Are tattoos degenerate in and of themselves, or are they a sign

File: file.png (592KB, 750x489px) Image search: [Google]

592KB, 750x489px

>>135467183
No, there's actually nothing wrong them in themselves. /pol/ drank the kike koolaid that having ink in your skin violated kosher laws. /pol/ is so shit-tier these days they would let the kikes turn them kosher, and think it was being "anti-degeneracy". No one of European descent has an excuse to be anti-tattoos, since tattoos are the most tradition part of European culture.

nearly all social issues disappear when you just mind your own business.

They're a sign of massive insecurity and attention seeking.

No need to ponder it more than that. There's no depth to the issue, positive or negative.

File: 66450749d3484a6f2b3204dd9e.jpg (169KB, 511x500px) Image search: [Google]

169KB, 511x500px

>>135467183
It's a desperate plea of some sort of identification separate from the rest of the world. Outward identification that used to be found in ancestry, race, religion or nation.
With current trends though, inward identification that has to be expressed by selfish means, like tattoos, gender-bending, and the worship of pseudoscience.

>>135467183
There's nothing wrong for having one or two, so long as the meaning behind them is actually important to you and it's not distracting. Even sleeve tattoos I can put up with. But it's when people just get shit on them for the sake of getting attention that it becomes degenerate.

they're a slippery slope that can show underlying personality issues, but I'd definitely bang that painting.