Moral excuses aside, it's money. Huge gaps means less material, one-size-fits-all installation, and arbitrary tolerances in production. Same reason the latches constantly break or get stuck - the whole setup is mass-produced as cheaply as possible.
But it's not a good way to save money. On top of the obvious safety and privacy benefits, bathroom quality can completely change a person' opinion of an establishment and is worth investing in.
Do you think these assaults are happening in crowded bathrooms? Or that other women will ignore an assault simply because the bathroom is unisex?
But where is the place where I can get a message like that and trust it as it is the norm in that social network? McLuhan said “The Medium is the Message”
I'm not sure this is possible on the internet in general. Even in the early days of facebook people were forced to grow suspicious of their old acquaintances reaching out to say hi only to be hit with some "be your own boss!" MLM schtick, and that was when you could be fairly confident the sender was a real person that you actually have known for some time. Not to mention how suspicious we all are of some of the "living my best life!" type of humble-brag posts that are really just sad people playing pretend.
Add a layer of anonymity and I'm just not sure genuine trust could ever be possible. Try to take away anonymity and you wander into the quagmire that is personal privacy and still can't avoid the possibility of scams and compromised accounts.
I think that the Internet as a Medium simply cannot do what we have been trying to force it to do for years - serve as a good "third place" for socialization. Do people make friends here? Absolutely. But people make friends in the ICU, doesn't mean we should install a bar there.
Contrary to the circles we reside in, most of the US despises any act of “socialism”. It’s ingrained in the culture after 50 years of waging a cold war against an entity that was associated with everything on the left because of propaganda.
America's mainstream opinions on "socialism" were not caused by America's history of arms races, thermonuclear development, and proxy wars across the globe, nor do they persist because of it. Many Americans have experienced a rapid and shocking shift in opinion toward Russia - the great red enemy of the cold war. This is still happening despite Russia making no major political reforms in recent history, no significant revolution in government, and actively trying to reclaim soviet territories.
If this was possible within a single generation, it also should be possible for public perception to change on socialism. There is no need or purpose to wait for people to die - their ideas live on.
No, decades after the cold war ended, the cause of the hatred of socialism in this country persists for one simple reason: Americans have become convinced through a tremendous amount of propaganda that Government is bad.
Not just America's government as an entity - we could all find some common ground there if it were that simple. No institution in particular, not the Administration, the federal or state legislatures, or the town halls, or the mayor of the small village who's really just doing it as a part-time gig - no, all of these are but parts of the greater problem - Government itself is seen as bad.
Not the flashy boots on the throats of "radicals", not the ICE agents storming the hospitals - that's not governing, that's just violence. No, what's "bad" are the mundane, boring, tedious things the Government does because someone has to.
There is this wild knee-jerk reaction to governance itself that dates back to good ol' Reaganism of course.
"The most terrifying words are... I'm from the federal government, and I'm here to help." (Reagan, 1986, paraphrased)
Spoken by the man specifically in charge of the federal government.
America was supposed to have been founded for the people, by the people, and with the people in mind. But now the people believe not only that the government isn't here for them - it can't be.
They believe we shouldn't try to make things better through governance because governing can't be good. it's always "inefficient", it's always "stealing your hard-earned money". To them it's million dollar pens in space, and spraying cat piss on drunk rats, and paying for hormones and birth control and school "litter boxes" - in short, to many Americans, any money the Government spends is by definition theft and waste, especially if it's hard to understand.
Changing their minds on socialism involves first changing their minds on the government. Not the capital A capital G American Government, but the nature and purpose of governance itself.
But on the bright side, I believe our opportunities to change those minds are only growing from this moment. The hateful idealogies, the demagogues, the simple answers - they're all a net negative on society. But the fact remains that the government is being challenged and ripped apart both internally and externally. Institutions are crumbling as we speak, traditions are being broken, and precedents are being set and shredded left and right.
People have the opportunity to realize that government itself is malleable, and that if it can be changed for the worse so quickly and horribly, then it can also be changed for the better. We have the chance to convince them that we as a society can take all of this power and use it for our personal and collective good, if only the right minds and the right ideas take root.
These overreactions are reminding me of the J6ers, though.
Ah, yes. Truly a classic. "The people angry about the blanket pardoning of all the violent insurrectionists are just as bad as the violent insurrectionists!"
Lol.
But, the beautiful thing about hitting rock bottom is that the only way to go from there is up. All of that to say that maybe (yes, I’m being optimistic) Trump is what this country needs to hit rock bottom, do some self reflection, and pull ourselves back up to a better place. The biggest takeaway I learned way back when is that no matter how bad things get, the world keeps spinning
These are unfortunately contradictory ideas. It sounds like you had a positive journey in the end, but there are many individuals - especially people struggling with addiction - who will tell you that there is no rock bottom. The world does keep on spinning. And as long as you are alive, you can go lower. There is no point where you go so low that you hit bedrock and the world stops spinning.
Plenty of people think they hit rock bottom and later discover that what they thought of as their lowest point eventually became a time they now think of as "the good days".
There is nothing inevitable or guaranteed about hitting rock bottom and climbing your way back up. It is hard work, and it sounds like you know that personally. Whatever comes next will be a terrible struggle for all of us, and there is no guarantee of success. But we do have to try anyway.
That's very interesting. Do you know where I could learn more about that decision? I tried searching but its 2025 and any phrases I could think of just returned websites offering nearly identical collections of flag emojis...
True! It's just another of the many ways that evil is counterproductive to its own interests.
Helping groups of humans that bigots don't like would literally result in less humans that bigots don't like in the world.
But they can't help the wrong humans! Oh no! They have to hurt those humans! And so they leave those humans in the socioeconomic conditions that maintain exponential population growth indefinitely
In a broad sense this is inaccurate - war has been around as long as humans, and yet we were on an exponential population growth curve until the demographic transitions started.
Over the last century we as a species have significantly reduced child mortality, improved education, infrastructure, overall quality of life, and established reproductive health initiatives that supply condoms and sex education!
These advancements cause the local mortality rate to plummet. Then the following generation gets to reproductive age but has much less offspring, and the reproductive rate falls farther than the mortality rate did.
This is called the "demographic transition" and has occurred across dramatically different cultures, environments, and economies.
This is not universal or inevitable across the globe but the impact is so significant that global population as a whole is currently heading towards a plateau!
Therefore condoms, reproductive healthcare, and distributed economic growth are more effective at reducing population growth than bombs and bullets.
Developing a nation is literally more cost-efficient than destroying it. For the species. Not for the people selling the bombs.
As much as theists would claim that their morals were handed down from divinity, ultimately an athiest would understand those morals to be originally handed down from humans, and therefore humanistic.
Doesn't mean they're good morals of course, especially when corrupted by motives of power, but bad morals can be handed down by secular sources as well. The point being that theistic origins do not necessarily mean the morals themselves are flawed.
In any case, fundamentally the ethics of AA's 12 steps are technically theistic in origin and nomenclature but humanistic in nature, in that they appear to really dig down into the psychology of humans in a way that deviates significantly from their christian roots.
According to Mercadante, however, the AA concept of powerlessness over alcohol departs significantly from Oxford Group belief. In AA, the bondage of an addictive disease cannot be cured, and the Oxford Group stressed the possibility of complete victory over sin.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Alcoholics_Anonymous
The original christian prayer group believed that through God, addiction could be cured. AA has maintained from the beginning that addiction cannot be cured - a recovering alcoholic is and always will be a recovering alcoholic. Faith in God alone will not deliver salvation because addiction is not sin, it is illness, and should be treated by more than just prayer.
You think that the CIA pretends to be an international aid organization for the sake of advancing the interests of checks notes... China? The 3-letter agency that has spent decades building and maintaining American hegemony is now serving that same purpose for a rival nation? And the people that have also spent decades building for this moment to take over the federal government entirely... want to now give their power away? ... what?