cmh89

Miami has the most reckless drivers I've experienced in the US. I don't know if its confirmation bias but man, I was stressed even in a car there.

>but caring about others as people and not as cogs in a machine is important in building a professional career.

You're ignoring power dynamics. It's impossible for a manager and their reports to have real relationships and conversations. Asking them questions they shouldn't answer honestly is just self-serving.

A manager who wants to "care" about their employees as people is just doing a disservice to those employees. They can be understanding, they can provide flexibility for employees to take care of themselves, but they can't and shouldn't try to ask employees about their personal feelings.

>But on the other hand, having a car also has its benefits. Many anti-car people really underestimate the value of having your own means of transportation, going to and fro on your own time, and the inherent privacy being in your own car provides. I love driving because I can listen to a podcast/music or making a call without someone breathing down my neck or hitting me with their bag as often happens on the train/bus.

No one is underestimating the benefits of having a car. The problem with cars is that you receive the positive externalities like coming and going whenever you want, and all the negative externalities are given to other people.

A city that is good for driving is not going to be good for any other mode of transit. Your ability to drive directly takes from others ability to walk or ride a bike. The neighborhoods that need to get bulldozed to build the ever increasing road infrastructure are the cost of your ability to listen to a podcast without being near other people. The people who didn't get bulldozed then have to breath in the pollution from your car lowering their quality of life and life expectancy. Fast roads are terrible for walking, and motorists are killing pedestrians at an ever increasing rate.

I'm not anti-car. I own a car because it's very hard for Americans to get by without one, due to the car lobby. I'm pro-pedestrian and pro-transit.

>I'm sure there's probably some middle ground to be found here.

Low traffic neighborhoods are the middle ground. It's literally just diverting through motorists onto roads that are designed for through motorists.

Car culture is about entitlement. Anything that reduces motorists ability to drive as fast as possible absolutely everywhere they want is going to be seen as an attack in the wAr oN cArS!!!

>He’s a former government official who openly changes his messaging based on polling data, not scientific evidence. It’s not unreasonable to discount his public statements.

What nonsense. OP and you either have actual useful information that contradicts what OP specifically called out as inaccurate or you don;t.

You don't which is why you fixate on something else.

> But what Fauci is saying about the lab leak evidence and gain of function stuff is misleading.

Would you like to elaborate? I'm interested to see your explanation of how one of the most prominent infectious disease experts in the world is being misleading.

> Some irresponsible people did some bad stuff and covered it up, and Fauci is helping the cover.

Can you offer any explanation why someone who has spent their whole life working on infectious disease would participate in a cover up? Can you point to anything concrete that Dr. Fauci would gain by participating in a cover-up?

We just experienced this though and it wasn't good for their stock price. Low unemployment means they have to pay their workers more to hire or retain them. More expense means they either need accept making less (bad for stocks) or raise prices to make as much money, which could be bad for business.

People aren't scared into not taking 3rd parties seriously, our system is just fundamentally designed to only have two realistic parties. It's just inherent in a first past the post system.

So what? The person who is accused of owning the emerald mine says they owned the emerald mine. That's at least some evidence that its true.

We didn't lose to the Taliban for any other reason beside not having a clear picture of what victory would look like.

You aren't OP but that's my poin. OP made the absolutist statement that:

"Censorship has always been on the wrong side of history and it still is."

which is obviously absurd because there are very obvious situations where censorship is clearly a good idea, like in banning not just the creation of child pornography but the possession.

When the feds strengthen laws against child porn in the 70s and 80s, that same free speech argument played out. Free speech advocates argued that having recorded evidence of a crime shouldn't be a crime in of itself. You can have pictures of murder victims after all, and there are plenty of recordings of illegal activity on the internet that are totally legal.

Obviously the right side won and the feds passed laws censoring child pornography because the ends, punishing child porn consumers and creators, outweighed the cost, which was a small reduction in freedom of speech.

Every society needs some limits on speech and free speech absolutism is just ideological weakness in thinking about how a society should actually work because in the real world, unlimited speech leads to a lot of people getting hurt.

Who is 'deputizing' a landlord? The police are going to be much slower and ineffective in dealing with the problem than the landlord is, and why shouldn't a landlord take into consideration the effect their renters have on the neighbors in deciding who to rent to.

It's part of the American creation myth that's drilled into our heads as children.

The Alien and Sedition Act was passed in 1798 which made it illegal to critique the government. Eugene Debs went to prison for advocating for draft dodging in World War 1.

Part of is a lot of folks either can't or wont see the difference between "free speech" and "consequences for your actions".

As Americans, we've never had more free speech than we have today. Most of our history is filled with censorship from media to actual human beings being arrested for wearing the wrong clothes. Of course, a lot of those free speech absolutist cheer censorship laws when they are targeted at LGBTQ individuals.

That's not really the question I asked, and I'm not sure how your response is relevant.