🔱 As a Sagittarian 🔱

Kissy, you can dislike the AI photo. Plenty people do. That part is fine. What stands out is how quickly the objection turned into “just a dunce security with little to no education who rose to fame because of laughs.” His job became the insult. His spelling became the proof. The fact that he makes people laugh became the reason he shouldn’t be taken seriously. That move is common, but it is worth examining. If the real issue is the unauthorised use of the Coat of Arms or the feeling that a joke landed on something people worked hard for, why did the argument need to reduce him to his occupation and treat that occupation as evidence of low worth? Security work is paid labour. Plenty of people who hold degrees still do it, or have done it, or have relatives who do it. Treating the job itself as the punchline says more about the status we attach to certain kinds of work than it does about the photograph. You wrote that education is the flex and that educated people are the crème de la crème. Many graduates feel that way because the degree was expensive, difficult and socially rewarded. That feeling is understandable. The harder question is whether the degree is mainly evidence of what someone learned, or whether it has also become a licence to rank other people’s intelligence and dignity by the letters after their name or the uniform they wear to work. When the defence of education slides into open contempt for people who do not hold the same credential, it stops being about standards and starts being about hierarchy. Bad Sekki’s content has made a lot of people laugh. That does not place him above criticism, and it does not require anyone to find the graduation image funny. It also does not require calling him a dunce or hoping the university sues him as a form of comeuppance. One can argue that the Coat of Arms should not be used without permission without treating his livelihood as a character flaw. If the claim is that education should produce clearer thinking and better conduct, then the test is what happens when someone without the credential irritates us. Do we stay on the actual point (the image, the emblem, the timing), or do we reach for the oldest status weapon available: your job is lesser, therefore you are lesser? The second choice is available to anyone. It does not require a degree. It only requires the belief that some forms of work and some forms of speech are already beneath respect. Plenty of people who finished university still spell things wrong under pressure, still hold ordinary jobs at some point, and still get things wrong in public. The difference is that their mistakes are rarely used as permanent evidence that they lack intelligence. When the same standard is not applied in reverse, the defence of education begins to look less like a defence of learning and more like a defence of position. The photograph can be criticised. The personal reduction to “dunce security” is a separate choice. That choice is the one that invites the question you may not have intended: if this is how some of us speak once we have the credential, what exactly did the credential teach us about other people? – at Jamaica