>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?

Why should someone’s present self be defined by things entirely out of their control (e.g. childhood trauma)? You seem to assume that “obnoxious people” and “traumatic backstories” go hand-in-hand; on the contrary, some of the most obnoxious people are those who have never faced anything in their lives other than minor and routine inconveniences. Neither person is inherently superior to the other, I’m just saying that I’d personally rather not work at a place that selects exclusively for “perfect” people along a metric unrelated to their job performance.

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!

There isn’t a correlation. I am charming and would like to think generally pleasant to be around. But if you’re going to interrogate me about the entire life story of mine, you aren’t going to think that anymore.

Screening for people with life stories that you/anyone deems acceptable is extremely problematic, because realistically you will never have access to deeply personal information about 90% of your coworkers. As in, you should not be forcing Janet from accounting to disclose to you that she was abused by her stepfather, because if she is a well-adjusted adult it would have absolutely no bearing on your interactions with her at a workplace

You seem to be dealing in absolutes here.

We are talking about specifically work-related scenarios, that usually have pretty straightforward boundaries and surface-level interactions. "All else being equal, a person who enjoyed an idyllic childhood is typically going to be a more well-adjusted adult" - not necessarily in this specific context, people that didn't experience trauma are not immune to being awkward, immature, neurotic, anxious and various other things that makes working with them difficult.

That is not to say that people who have experienced childhood abuse can't have issues with basic human functioning. The point is, neither are necessarily are better or worse to work with just based on their trauma or lack of thereof.

It is irrelevant that people with normal childhoods are statistically more likely to be well-adjusted in most aspects of their lives, because we are only considering workplace interactions.

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.

So who do you vote for?

Hasn't pretty much every republican been caught doing drag in high school?

Edit: it’s always either school spirit week or Halloween

I agree there is no fundamental difference between Democrats and Republicans. It's a disgrace.

The last time our people won an election was in the 30s. It's looking like the next time will be too.

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.

They don't usually advertise it, but you can get a smaller cups than on the menu too. I prefer an 8oz size.

I order from the app, I think both the barista and I prefer to reduce talking. :)

Too insecure to use the size names. That's how it plays...fyi

It's probably more that you don't want a corporation to dictate how you describe (brand) the sizes of a drink where we have near universal language for that purpose already.

Very few people in first world countries though, will be able to balance or surpass negative environmental effects of all the usual things included in raising a child, even with activist lives. Neither will their children.

Indeed, give the environment a fighting chance :)

The absence of people with bad ideas won't help as much as a surplus of people with good ideas. Since even if we had half the people they could still pollute like crazy.

The West, in its impatience to collapse, will leave no man unradicalised.

"We just wanted to watch birds."

Seems like a bit of a leap from the renaming of birds to collapse?

Can you explain the causal chain there?