Why did it look so inappropriate as [Samantha Stevenson] sang a song about heroic sacrifice? Because tattoos scream for attention. Tattoos say – look at me!
I guess the person with the tattoo imagines that – somehow – having a martial arts symbol or a badly drawn flower or a sentimental heart expresses their individuality.
Knowledge of subject matter: D
“I guess”, is at least Tony being honest, though guessing is not news, nor is it worthy of being published even for the Mirror. Perhaps some research, or proper thought, would have avoided a whole ‘article’ of guessing.
The end result is a million simple souls all with exactly the same primitive daubings, all telling you what an individual they are.
There is a piece of academic research called something along the lines of ‘Do the Primal Origins of tattooing affect modern opinions?’ which suggests that only a complete moron who has no understanding of the world’s history would see tattooing as still being a primal practice. As you can probably see, I am unable at present to remember what this is called, or who wrote it, however if Mr Parsons would like to see it, I’d be happy to send it (wouldn’t hold my breath, eh?).
Furthermore, only a terrible writer would take their ‘guess’ from the previous paragraph and quote it as fact in the next one. A child can write with more consistency.
[More blah blah blah that I genuinely can’t be bothered to read a second time because it’s so boring and terribly written] She has ravaged her natural good looks with what, at best, looks like cartoons done by someone who flunked their art GCSE.
The article Tony obviously read prior to this states that Hannah Aitchison worked on a lot of those tattoos. A quick Google by Tony would have shown that Hannah Aitchison has a lot more success than someone who writes for The Mirror, who sounds like they failed (not ‘flunked’, are you a 15 year old?) their English Language GCSE.
But tattoos are self-mutilation. Tattoos are a tragedy.
Tattoos do nothing to mutilate one’s body, nor do they affect the body’s ability to perform any differently. To call tattooing self-mutilation is to call a life-saving operation or a hairstyle by the same words.
Also, only an idiot would start a sentence with the word ‘but’.
[After this is a LOT of boring drivel about Tony’s experiences around tattoos that, if anything, contradict his point in parts]
Writing style and form: F
No one cares about your childhood, or your experiences of what a tattoo was growing up. Wow, do you start a news report by telling your readers what you ate for breakfast that day as well?
Tattoos are so widespread, so ugly and so very, very permanent. You can, in theory, have them removed – but a large chunk of your living flesh will go with it.
You can, in theory, know even the slightest thing about tattoo removal to know that no one has ever lost their own flesh due to modern tattoo removal. Or you can, in theory, not bother and write about what someone with the intelligence of a chimp may think tattoo removal is.
A tattoo doesn’t make you look like an individual. A tattoo makes you look a thicko. You’ll all look silly when you’re 60.
Tony, if you wrote this in Microsoft Word, did a green line appear under these sentences, stating, “Fragment: Consider revising?”. I’m assuming you ignored them the same way everyone else does, choosing instead to assume that short sentences near the end of your article makes any kind of impact on the reader. They don’t.
Also, some simple facts: while having a tattoo does not make you an individual, not having a tattoo does not make you an individual either, so your point is invalid. Having a tattoo does not make you look like a ‘thicko’, saying the word ‘thicko’ makes you look like a ‘thicko’. Furthermore, anyone who makes a statement about how a person may look when they are elderly has no concept of how the body ages over time.
Congratulations if you got to the end of this post- I’ve been working all day, and I felt like writing something irrelevant to chill out. It would seem pointless to write it and not post it. Honestly, though, I hope that if you have read this, you can see how silly ‘articles’ like this are, and stop caring. An opinion from an uneducated fool means absolutely nothing to you, so chill out, yeah?