zaccus

Buildings like that in the US tend to be housing projects, where people are less likely to have a sense of ownership. Not exactly apples to apples.

I was in high school in the late 90s, and had absolutely no interest in college, at all. Not in medieval history, not in women's studies, certainly not in STEM, nothing. I just wanted to graduate HS and go learn a trade or something, and do music on the side. I never wanted to set foot in a classroom again. As dumb as that sounds, that's what I wanted to do.

I got so much shit from my parents and teachers. Not going to college was unacceptable. You HAD to go, it didn't matter what you majored in or how much it cost. People who go to college get good jobs and join the country club, people who don't wind up in jail or something. I'm not exaggerating, that was the message.

Of course that's just my experience, but for whatever that's worth, OP's experience is definitely consistent with mine.

I don't. I learn better through reading. Visual aids are rarely very helpful for me, unless I already understand what I'm looking at.

>spending your time pondering how to make yourself 'cultured' is a nauseatingly bourgeois activity, ripe for satire when compared with the harder realities of life for the less well privileged.

I haven't misrepresented you. You literally said that a 'bourgeois' activity has less value compared to "harder realities of life for the less well privileged". That's putting poverty on a pedestal. That's fetishizing it.

No. Working your ass off to barely scrape by is not in any way better than learning new things, being kind, or any of the other things enumerated in this article. That ridiculous crab mentality is what kids who are born into poverty have to deal with if they express any aspiration to make something better of themselves. It is its own kind of smug complacency, far more malicious and destructive than someone taking pride in more 'bourgeois' accomplishments.

Seriously, give me 'nauseatingly bourgeois' culture any day. If that makes you feel insecure, maybe try reading a book or something.

And you being so proud of how uncultured you are is different how?

Yeah it's bourgeois, so what? I've been poor and I've been not poor. Not poor is better, trust me. Being not poor and cultured is way better.

There are few things more annoyingly bourgeois than fetishizing poverty.

Aggressive rheumatoid arthritis could be one reason.

Stupid people don't like being told they're stupid. Shocker.

There are benefits of doing all those things, and there are safe(r) ways of doing them. There is no benefit to smoking, and no safe way to do it. You can rationalize all you want, but the reality is that anyone who took up smoking within the past 30 years is a fool.

Your example is absurd. Where do you live that you ever have to cross an 8 lane highway on foot? City streets have crosswalks and stop lights. When used properly it's perfectly safe for everyone.

>There is a huge power differential between an employee and an employer

Usually yes, but not necessarily. Some highly skilled employees are absolutely vital, to the extent that them abruptly quitting would be more catastrophic for the employer than for them. Think database admin, C-levels, etc.

>Politics don't matter if you make brake pads or run a hobby shop.

I disagree. Even in a hobby shop, someone vocally espousing views that are abhorrent to their coworkers (like death to Jews for example) is going to be a drag on morale and productivity. If I have an employee who is spewing antisemitism and I have Jewish employees who don't want to listen to that garbage at work, should I not be able to fire them? My Jewish employees should just have to deal with it or quit?

>Should a conservative business owner be able to fire anyone in their company that supports abortion?

Absolutely. Are you suggesting that a liberal employee should not be allowed to quit an anti-abortion company?

>Should A trump supporter be able to fire anyone in their company that supported Hillary?

Absolutely. Should a Hillary supporter not be allowed to quit a company that supported Trump?

>I remember when a few companies opposed supporting birth control and abortions and didn't want to pay for it through employee healthcare plans.

By law, all health insurance policies are required to provide this coverage. Those companies can still be vocally against abortion, but they still have to comply with the law. What if someone is religiously against traffic lights? Then their options are to follow the law or don't drive. Nothing to do with freedom of speech.

Not all passions can be monetized enough to live on, though.

For example, I may be passionate about making music, but I'm not passionate about living on a musician's income. I'm not passionate about managing a social media presence and constantly touring around the country in a van. I need some amount of comfort and stability in order to be happy.

So I work as a programmer and make music for myself in my spare time, while being able to have a family, take vacations, and save for a house and eventually retirement. You can think that's sad if you want, I don't care.

Why does Google need physical offices in the first place?

Oh please. Either you're exaggerating, or you've been going to /r/atheism looking to start fights.

In regards to 'agnostic', what the word literally means is that you aren't certain. There are agnostic theists and agnostic atheists. If someone asks if you believe in God and you say you're agnostic, you're not answering the question completely. That's all people are saying, don't let it get to you.

Sounds like a pretty standard (if vague) purpose statement to me.

You mean anti-theistic? In any case, I don't see how it's either. It's just a flippant non-answer.

Great idea! We'll start with you.

Here are your options:

1) accept that homeless people will sleep on property you developed or support with your taxes, and get over it

2) move them to someone else's property or some other city so it's someone else's problem

3[a]) put them in jail or 3[b]) expand and improve public shelters, thus costing even more of your tax money

4) kill them, which is obviously not really an option

Am I missing something? Do you have any other ideas?

What, was I supposed to vote for Romney? You think Mitt Romney was going to roll back mass surveillance?

You pay taxes when you withdraw from a 401k, and the IRS has minimum distribution requirements that ensure you will pay taxes on all that money at some point.

Personally I think a Roth IRA is the better deal from a tax standpoint -- pay taxes on contributions and then you're done. With a long enough time horizon and a little luck those contributions will be dwarfed by earnings, and I would rather pay taxes on the lesser amount.

A savings account earning >=1% interest is a negligible tax burden. What you lose from inflation is far greater than what you pay in taxes. Even so, saying it's "the absolute worst place" to put money is beyond hyperbolic.

>If you put 100k into a bank account, it will earn nothing and taxes will eat you alive.

Huh? Assuming this is all after-tax money and isn't earning anything, what would you be paying taxes on exactly?

> Quality Tech does deal in affordability, fail safes, and unintended consequences

Only to the extent that these things are profitable. Tech companies, like all companies, exist to make money for their shareholders. All other concerns are strictly pursuant to that. At least, as a shareholder, I sure as hell hope they are.

Let's not pretend like the scope of a CEO's job is even remotely approaching that of the President's. That would be absurd.

Being occupied/having a purpose is not the same thing as having a 9-5 job that you do to pay the bills. Many people would prefer to occupy themselves in ways that don't necessarily generate money.

leisure != idleness

Can they elect to receive a quarter million cash dollars in lieu of benefits? If not, such benefits are not really part of their compensation any more than their uniforms or cars.

Why are you asking these things like they're hypothetical? The way we did student loans prior to 2005 worked just fine. Low income students weren't excluded back then were they? Just roll it back to that.

You got a problem with my farts buddy?

OK, maybe the article is right and cyclists should be able to do Idaho stops. I'm open to allowing this if the available data says it's safer for everyone.

What I can't accept is some cyclists following the law and others not. Either everyone should do Idaho stops, or no one should. What settles that is the current law.

Are Idaho stops legal for cyclists where you live? No? Then until the law is changed they are not an option, period.

trying not to fart loudly

Why can't it be both? Everyone is either an introvert or an extrovert, and they sure don't sound like an extrovert, so...

Of course, I'm not a trained psychologist and neither are you probably, so neither of us are qualified to say either way.