You're one of those people who can only deal in absolutes, huh?
All else being equal, a person who enjoyed an idyllic childhood is typically going to be a more well-adjusted adult than someone who experienced the most depraved, violent, extreme child abuse imaginable.
I don't even have any interest in discussing the finer points with someone who completely denies the long-term effects of adverse childhood experiences.
You were the one to make the link between "charming people", good childhoods and lack of "yucky problems". And, while I would agree that there is a strong correlation, it's true that it's not perfect.
Obviously performance is also a critical factor but your comment gave me the impression that you don't see any value (or even harm) in targeting charming people without yucky problems. They do indeed sound like "perfect" colleagues to me!
>a workplace full of people with charming, easily-shared backstories and nuclear families but no yucky problems
Are you suggesting that this is bad? What do you hope to gain by seeking out obnoxious people with traumatic backstories and broken families with yuck problems? Misery loves company?
It should be noted that this refers to a mayor being spanked by a drag queen at a public event.
To many, myself included, the absence of children does not erase the absurdity and degeneracy of this stunt. It's still unacceptable. If children were present, it ought to have been criminal.
I doubt I'm the only obnoxious country dude who rolls into Starbucks and orders a "large". You can ignore their pretentious names, they're very accommodating.
People who don't care about the environment are breeding like rabbits. Their children, too, won't care about the environment.
The best thing you can do for the environment is to find someone as passionate as yourself and create a large family of conscientious, thoughtful, active environmentalists.