No, you are misrepresenting those findings. The research did not show that climate change deniers took care of their output of pollution (as in eliminated their output); it simply showed they made more individual reductions. But individual small scale action, like putting one bottle in the recycling bin, is not going to negate all the waste to produce, ship, store, sell, recycle and reprocess that bottle.

Yes, personal action is great, but individual action alone won't turn around the ship when the entire manufacturing and supply chain needs reworking from a sustainability perspective. And climate change denial (I won't call it skepticism because that is being far too kind) is in direct opposition to fixing the chain.

And my response is: arguing over who started it doesn't solve the problem of drowning in plastics. We are now in a global, corporate-caused "tragedy of the commons" situation which cannot be solved by individual action.

But even your initial statement isn't accurate: it wasn't customers who demanded plastics; it was Coca Cola.

Either way, instead of focusing on who did what, I'd rather see steps taken to fix the problem.

I just don't see why anyone is keen on handing over control of society to corporations. Corporations exist to make as much profit as possible for their owners and shareholders, so you can pretty much expect corporate-sponsored trampling upon of citizens' rights and freedoms in pursuit of the dollar.

So on the one hand, you hate the system that caused you so much pain; at the same time, you hate a system that acts to oppose the propagation of hate speech from alt-right groups? OK then. It sounds like you're under the misguided impression that all speech is somehow deserving of equal airtime.

You will be happy to know that your views, at least the latter view, align with those of populist leaders outside of the US as well. In Ontario, the premier has enacted a policy designed to strip students of their right to protest on the grounds that "everyone deserves free speech." Your argument has now been taken a step further by my government, and in the end our students have been stripped of their rights.

Careful what you wish for, drinkypoo.

This is actually a Very Bad Thing. Dials and levers provide tactile and positional cues, which help you to easily find functions while you're driving while keeping your eyes on the road. Without those tactile cues, you're looking at a screen instead of at the traffic in front of you. This makes you more dangerous to those around you, and compromises your safety as well.

What you describe is not socialism - it is cronyism or corruption.

What is with Americans equating socialism with all political actions they dislike?

Pretty low. As said by Stephen Colbert: Reality has a well-known liberal bias.

I've noticed a trend across your posts over the past week: it's as if you have some victim complex and feel the gays and the blacks are coming to get you.

I can't speak for the blacks, but we gay people are generally just looking for equality: equal opportunities, equal pay, equal security, and equal rights. To make that happen, you might need to concede to some *gasp* socialist views--for example, equality isn't possible when businesses can deny services/fire staff/evict a tenant on the basis of a person's sexual orientation.

That said, it's entirely your choice whether or not you attend Pride. If you do attend though, consider tweaking your perspective to the inclusive side if you want to make any friends there.

Both problems point to issues around inclusiveness in IT. The hypothesis is that gender-biased interview questions will lead to gender bias in the workplace, which is one (but not the only) form of a lack of diversity.

And while it's nice to say that IT's demonstrably trying to address the problem, those companies whose interviewers proposition the female candidates are certainly not helping.

That's some pretty monty pythonesque logic.

A simple rule of thumb is that when an outgroup coins a derogatory term to oppress another group, it continues to be inappropriate for the outgroup to use that term.

The oppressed group may reclaim the word if they so choose in order to disempower that word. For example, one of my gay friends loves to say "Hay qween!". He clearly holds no ill intent when he says this; he's gay and is not demeaning anyone.

It would be entirely inappropriate and derogatory for my straight brother to say "hey queen". And he would never do that because he does not want to use oppressive language.

TLDR: If you are a member of the outgroup, don't use oppressive language. If you are a member of the oppressed minority, reclaim if you want, or don't.