If one effort is to get people to think how their actions impact themselves and everyone else, and there are consequences (life threatening or some form of punishment). Then why limit that to just driving.
Also, if the issue is an attitude of "no fucks given", then they seem just as severe to me because then they might take their "no fucks" on to the road.
> Better be careful here. Proud to be an American is okay. Proud to be white... why should anyone be proud of the color of their skin? Even if it should be okay (but honestly white people have an awful history, as do most skin colors if you look back far enough), it's so arbitrary. There's nothing to be proud of, you just have specific pigmentation.
I cannot argue with any of this, and highlights some of my flawed thinking. I guess I thought of "white americans" as an abstraction of Americans of European decent. So I guess, I don't know the proper way to convey "Someone who is proud of their European heritage, and proud of being an American."
Fair. But to say something as bold as understanding someone's political motivations, and ideology based on how politicians behave doesn't seem like good faith effort to understand the other side.
Legitimate question, would it be viewed as "not extremist" if it came from another group such Libertarians, or SJWs?
So it's Whataboutism when trying to point out others' hate? Maybe it was a bad attempt, but it was a question to show that both sides are capable of doing horrible things to each other. And that the extremists of any group probably aren't the best at accurately representing the majority's philosophical thinking. Both sides deserve the hate. I'm okay with talking about the hate, but can we be intellectually honest and say both sides have made mistakes.
Do you agreed with 100% of everything that the extremist of the Democratic (>insert proper political affiliation here<) side believe in? I suspect you would agree with most of the core philosophy but may disagree on some of messaging and actions by extreme groups.
> IMO War between taxman and rich is not entirely off table in future.
Except I fear being labeled "rich" as someone in the top 1% globally but making 85k a year in the US. If you want a Russian Revolution, where the farmers were the "rich", that's how you get a Russian Revolution.
If I had to guess what OP is trying to say, what is "american", is that maybe you should have been afraid of the government before it got to this point. Which means it's possible to be better prepared by knowing your rights.
> Surely that kind of "show of force" could only be justified in response to a credible threat?
Justified, of course not, but have you ever encountered bored cops, or bullies? No matter where you go, there are always corrupt individuals, and unfortunately some of them are in positions of authority.
The company has a US office and a Toronto office, but disjoint teams. He is still part of the US team, working remote (i.e. given a desk) in the Toronto office.
Agreed. I personally view Daylight Savings as being horrid for mental health reasons, and I have plenty of friends and family that feel the same. There is no hope for any of us to change that. So from my view point, if we can't discuss an issue as simple as Daylight Savings, then there's little hope for bigger issues.
Also, from a "peasants" view, we want to change, but getting that translated to actual change through the system seems impossible. It doesn't help there are legitimate differences on what solutions even looks like.
I don't have any knowledge one way or another, but is this true? I guess it seems like we can afford healthcare just fine, but allocating money to healthcare/education/etc is a different problem.
> I absolutely believe that it should be discussed, and that people should feel safe.
Agreed!!
> I just want there to be an awareness that all therapies aren't created equal, and people could be lead some bad places depending on how poorly educated they become. After all, people still use alcohol to cope with mental health. Who knows what ridiculous notions someone could come up with given enough ingenuity and misinformation?
Unfortunately in my experience, the level of education doesn't help. I've known medical doctors that know exactly the risks involved yet still make poor choices because they haven't resolved the underlying issues. Medical doctors can be good at treating other people, but very bad at "treating" themselves and family.
So the best answer I can come up with is, who cares if someone wants to use alcohol (or heroine, etc.) to get relief as long as it's not causing anyone else physical or mental harm, recognition by that individual that its a crutch therefore temporary, and a focus in resolving the real issues.
Also, if the issue is an attitude of "no fucks given", then they seem just as severe to me because then they might take their "no fucks" on to the road.