|
ITT: Scuzzy completely missing the point, Bridet getting frustrated, Scuzzy thinking he's right and being antagonistic about it. Only on the FF forums!
Bridget's argument is strictly normative--he's saying that it's superficial to judge someone by their appearance, and not their work ethic. He's saying that good appearance and good work ethic are not mutually exclusive. So while, yes, appearance CAN be a good way to weed out bad workers, it's not a concrete way.
The simple fact is, the whole argument is moot. Corporations that enforce a strict appearance/dress policy don't actually care that much about your appearance, they're looking for workers who are conformists. Thus is the nature of the corporate world, you're not actually hired for your free thinking intellect, you're hired to do singular and refined tasks, which is the perfect job for a conformist.
This is why all the best and most creative corporations don't enforce appearance (Obviously within reason, you can't come to work naked, etc.) standards on their employees. Point in case, Google.
Do you really think it's in the best interest of a business to turn away workers who are excellent workers because they don't dress to a societal 'norm'? No, it's a terrible business decision. The thing is, like I said, it's not about hiring the 'best' worker, it's about hiring the conformist who won't ask questions when he sees or does something that is ethically questionable, it's about hiring the conformist who has already been conditioned all his life to follow 'norms', which makes him a perfect fit for a corporation.
|