Road damage rises steeply with axle weight, and is estimated "as a rule of thumb... for reasonably strong pavement surfaces" to be proportional to the fourth power of the axle weight. This means that doubling the axle weight will increase road damage (2x2x2x2)=16 times.

Or.. you know.. get a job closer to home?

I'm not sure having thousands of people crammed per square mile is a great idea.

I think less dense housing enables people to actually do things with land, like, I don't know, grow a small set of crops?

Local production and consumption is a win on energy losses through transportation.

City people often forget that it is the country that feeds them. When you are that sheltered from production you tend to think food just magically appears in shopping centres. Sure, you know that at some point that it came from a farm, but it doesn't cross peoples minds.

Shoving more and more people into dense cities is not sustainable. It seems to be a goal of the left to see how many people we can support even at cost of quality of life. Screw that, Let people live in open areas, and let them have some level of being able to do what they want with their land.

Actually it has to do with their sense of agency. Agents can affect their surroundings, whereas things simply happen to objects, they are victims unable to affect anything.

In this sense a lot of people self labelling themselves as feminists are objectifying women a lot at times.

I think slashdot just has higher standards of evidence of racism etc than some other places.

For it to be true it has to be blatent and with very little possibility of error "you know what I mean" doesn't constitute that. There are plenty of other interpretations.

You have to try to not assume malice (or even ignorance) in these things. Come to them from the best possible light they could be from your perspective and goals.

Using a certain style of language can associate people with things that they shouldn't necessarily be associated with. Best to not assume ill will or malice

I think a fair portion of slashdot comes from a pragmatic line of thinking, nobody gives a crap about what race or sex a person is so long as the job gets done and well at that.

We've all encountered oversensitive people before and it can be a right pain in the ass and loss of efficiency trying to deal with them.. there's a tendency to not like enforced inefficiency from above. Things that affirmative action programs and the like can enforce.

I don't think that many people who use photoshop require the entirety of it's functionality.

It's like microsoft word vs openoffice, there are some fairly commonly required features that are catered for that handle the overwhelming majority of the population, but each person has their own little outlier function that only word handles.

gimp is becoming viable for more types of work by the day, it may not ever do everything photoshop does, but it doesn't have to. All it has to do is enough to "get the job done" for a decent subset of people.

So long as it is advantageous to play the victim, people will.

It's all about the social power people can play using these types of manipulation. Unfortunately I can only see it getting worse.

Sure, the then unemployed slaves can then starve from the mass unemployment and lack of social security.

No, by displacing the means of production of a whole agricultural sector. Eliminating slavery all at once when they were so dependent on it would be like us banning farming machines today in an instant. Recipe for disaster.

Who said anything about continuing slavery? You don't just ban it, you migrate away from it while providing solutions to the massive hole left in the labour sector.

Machine harvesters would have done the job.

Until the south started trading directly with europe instead of the north, few seemed to object to slavery in the north enough to take action.

The north had just spent a whole lot of money on other conflicts, and needed the resources.

It was more about the north trying to screw over the south economically. Provide an economical way for the cotton fields to be harvested and the need for slaves goes away. If someone tried to destroy my livelihood I'd fight against it tooth and nail too.

It is sad how much slavery there is today though. While there is officially no slavery, that tends to just means it's harder to know when you are one.

You're putting more resources towards one group because of their race/gender. This is unfair.

It is unfair because it is striving for equal outcomes not equal opportunity.

You may have equal opportunity at the employer level, but at the education level you're fighting for equal outcomes, even if to get equal outcomes it requires a disproportionate amount of resources to certain groups.

The solution to unfair discrimination is not more unfair discrimination.

Except that it didn't, his gay coworkers would have never picked up on it because he's treated them fairly and by their ability to do the job (why some of them were so surprised).

This comes to separating personal views and business. You're assuming he can't, when it's quite clear he can considering what his gay coworkers have said about him.

It shouldn't matter what his views are so long as it does not affect how he does his work/manages people. Show me evidence he treated gays differently at work and it will be a different story.

Polyamory is just a different word they're using for polygamy because of the stigma attached to it, same deal in the end.

Polygamy is having many spouses, perhaps you got polygamy mixed up with polygyny?

You criticise the idea, not the man though.

That a person holds ideas you dislike in one area should not affect his work in a totally unrelated area. To do so is holding people to criteria not relevant to the task, what a lot of people tend to consider "unfair discrimination".

If he had not donated money, and instead only voted, isn't voting worse? Instead of indirect action he's taking direct action. What is being advocated here is intolerance to others political views. The very people preaching tolerance are the ones being the most intolerant. You can want gay marriage to not be a thing while simultaneously respecting others views that it should be a thing.

Marrying isn't really a right, it's a privilege. One that even the gay activists seem content to restrict to only "between two people" just like others want to restrict it to "between a man and woman" I don't see them fighting for polygamists or for people to be allowed to marry in-family. They want to extend the privilege to themselves without extending it to others who also aren't allowed it.

Actually, if he is tolerant, and others are being intolerant of him, we should tolerate their intolerance. So it applies anyway.

I'd like to think I'm being tolerant of your intolerance, I might not agree with you on things, but I'd hardly punish you over it like you would eich since you consider him intolerant. I would hope that you understand the troubles with hindering open discussion of things by having people punished for their views in unrelated items, even if it's for things people find abhorrent.