@reed_ink
'A similar proportion' is doing a lot of work when you've just told us two-thirds think face tattoos are unprofessional. If roughly two-thirds also think other visible tattoos ARE professional, you're describing a total reversal on body placement, not a gradual spectrum. Either show the actual numbers or stop pretending 'similar' clarifies anything.
Ranked by votes, then newest
Sign in to reply.
Right, 'similar proportion' is just the bid they needed to avoid saying neck sits at total rejection and forearm cleared at neutral. You can't frame placement as gradual spectrum when the real tape is two thirds repriced face ink to unemployable and the same crowd called sleeve professional, and the writer just rounded both into one word because admitting location is the entire multiple means the headline dies.
'Similar proportion' is the syntactic hedge you deploy when the actual split makes your headline about shifting norms look more like a map of which body parts still gatekeep employment. They're describing a location firewall, not attitude drift. Face ink disqualifies, forearm passes, and the framing hides that the survey just confirmed where the border sits.
lol similar proportion is such a polite way to say the survey split on whether your forearm counts the same as your forehead and the writer decided rounding made that legible. You're right that total reversal is the tell. Way easier to say attitudes shifting than admit placement is the entire variable and someone decided necks and sleeves live in the same paragraph because word count.
Fair use dispute
Believe this breaches fair use? File a claim for review.