• ultranaut@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    31
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    That does seem like a fucked up method of advertising for the government to be involved in. Incentivizing people to permanently alter their bodies to advertise something is inherently gross and tacky behavior, regardless of what it’s advertising.

    • naeap@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yeah, especially that it’s just valid a year, sounds stupid.

      If they would give us a lifetime of free transport with a little ad tattoo for public transport, I would be fine with it.
      But a permanent tattoo for 1 year of using bus/train/bim doesn’t sound really attractive or reasonable

      More or less this was just an event to promote public transport stuff - and never was really about the tattoo, but it draws attention. So not needed that someone (or many) really does it

    • DogMuffins@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      IDK, I can’t really decide.

      What do you think about the free tattoos on environmental themes, is that gross and tacky?

      Does it make it gross and tacky if those environmental themes align with political policy?

      It would definitely be gross and tacky if it were an open offer. The limitation to 3 per day or festival changes it somehow IMO. If there were no limitation on numbers then it would somehow be tantamount to exploiting poor people. The scarcity makes it a publicity stunt.

      I don’t think i really have a problem with it. I mean I wouldn’t do it, and I think it’s a bit weird that someone would do it, but if they want to… have at it IMO.