I think the negative signal is that they think it's worth mentioning. It's like if you go on a date with someone and say "you know, I have to tell you, I've kissed someone before." They're probably going to be concerned that this is notable information.
The implication of your GP that your parent is implicitly criticizing is that merely having a political affiliation disqualifies one's opinions by default on matters of opposing political matters. I'd agree that was the implication made by the GP, and I'd agree that it's a destructive oversimplification.
No one is arguing that people should be harassed "literally all the time" (or ever).
Some of the more egregious deployments of "safe spaces" in universities happened in response to controversial campus speakers who were deemed to have views that were threatening to some students. According to some campus radical leftists, the very presence of such speakers was "violence" and a literal "threat" to marginalized students.
Of course, the students could simply refuse to attend the talks of speakers they didn't like, but that wouldn't make as dramatic a statement as creating an explicit "safe space" where they could congregate.
>According to some campus radical leftists, the very presence of such speakers was "violence" and a literal "threat" to marginalized students.
And why shouldn't they have a point? If it could be shown, or at least it is plausible, that violence against marginalized students could occur due to a speaker inciting such action or even bringing out groups for it, doesn't that give some case for refusing the admission of such people to campus?
In general I have not seen any reason to consider speech as much different from action, except on the principle that the harm caused is entirely caused by the victim (e.g a hearer) themselves, which seems implausible according to our intuition in a variety of circumstances. In fact, the bifurcation of speech and action seems to trace its way back to a Cartesian mind-body dualism, which is generally rejected by neuroscientists and philosophers today.
Why stop there? What if it could be shown to be plausible that blocking speakers on campus increases tensions and escalates violence because of the suppression of people's views? It doesn't stretch credulity that right wingers are more mad about restricting the expression of their beliefs than they are about the subject itself. For evidence, watch a sample of Fox News -- they're often indignant and "righteously upset" over "being told what to think or say".
That is obviously also a possibility; I'm not arguing that they should be silenced by default, only that it is possible and should not be beyond the reach of a society's purview to do so. For the moment, it seems more plausible that violence erupts due to persuasion and incitement, which is why (for instance) there are already laws against incitement but not against illegalising speech lest it cause high tensions. I assume this question can also be answered empirically.
In the tension between freedom of speech and preventing harmful speech, I wonder if we're approach a Nash equilibrium, or if it's more of an accelerating oscillator.
There are no secrets to weight loss. Eat fewer calories than you burn. It doesn't matter if that involves keto, or vegan, or one meal a day. Thyroid problems also don't change physics.
The point of the article is, the timing of feeding vs fasting leads to differences in fat storage.
The work of Dr Fung, among others, suggests that concentrating eating into a few (4-8) hour period per day causes better outcomes than feeding during the entire waking period.
Same thing with the balance of macronutrients. Tuning the ratio of fat:protein:carbohydrate can make a diet more filling and more sustainable on fewer calories. This enables that "calories in / calories out" rule to actually work and cause reduction in stored body fat.
The lesson is "quantifying the cost of getting killed".
The method by which that lesson is conveyed to the student is the Socratic method.
The point is that the Socratic method of asking leading questions and building agreement at each stage was more effective in getting the point across than "do you understand X? OK, good."
The student constructs the knowledge him/herself and internalizes it better than otherwise.
Yes, it's better than asking if they understand the assertion of the point, but the parent was giving a misleading comparison to something that stripped out both the Socratic questions and the quantification of the cost.
Now I work from home where my wife and toddler are. Being home to educate her is worth more than just about anything. I don't have to drive 2 hours every day just to be an ass in a seat. Two hours where all I do is sit in a car and wish to be home.
To be fair, an hour by car each way is on the long side of a commute, at least compared to the US average. (For some cities, it's probably pretty good.)
It takes me an hour to get to work and an hour and half back. But, I live in California and only 11 miles from work. Moving out here from the southern US was mind-boggling when it came to the traffic.
I live in a damn nightmare now and am looking forward to the day I move out of this state in less than a year.
As someone who also recently moved to the Bay Area from the south, I actually feel like Atlanta traffic is much worse. Granted, maybe I'm not seeing the worst of the Bay Area since my commute is just along one section of 101, but going from Atlanta suburbs to downtown (or back) was an utter nightmare, even on the weekends.
It's possible to cycle 11 miles in about 35 minutes. Make the most of the good weather. You will be fitter, healthier, less stressed, less polluting, and after the initial outlay for a new bike and all the gear, save money on vehicle, insurance, and fuel.
I'm 5 days late, but thanks for the recommendation. While where I work is a really bike friendly area, where I live is not and there's only three viable routes, two of which are freeways while the third is a non-bike friendly expressway.
Any other route would add a ton of time. I don't plan on working (or living) there much longer though, so it's only a temporary annoyance.
A military ID is a also federal document (Department of Defense) but that only applies to a certain subset of the population.