The Most Out of Touch Person on Tiktok

In this video I give my take on the topic of controversial Tattoos in the workplace. We take a look at a video by AshXObrien that recently went viral for what people are saying is an out of touch opinion.
#TrentCetera #drama #tiktok

[@annaisley5755]

It wasnt the tattoos that made them not hire. Its the fact she has a public onlyfans and resells hello kitty merch on her tiktok page, where she herself said she wanted the job for discounts on merch. That in itself is very much so against tj maxx's policy.

[@diobrando366]

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

[@crazysis02]

I was a hiring manager at a major retail chain. It was totally her piercing and tattoos. In retail, you have to consider your clientele and select employees that are the most approachable to maximize sales. We have turned down super wholesome sweet kids and people with prior experience because we didn't feel that they could connect with our customers enough to drive sales. While there has been a great amount of change, and she certainly has more options for employment than when I worked retail, at the end of the day, a retail place is not going to hire who is not going to be able to up sale because the customers are scared of her. It always boils down to money...

[@TrentCetera]

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.

[@Matt-zu2lu]

Damn bro, for a smaller KZbinr your video feels extremely professional

[@TrentCetera]

ayee I really appreciate that!

[@omgbestie3351]

you put in a lot of effort for less than 400 subscribers :( i hope you’ll get a lot soon, you deserve it. this was an amazing video and im so excited to see more from you!

[@TrentCetera]

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!

[@Luci-pz8xx]

Did you miss the follow up videos? She says she has money (starts listing off cosmetic surgeries and her assets) and only got the job to pay off debt. This was mostly an OF advertisement anyway.

[@WhalesWilly]

Who would pay for THAT

[@Maskedshark]

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

[@BouncingZeus]

The issue was not just tattoos it was the type of tattoos. If you have possibility offensive tattoos visible guess what it will cause issues. She does not have inoffensive tattoos to a lot of people. She makes it sound like she had a wolf or a bird or something.

[@TrentCetera]

Very True!

[@omgronnyy]

love this video!!! editing was so great

[@TrentCetera]

thank you so much !

[@madeleinnel6893]

I agree, though, there are certain jobs that don't really have an issue with people having tattoos, for example, the media industry. As you say if you tattoo yourself, it is your business, don't blame someone else if they don't like it. Love your video, well done

[@TrentCetera]

thanks so much!!!!!!!

[@suehutchinson7172]

Hey I have many friends who have tattoos. Cover up makeup or sleeves were what they did when asked. They worked for the strictest of Companies like Disney and an Airline. Just put on some makeup to cover up your Tats and try again!

[@TrentCetera]

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?

[@freddykrueger1162]

How does she not know that tattoos on the face eliminates her from most jobs that deal directly with the public. There is no way that I would hire her for CS and honestly she seems too unhinged for the back room too, my advice: try Hot Topic.

[@TrentCetera]

LOLOL Stellar comment

[@exreptell3209]

let's also not forget all the piercings + the big one in her nose, its not exactly what I as a consumer wanna see, no disrespect but it makes me not want to buy.

[@TrentCetera]

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.

[@exreptell3209]

@@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

[@kawaiifangzz]

I'm heavily tattooed, and also a kindergarten teach 😮 I can go from visibly tattooed to modest-teach in two clothing pieces 😊

[@TrentCetera]

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

[@soulcapturecreations3107]

Yeah, it’s not that she has tattoos it. Then she has tattoos on her face and neck. People can see it. I work in the health field and all the nurses and doctors have tattoos. They’re more accepted now, but If I was to go to work with a face tattoo, they wouldn’t hire me.

[@TrentCetera]

For real!

[@renoobed-owl7590]

My daughter got the perfect job... working at a tattoo parlor ❤

[@TrentCetera]

heck ya!!!

[@Lena-jq7ts]

Loved the video!!

[@TrentCetera]

thank you so much !

[@jamesaaronslayton2463]

I agree. People should be able to judge and act accordingly within reason. I do not, however, find it reasonable for a job to deny people for tattoos, hair color, or piercings. You made a choice to hire employees from the public, and short of being a Christian Book store, etc, you should not have the right to use religion, etc, to dictate what someone else does with their body. It should be based entirely on what you put into your work there. With that said idk if she was denied due to tattoos or not but the job she applied for is retail, and as far as I know it is not a Chrstian business so I don't see why the business has a protected right to discriminate and hire within what they deem presentable. If people do not want someone like her to check them out, then they need to stay home because the public is for everyone. I don't go around mad at the world because people of other religions or who look a certain way happen to exist. I know they exist, and I mind my Ps and Qs and go about my day. Idk what position she applied for but given where she applied it is more likely than not that the reason she was told was bs and that they likely did not want to hire her for the way she looks.

[@TheTony360PRO]

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.

[@TrentCetera]

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.

[@jamesaaronslayton2463]

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.

[@sarah69420]

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.

[@TrentCetera]

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).

[@tylerlong7733]

bro why you hate tatoo people fo?!? jk I understand and can relate to the opinions you've expressed.

[@TrentCetera]

lol got me in the first half

[@bigelow7521]

i was ur 420th subscriber lol

[@TrentCetera]

....... Hell yes!

[@niamaysing359]

great take.

[@TrentCetera]

Thanks!!!

[@beckz2548]

Awesome video 👍 ❤️

[@Birdsong231]

By her logic, a giraffe should be able to have a job as a medical professional for humans without a medical degree and have absolutely no discrimination about the fact it's an entirely different species. And that's not even counting all the legal complications that would be on the insane company for actually hiring a giraffe, especially one without a medical degree! Basically what I'm saying is that her logic is absurd. It's arrogant for someone to just _expect_ to hire anyone without any prior experience. Also I'm curious about what kind of job she's going for that is asking for prior experience? Because it sounds like she's try to go big or go home, which isn't always the best mindset for trying to get a job.

[@TrentCetera]

Right!! I feel like getting Satan on your throat may not be the best decision in a world run by people who view it as insulting. religion aside its a rebellious act to knowingly get a art piece that rivals the most popular beliefs. following their faith isn't good enough for them they must let you know that they are different and this goes for radical believers of faith. you can choose to get your tattoo in a hidden place or you can choose to display it for all to see just like others are allowed to not like it and not associate with you because of it. is it wrong or right? imo that's not the concerning question here what really concerns me is why is other people knowing what they believe in more important than they future?

[@TheTony360PRO]

This is circumstantial though. Entry level jobs shouldn't always necessarily require experience and it really depends on the position she was going for. She never mentioned the position she applied for so you don't really have a basis to compare this to someone-let alone a completely different species-without credentials stop trying to enter a job which requires 8 years plus certified experience. She was applying for a job at TJ Maxx, there are many jobs there that are arguably started jobs that don't really require much experience. A lot of those do fall into the customer service category which I understand why a manager may be apprehensive about hiring somebody with tattoos because ultimately they answer to the people above them, and those people above them may not be comfortable biting someone so tatted up for such a position. However, it still does suck that things like having tattoos are stigmatized enough by the modern population where those things may cause you from being barred by what should be an accessible job. Yes, employers do and should have the right company aesthetic, but it doesn't disqualify one from being able to complain about the situation their in. It's undeniably a fact that it's really hard for a lot of people in the younger generation to enter the work force right now and for quite a few it's for reasons completely out of their control.

[@Luffnin]

How is this on my recommendations

[@freddykrueger1162]

I know right.

[@TrentCetera]

forgive me as I had no control