According to the news, it was mentioned that and I quote 'the younger tattooed man' at the first sentence of the news. This is one of the less-obvious problems with the media platforms in current times. Is it a necessity to include the description of the victim? Is it of any relevance to this case whether or not, he is heavily tattooed or not? The appearance of the deceased, tattooed or not, is immaterial and unnecessary. I am disgusted and equally appalled at the insensitivity and condescending attitude of the contributor of this post.
It is no secret that Asians are stereotypical towards individuals who are 'inked', often linking tattooed men to crimes, negative social behaviours and often judged and seen as a 'bane' to the society. The unnecessary inclusion of the word, 'tattooed', gives birth to a negative impression that the deceased was the aggressor and by looking at the comments and responses to this article, I felt a strong sense of disgust and sympathy. I have seen displays of insensitivity and the lack of human touch with comments claiming that the victim deserves it. Some comments even mocked at the demise of the victim.
Are these the signs of a society that is moving forward according to time? I beg to differ. I sense that our society is moving backwards. Some comments even supported directly and or indirectly at the acts of the accused, claiming that his attack on the victim was justified and the victim deserved it.