Відео

yooo thats so nice! im working on daily vids! i just gotta figure out how to edit these to the level i want them to be, but faster.

Looking forward to the same! I demand that you don't forget us 😆

thanks so much! I got a little frustrated with showing up underneath tons of chip reviews HAHA! It was a funny place holder but as soon as I thought of my new name I instantly changed it. Thanks!

for real!

thank you so much !

Its a shame when people like me were introduced to them through this. first impressions are everything and content creators need to realize their job is a never ending first impression cycle

@@TrentCetera I can’t imagine this debacle inspiring new subscribers to sub to them. It really was a huge mistake. Here’s hoping they don’t completely implode because of all of this.

defiantly not a good thing accept to maybe realize what not to be lol

really disturbing imo haha. Maybe its how the previous generation was raised to view that as extremely disrespectful to so many people.

ill work on it soon ! thanks!

thanks! :)

thank you so much !!!!

I think how you act even when addicted to chemicals all depends on who you are. being addicted to something doesn't take away your ability to respect others unless it was easily taken away to begin with. thanks for the comment!

I get the feeling shed be telling the therapist their wrong and should subscribe to their patreon haha

defiantly not going to amount to what they thought

Lol love Dodge ball

ayee!

if it was staged not much good came of it for her lol

lol

haha!

thank you so much !

props to you for doing such an important job for our world!!!!

you see and in a free country that is completely within your rights, just as it is for her to have them and like them.

@@TrentCetera Yep, it goes both ways. its their right to express themself, but it is also our right to reject or not have to absolutely accept her job application etc

heck ya!!!

thanks for the comment! and yup! IMO Its important as a creator to realize if your content talks at or to your audience and NEVER EVER change that aspect.

Just a joke :) A lot of my audience is born in the 70s according to my analytics and so I have to bug them every once in a while :P I mean no harm.

....... Hell yes!

It just makes sense for a business to hire people who can theoretically maximize sales in every aspect. every business is different therefore each person is a good candidate for lots of jobs but never all of them.

yeah a lot of people ignore their own digital footprint when applying. places do look you up before hiring.

Thanks!!!

makes sense! totally agree! One thing though is that if you decide to get something you cant cover up you are basically willingly signing up to loose out on some opportunities, not the world I want but its the world we all have to survive in right?

thanks so much!!!!!!!

The main contention that I have with the video is that his argument is formulated in a way that posits that society can't be changed to accommodate the younger generation and everyone else. He makes a really important recognition of the fact that many institutions and many workplaces are still in the control of older people and how that can cause some difficulties for people entering the workforce. However, where I disagree is the fact that the sentiment that "you can't expect an entire generation to change because [another] is different" shouldn't be a one-way street. Why should one be forced to conform to an expectation of normalcy within a work environment when that expectation doesn't inherently directly translate into efficiency or some other positive factor? Furthermore, it bars a lot of people who would otherwise be great candidates from actually getting a job. For general entry level jobs, I don't think aesthetics of the person should really be stressed by the employer.

I completely understand your take and want to clarify mine a little bit further. I don't think freedom expression works one way, we cant say lets allow any tattoo or piercing in the work place while holding a double standard saying the store cant express their dislike. Like I said in the video when you take away one sides right to dislike, you inadvertently take away the right to like anything for both sides. I am completely for businesses allowing tattoos/piercings like I said if I owned a business I wouldn't care, so if I value my right to like something in a free country then I have to respect that others can hold different opinions as me. You cant call a country free if only one side gets to express their opinions.

I understand, but I respectfully disagree on a few different levels. For one, part of the video does come across as if it is called into question her entire perception of why she was denied the job. I am inclined to believe her perception because she does, in fact, live as an individual with her amount of tattoos and piercings. To me, this is similar to how some white people deny or reject that a random black man was denied a job for being black. In some states such as right to work states it does happen all the time and legally it can because they do not have to tell the person why they are not being hired and as long as no one admits it is because they are back, tech it is legal. I have seen this first hand, and I can attest that it happens. The issue is that the people assuming it is not usually not even black. Sorry, but I am more inclined to trust the perception of the one who lives life among the discrimination and not the one who does not face that discrimination. When you are a person who is a minority and who is discriminated against, you pick up on glances, body language, etc, and you know better than other people why you got denied the bank loan, or the approval for the house or the job. To be fair, perception can be distorted if faced with this happens to leave you jaded, but I am not quick to jump to the assumption that she likely or probably was not turned down for appearance. I would assume her perception is likely correct given it was a retail job and not anything else. Some of the arguments here also seem to be on the amount of interference the government should have on a business. When you create a business, it is a separate entity legally from the individual. It does not matter if the owner is Christian, Jewish, or whatever they happen to be. Unless their business is established as a Christian one, then there really aren't any exceptions to the business being expected to follow anti-discrininarion laws. The entire point in these laws is to help provide equal opportunities in America. Something the founding fathers wanted. We know from history that they did not include serial orientation in these laws due to controversy. They wanted to get everything agreed upon, and it was easier to exclude it. Gender identity was left out due to it not even being scientifically proven as valid until the 1960s and 1970s. The labels and identities of non-binary and transgender people are valid and are terms came up with by doctors and scientists who have proven that these things do, in fact, exist. They are not inherently political, but rather a political party makes them political to play off the general publics discrimination to garner votes by rallying behind a common enemy, those who are different from you and your views. It is not what the founding fathers wanted. The constitution included freedom of religion for a reason. Many founding fathers were either Ubitarian Universalist or, at the very least, believed people could be of any religion I America and not just Christian. So the world and the workplace should bot be shaped around Christian ideology. Trust me, you have sancuatuary from us in your home as well as the church that exists on every street corner. Bit you do not have the right to go shopping or eating in public and expect people to look and think and believe as you do. I have quite literally seen people not hire based on race or age, both of which is illegal. I have also seen where a company I worked for tried to argue that a Wiccan wearing her pentacle was a dress code violation. Freedom is religion is a protected right, and if we told Christians to not wear a crucifix to remind them of where their savior hung for their sins it would infringe on those rights and there would be an uproar. You cannot protect your freedom to Christanity and at the same time tell a person not to wear a hijab or a pentacle or a star of David or whatever religious or spiritual attire they feel comfortable wearing. We live in an America where we still fight for equality and d while it is tech legal to discriminate for serial orientation, gender identity, and freedom of expression, these are freedons that should be protected and I feel they could be amended legally at some point in our future. A person should be able to dress in the dress code and still follow their gender expression. For example, if an individual is Trans and idebtifies as female, she should be able to wear female dress code, and I'm the public should get over it because the public has zero right to discriminate and a business shouldn't have the right to discriminate. Just because they tech can do so when it comes to freedom of expression, gender identity, and sexual orientation does not mean they should be able to do so. As far as freedom of expression, it is not entirely esthetic either. There are piercings and tattoos that are religious. For clarity, no, I do not mean a Christian getting Jesus on their arm. That is esthetic and is inspired by your religious mythologies. There are cultures and beliefs of piercings providing protection from things such as possession and that certain symbols or colors in a tattoo are magical and can protect the individual from certain things or can invoke harmony, etc. So some tattoos and piercings are actually religious. I do not have anywhere near as many tattoos and piercings as she does. However, I do have a few that are for protection or to invoke something positive. This is something I do believe in as a pagan and there are millions of pagans and neo pagans in America and it is not uncommon for a Pagan to have a tattoo for these purposes. Some also or mostly get esthetic ones for religious expression, but there is a valid argument that as a pagan the body is our temple and we do not have congregations on every street corner so even the astestic religious expressions carries more religious and spiritual backing that Jesus on the arm. In spite of this, freedom of expression should be legal, but I also feel it worth mentioning that some tattoos and piercings are, in fact, cultural or amreligious and I grew up in America and as a Pagan I do have sine tattoos and a piercing that is entirely for a religious reason and not for esthetics at all. The point is that the anti discrimination laws, once again, is to protect the rights of Americans and to provide equal opportunities. Therefore, to ensure these are protected, business need to adhere to these laws, and these three issues I bring up should be protected by these laws. It is irrelevant that they currently aren't, because they should be. The anti-discrimination laws do not protect Rhonda Sue over here from shopping at Krogers and not being checked out by someone who wears a pentagram around their neck or who has a tattoo that she feels is a sin, even tho the Bible describes Jesus as having a tattoo. The whole premise behind discrimination is that Becky does not want to encounter people who do not look, think, and act like she does. Sorry, but we do not live in a world with only Backy in sight. Get over yourself or move somewhere else because this is not a Christian nation, and it never was. We were founded on the basis of freedom of religion. If it were a Christian nation it would be illegal to not he Christian. The founding fathers did not want people to discriminate based on that because we fled here from Europe, among other places, in part, for religious freedom. A lot of our esthetic is tied to and integrated in our sexualorientation, gender identity and in our religious and spiritual beliefs. So, it is difficult to discriminate on appearance and on freedom of expression without also discriminating against another's religion, spirituality, gender identify or their sexual orientation. You might see something as simple as a pride flag tattoo as entirely esthetic or political. Gay rights are only political due to it being used as a platform to garner votes due to there being a decent population who disagree with sexual orientation, in spite of it not being a choice. So, to that individual, whovhas to fight for their right to exist in the world, the tattoo can hold a lot of cultural significance and might not be entirely esthetic. It is not just in history that a tatto can be cultural or religious/spiritual. There are modern communities that are under represented who are drawn to get a tattoo that actually holds cultural significance and means something to them aside from just looking pretty. This choice is not in the same vein as Tweety Bird on your leg. There are also people who get a tattoo to commemorate a dead loved one. This is agreeably spiritual for them and not entirely derived from esthetic. No one whobjas these tattoos well say, yeah I just got my mom on my arm because it looks good, ain't I sexy. Sorry, but it is deeper than that, and Karen can get over seeing that tattoo, period.

Tattoos are not a protected class. It's one thing to not hire a hijabi, it's another to not hire someone with face tattoos and a public OF. One is discrimination, the other is a wise choice.

we are going to have to disagree. tattoos are a choice, just as religion is a choice, just as many things are a choice in this life. in a free country you get the freedom of choice to like or dislike anything that is optional. you compare race to tattoos but outside of comparing them within the context of an argument on the surface level but they have absolutely nothing in common. tattoos are a choice, I can choose to not like the color green and not hire people who have green tattoos (that is silly and I obviously am using this as an amplified example) but nonetheless the example holds. you cannot change your nationality, your genetics nor anything that is given to you at birth and those are the things we must not discriminate from. It essentially boils down to one of the statements I said in the video, if you take away peoples right to dislike something, you in turn take away everyone's right to like anything. I'm sorry but getting mommy tattooed on your arm doesn't directly disgust others like a demon spider crawling on the neck but sure keep comparing the two while the world keeps spinning the way it always has. remember, the same laws that allow them to express that they don't like the tattoo are the same laws that allow you to express your opinion right here in the comments. (I would have kept this less condescending if if you had done the same).

lol got me in the first half

ayee I really appreciate that!

Thank you so much! so kind! its fun to make these! you can expect aloot more and more frequent as I figure out how to streamline the scripting/filming/editing processes!

For real!

LOLOL Stellar comment

I know right.

forgive me as I had no control

Very True!

Who would pay for THAT

⁠@@WhalesWilly People who like tattoos. That’s who.

thank you so much !