Seems like you moved the goal posts a bit there. Your first comment indicates "people" could be any quantity, now it seems you mean that "people" means people in general, which indicates a majority of people? It's important to be precise in language if you want your thoughts understood.
Using the term "people" or "men" or "women" without a quantifier is misleading. I could say "people think the earth is flat" and it doesn't matter if it's one person or one billion people but the difference is very important.
Why would we assume that alien visitors don't also have convuluted time measurement systems? It's seems likely any alien civilization would have followed a similar development trajectory as humans and would therefore also retain some anachronistic practices well into technological advancement.
There are pension systems in the USA dependening on industry. The issue is that the pension systems have to depend on an ever-increasing pool of contributors which is not sustainable long term.
I rather appreciate a nice hello and a little chat before someone drops a big request on me. It makes my coworkers seem human and gives me a nice break. If I'm too busy for that, I politely let the other person know that I'm too busy for smalltalk.
I'm not claiming that there aren't some people in positions of authority that don't make prejudiced assumptions. What I'm saying is that you can't assume every time something like this happens it's due to race.
Statistics without context are often misleading. I read the article and it's hardly objective. I would prefer to see the dataset as well as other demographics and details of who was stopped, the kind of cars they drove and other such detail. Often, people don't analyze very deeply and start with preconceived notions, especially around race. In addition, how many of these cops actually saw the driver before making the stop - especially highway stops.
I wonder what would happen if you weren't so condescending. Your opening statement was "I used to think like you" as if you have evolved and are somehow morally superior. I see no evidence of this assumed superiority. You made a ton of assumptions in your post and it was mostly about your own white guilt since you are on "easy mode" as you put it. You sound like you have some unresolved issues and I encourage you to get help.
More white people own businesses and there are more white people in the USA. It was likely an innocent assumption where no offense is intended. Not everything is as sinister as "anti-racists" claim. I refuse to subscribe to their conspiracy-based hidden racism theories.
I'm "glad" you were able to claim your "white privilege". Coming from a low class background, I was not afforded such and have had to struggle to get where I am. However, according to your own definition, you are now guilty of the racism you decry. You assume because you took advantage of "white privilege" every white person had the same. Not all white people are well connected or come from money. The percentage might be higher but that means zero to those of us that did not have an easy go like you.
But hey, do whatever you need to do to assuage your guilt. I have no such burden and I resent people like you for trying to lay one at my feet. It seems like most of your response is based on projection.
The people that tend toward terms like Latinx treat non-white folks like children, constantly getting offended on their behalf and denying them agency. It's ironic that many "anti-racists" act in a racist manner.
What evidence do you have that it was because your boss was black? X happened and the target was black doesn't mean X happened BECAUSE the target was black. Did the cop use any sort of racial insult? I can share all kinds of negative interactions I've had and other white friends and family members have had with police for reasons unknown - including with black officers.
No, it's not. Air is not something that I'm dependant on someone else to provide. Healthcare is dependent on the labor of others, something to which you are not entitled to by default.
I have first hand experience with someone in my immediate family who was unable to sustain a vegan diet. She became anemic and was ill 6 to 10 times a year. Iron supplements did help, but only enough to bring levels up to the lower bounds of normal. This went on for years. After reintroducing some amount of animal protein, her health and iron levels improved dramatically.
If you want to change someone's mind you could be less condescending. Right now, you are acting like the arrogant vegan stereotype. Do better.
No, you are paying for your own biological needs. It's no different than having to spend money to buy food. It's not at all accurate to equate these costs to rent.
Further, I find myself questioning whether this meeting even happened. This reads like scenario invented so the author could get paid for a "think" piece.
When the only argument is fallacious, you actually need to provide something non- fallacious or you are left with no argument and your premise fails, as is the case here. I find it condescending that your only reply was a link and no text. Peak intellectual laziness.
These issues are sociaital and everyone has some level of responsibility. Finger pointing at those who were able to profit isn't particularly helpful or even true in most cases. I think people partially do this so they can absolve themselves of their own guilt.
Using this line of thinking, those that obtained wealth by pushing green causes or energy are at fault for climate change and whatever impending conspiracy theory "event" for which they are prepping? I find that far too reductive.
What was the editorial purpose for the comment? Why is the sex of the participants of the alleged conversation relevant? The author takes great pains to make the other conversants seem borderline maniacal and also wants to make sure we know that they are all men. Why not also include their heights or hair colors? It's just as relevant in the context of the article.
This is called moving the goalposts. You could just as easily advocate for more humane slaughter house conditions but you are instead using bad actors (claiming this is how ALL animals are slaughtered) to call for a vegan lifestyle.
Yes. Animals are tools and can be regarded as property. I do support regulations in how animals should be raised and treated, but regarding them on the same level as humans is fallacy. I've seen your evidence and it has failed to change my mind. Especially since a vegan diet isn't suitable or healthy for everyone. If it works for you, great. Follow your heart.
The phenomenon of children not knowing where their meat comes from is recent. For thousands of years, society was mostly agrarian. Children survived and were not traumatized. I suspect the downvotes you are seeing are due to people feeling like you are overstating your case, being somewhat dramatic, and a little off topic.