When hiring someone, one of the attributes I need from him or her is judgement. Whether I’m in the office/work place with them directly or not. Some youthful mistakes one can outgrow, that weren’t that far afield to begin with. A face tattoo of a gun? If you’re judgement was that bad at 18, it’s never getting good enough for me to hire you later. Want to prove I’m wrong? Have it removed.
How many jobs are there where there’s NO interaction with other people? I’m not opposed to hiring people with tattoos, but the tattoo sends a message, whether it was a mistake at 19 or not. A gun tattoo on the forehead wouldn’t just “distract” me; it’d intimidate me, even if the guy swore up and down he was a real gent.
What about someone who had a swastika on the forehead? Or a visible tattoo of a lynching?
The beliefs behind the tattoo may disappear with age, but the message doesn’t.
I thought this thread was going to be about this upstanding citizen. :eek: Who illustrates the problem that literally wearing violent tendencies or virulent racism for all to see isn’t going to earn one the benefit of the doubt when a minority cyclist is lying critically injured in the street, or a minority customer complains about rude and insulting service, or a man with a gun on his forehead is suspected of a gun crime.
Of course, “problem” is in the eye of the beholder. Such tattoos are, to everyone other than the bearer, a sort of truth in advertising, a visible warning label like a fluorescent poisonous frog. 
I believe that was a “joke” on the part of the Op.
I think Darren meant “Mensa member” ironically, in much the same way that “rocket scientist” and “brain surgeon” can be ironic when applied to someone who makes a questionable life choice.
Ahhh, one of those “woosh” things?
I hope people realize that the dude in that article has got one or two things going on besides the tattoos. One, he doesn’t exactly look like the poster boy for the Aryan Brotherhood. Yeah, I’m aware that the AB actually does have some members, even high up ones, who have non-European ancestry. But he also has the word “cuck” tattooed on his forehead, and unless that was a 'Shop job by the Post (which isn’t exactly a paragon of class or accuracy), the dude has major mental problems.
A black guy with the phrase “I hate ‘n-words’” tattooed on himself is probably also being sarcastic, as is the “cuck” label.
Yeah, he’s got other issues.
You know, for a bunch of predominantly atheist, ultra-liberal, open-minded types, I’m actually surprised at the high numbers of apparent prudes and stuffed-shirts in this thread who are all but having the vapors at the thought of somebody with a visible tattoo not coverable by clothing having something as laughably above his station as a…job.
My word, Cyril! Did you see that man’s face? A gun, Cyril!! Hide the children! Pack our things! I’ll have no truck with a town that lets such ruffians freely be employed and walk about in public!!!
Taking the OP as described and considering only the facial tattoo as an employment consideration (i.e. not considering criminal records, DUI’s, etc): As long as he passed all the other criteria and I thought he’d do good work, I’d hire him for a number of positions I’ve hired for…warehouse worker, electrician, data scientist, developer, data analyst, whatever. And I’m sure there’s tons of other jobs I’ve never hired for that he could be a good fit for, from mechanic to tattoo artist to small business owner to whatever.
But then, I myself am covered with tattoos, so I suppose I’m just barely human and fit for public society myself, and thereby deserving of having such a precious calling as a “job” (I must manage to pass as human due to having no facial tattoos) :rolleyes:.
Hasn’t stopped me from founding a number of companies, or from working at various Fortune 100 firms in a variety of roles, but maybe they just hadn’t received the Neo-Victorian memo yet on appropriate moral and social standards for our modern day.
^This. Modern political correctness is simply old-fashioned moralism, only with the shoe on the other foot. Kind of hypocritical for the Left to demand the right to be outre for over a century, and then when the Right tries it it’s “hate speech” or “non-physical violence”.
The guy has a bad tattoo of a particular type of weapon favored by criminals tattooed between his fucking eyes. Even if we’re not talking about a customer-facing position, are you seriously claiming that it is unreasonable to make any inference about his character from this?
Yes. I mean that was a choice. How about if someone shows up dressed like someone from Weird Al’s “Tacky” for a professional job interview?
It’s not the tattoo so much as the obvious lack of forethought and judgement.
Which is also demonstrated by what he chooses to display under the guise of “facial hair.” 
Oh, you know what, you’re right!
Surely such a reprobate should be immediately imprisoned for his poor choice 15 years ago, and from here on should be literally and permanently unemployable, as he’s not fit even to sweep our floors or tinker with our machines. I mean, after all, he’s got a tattoo! On his face!!
Only the criminally deviant get tattoos, and only the UNEMPLOYABLY criminally deviant get tattoos on their face. Really, we should lock him up now for his own good, at least it will keep him from starving in the gutters when he can’t work or beg enough food. Otherwise it will be off to the Colonies when the pressgangs get to him!
Quite obviously I didn’t say any of those things.
Perhaps you’re justifiably upset about people’s Victorian attitudes to tattoos in general, but I don’t think you help your case by insisting that no tattoo should ever be used to infer anything about anyone. I have no issue with tattoos in general, but tattoos communicate things, just as our dress or our speech communicates things. Again, this guy has a poorly executed image of a specific type of gun that’s used by criminals tattooed between his eyes. It’s a reasonable inference that, at the time he had the tattoo (which certainly wasn’t 15 years ago based on his age in the photo), he either was a criminal, or he was an idiot with extremely poor judgment.
That doesn’t make his position irredeemable, but he has a hill to climb. Tattoos can be removed. I can imagine employing him, but he would have to convince me that he was no longer the same person who got this foolish tattoo, and that financial constraints were the only reason he could not yet remove it.
Yes, I don’t mean to put words in your mouth, I was just generally mocking the Victorian-level prudery that is so shocked and offended by somebody having a tattoo that they wonder if he should ever be deserving of a job at all.
I understand that he’d have a much higher level of scrutiny from you. He wouldn’t have that level of extra scrutiny from me in a non-customer facing role I was hiring for, simply because I don’t think getting hung up about appearance is useful or right these days.
As I said in my earliest post, provided he passed all the other criteria and an appearance-related issue like a facial tattoo is the only potential obstacle to hiring him, I’d have no problem at all hiring him. Nor would I have a problem hiring somebody with facial piercings, or a blue and pink mohawk, or freaky looking contacts, or a penchant for wearing all black and leather, or other appearance related deviations from the norm. I like to judge based on their skills and the content of their character (hey, seems like I’ve heard that before, isn’t that a famous liberal ideal?) rather than their superficial appearance.
I fully admit he was probably an idiot at the time he got it. I myself was an idiot when younger, and I’d wager most of us here, if honest, would admit the same. Well, except the stuffed-shirt brigade, I’m sure they spent the entirety of the ages between 15-25 in a quiet darkened room wearing a suit and staring at the wall while thinking of Jesus – like proper gentlemen, the type deserving of jobs later in life.
But precisely BECAUSE I’ve been an idiot, I’m not going to permanently judge somebody whose particular flavor of idiocy is still visible years or decades later as permanently characterized by whatever their youthful idiocy may have been, and would prefer to judge based on their skills and the content of their character.
But hey, maybe it’s just because my youth WAS spent as a tattooed hooligan / idiot. I met lots of other tattooed, mohawked, pierced, and strange looking folk that were stellar, fantastic people, and realized that character DOES matter more than looks, which allows me to try to live by the ideal of judging others by the content of their character rather than what they happen to look like.
Sure, but what you tattoo on your skin can reflect the content of your character. I’d regard a tattoo of a gun differently than a tattoo of a swastika differently than a tattoo of Tweety Bird smoking a joint.
Agreed - those are fashion choices, expressing a personal style, as are most tattoos. But (for example) a tattoo of swastikas across somebody’s forehead is obviously not just a fashion choice, and it would surely raise serious questions even if it had no relevance to somebody’s skills at (say) computer programming. Perhaps the gun between the eyes isn’t quite so extreme, but it was intended to communicate something a lot more than just personal style. If people want to tell me something about themselves, I will listen; if they want to explain that the visual message is out of date but written in indelible ink, I will listen to that too.
Great point. This particular situation specified a gun tattoo, but certainly a swastika tattoo has a high probability of being indicative of issues with their character. If THEY won’t be able to work with people of all appearances and races due to a hateful ideology, that would be a major reason to not hire them.
And sure, maybe a gun tattoo has a higher chance of being associated with character problems than a Tweety tattoo - but as I specified in talking about how it would affect my decision, this was an “all other factors equal” thing where we assume they had the skills and other qualifications (including character) to merit hiring, and the facial tattoo is the “make or break” for the decision. In that case, they have the character, so it’s not an issue.
Now a situation with the swastika tattoo being there BUT they have the skills, qualifications, AND character to merit hiring despite it? I’m assuming some great personal reformation, or a tattoo under duress, or something, but certainly there are narratives that can end up with that situation. That would probably require some provisioning, largely due to the “other people in the office” factor.
On a desert island with just the two of us, I’d have absolutely no problem working with them, or if they were my sole employee in a non-customer or client facing way and the office was never going to expand. But if they’re in an office with more than just themself, I’d probably hire them conditioned on them paying to have it removed and concealing it in the meantime or something, simply because it’s too specific and widely recognized and associated with targeted hatred (and too easily creates a hostile work environment for others). That needs some consideration and accommodation with others in a way that Tweety does not.
I’m not a big fan of tattoos but I’m not generally bothered by them either. And there are so many more people with tattoos today than there were 25 years ago that its just not that unusual to see them anymore. I’ve seen police officers with full sleeves on their arms when back in the day maybe you just would have seen a small USMC tattoo or something.
When I interview a candidate for a job I don’t mind seeing a small tattoo on their wrist or ankle (though I rarely see anyone’s ankles). I’ve yet to interview anyone with an extensive number of visible tattoos on their body but I probably wouldn’t care if it was someone in customer service (phone), IT, or most other positions where they’re not going to be in face-to-face contact with customers or vendors. A face tattoo is going to get a hard no from me though.