And then acting all surprised. Via the comments, a conundrum for our times:

Hire or fire? 🔥 pic.twitter.com/6RdKKS4heF

— 🌈 Tess T. Eccles-Brown, PhD (@TTEcclesBrown) October 21, 2023

In the comments, Jen replies,

The above does seem to be yet another variation of, “I’ve chosen to send a round-the-clock provocative, anti-social message. Why are people noticing my round-the-clock provocative, anti-social message?”

And when someone, a supposed adult, goes out of their way to announce that they have the mindset of a resentful, unhappy teenager, it seems wise to register that message and to respond accordingly. Say, by hiring someone else.

From deep in the archives, this came to mind:

The archived post, linked above, prompted a long and lively discussion in which we noticed the number of Observer readers who feel that Mr Clark and other body-modification enthusiasts are entitled to be hired regardless of how they present themselves to an employer (and to that employer’s customers). As if contrarian choices should never have real-world consequences of an unflattering kind. As if actively choosing to make one’s chances of employment slimmer and more perilous were a thing to be both applauded and rewarded.

Update, via the comments:

Regarding our aggrieved FedEx employee, sk60 adds,

To which, Old Glyn replies, drily,

It might, I think, be amusing to watch the FedEx HR department trying to devise coherent rules as to which employees are allowed to wear such items, and which aren’t, based on the employee’s melanin levels and sexual inclinations. And then having to factor in whether any given customer, of any hue and/or inclination, might find such items equally charming when being handed their parcels.

Readers may also wish to ponder the apparent need to share such adornment dramas with the world, with random strangers, via social media. As if one were the subject of a gripping documentary series. Or a reality-TV star, albeit on a budget. And so, our supposedly downtrodden exhibitionist boasts of defying his employer in a TikTok video that can easily be found by said employer.

Which prompts the thought that, for some, the need for drama and attention, and contrived victimhood, may trump the more mundane need for employment, at least for a while. And should our hero’s employment consequently be discontinued, we can presumably look forward to more videos professing new heights of martyrdom.

Also, open thread. Share ye links and bicker.

Some Twitter dynamics. 

The words “overly judge” seem to be doing quite a bit of heavy lifting.

Added via the comments, another young lady sending signals. None of which we must register.

Also, open thread.

For newcomers, more items from the archives:

Repent at Leisure. 

Graduate job-seeker is shocked to discover that choices have consequences.  

And so we’re expected to believe that Mr Clark – who chose to make a bold statement by deliberately stretching and deforming his earlobes, to the extent that a jar of instant coffee could almost fit through the holes – is somehow being wronged, indeed oppressed, when, during job interviews, potential employers notice – and find inappropriate – the bold statement he’s chosen to make. Having decided at university to scandalise the less daring whenever in public, he now seems surprised when those same less daring people make choices of their own, i.e., not to hire him. But aren’t their raised eyebrows and looks of disgust what he wanted all along?

Comedy Economics. 

Improving the species through enforced poverty.

The New Economics Foundation is convinced that, once implemented, its recommendations would “heal the rifts in a divided Britain” and leave the population “satisfied.” That’s satisfied with less of course, and the authors make clear their disdain for the “dispensable accoutrements of middle-class life,” including “cars, holidays, electronic equipment and multiple items of clothing.”

Scenes of Extended Fretting. 

The Guardian’s Leo Hickman discovers how competitive piety can be.  

Mr Hickman, whose ten years of struggling with ethical purity will be known to long-term readers, believes that the way to make poor people rich is to not buy their goods. 

Just Surrender to the Will of Clever People. 

Private education must be banned, says leftist academic. And reading to your children causes “unfair disadvantage.”

Sadly, Dr Swift doesn’t say whether he has any personal experience of the state education system that he thinks the rest of us should make do with in the name of “social justice.” But perhaps he could share his comforting words with some of the children left at the mercy of such schools, where, as one national survey of teaching staff puts it, “a climate of violence” and “malicious disruption” is the norm, the assaulting of staff and pupils is commonplace, with almost half of those surveyed witnessing such behaviour “on a weekly basis,” and where vandalism of personal property is “part of the routine working environment.”

I’ve hidden free puppies in the greatest hits. 

The Observer’s Nicole Mowbray reveals the hitherto-unguessed fact that poor fashion choices can have practical consequences: 

After seven unsuccessful job interviews, 24-year-old Luke Clark began to think something other than his CV was playing havoc with his job prospects. Potential employers didn’t seem to like the 4cm “flesh tunnel” holes he had in each ear as much as he did. Clark had begun stretching his lobes at university several years earlier, and the problem was that when he took the plugs out his stretched earlobes looked terrible. Now one of the fastest-growing cosmetic procedures in the UK is repairing stretched earlobes.

Several readers of said paper are, however, quite upset. Specifically, they’re upset that not all employers are impressed, either by the Urban Bush Warrior look or by self-inflicted comedy lobes with large, baggy holes in them:

It’s just a bigger hole than what society has considered to be “standard” and judging someone’s ability to do a job based on their outward appearance is incredibly ignorant… If there wasn’t such a pointlessly negative view on stretched ears, people like teachers and professional golf players wouldn’t have to get them sewn up.

Possibly a contender for our series of classic sentences. 

And this chap here, he’s upset too: 

Until you know that person, you have no right to criticise, judge or alter the life chances for them. Those who make decisions about the future of others based only on appearance, are themselves the shallowest of people, and do not deserve to have such a position of influence.

You see, he should be free to deform his anatomy into eye-catchingly unattractive shapes, thereby announcing his heroic radicalism and disdain for bourgeois norms, entirely without consequence. But you mustn’t be free to run your business without him, regardless of whatever message he’s chosen to send via the medium of disfigured earlobes. No bad decision that he makes must ever “alter his life chances” because… well, obviously, it’s all your fault.

And so we’re expected to believe that Mr Clark, who chose to make a bold statement by deliberately stretching and deforming his earlobes – to the extent that a jar of instant coffee could almost fit through the holes – is somehow being wronged, indeed oppressed, when, during job interviews, potential employers notice – and find inappropriate – the bold statement he’s chosen to make. Having decided at university to scandalise the less daring whenever in public, he now seems surprised when those same less daring people make choices of their own, i.e., not to hire him. But aren’t their raised eyebrows and looks of disgust what he wanted all along?