Well at least you didn’t call my body pasty white, I haven’t been to the lake as much as I wanted this year.

Joking aside, I believe vsauce had a short about this, was useful to get a visual.

Take your fuckin upvote and go hahah

Sounds like you’re in a very rough spot at the moment. Keep going. I won’t promise you everything will be solved, but things will change, inevitably, and change could be better. Good luck.

Agreed! Good chat with you, I enjoy these kinds of conversations, at least with reasonable people hahah. Take care, friend.

I didn’t get any mockery from you directly, no. I have a bit of a sarcastic or overly dramatic flair from time to time, so I do apologize if it came across as aggravated or anything.

I think the most empathetic thing to do for all parties would be to repair the wall. Then no one has to relive this obvious mistake. I’m merely making a case for extending empathy rather than judgement.

For what its worth, yeah, you can be scared of someone who has broken a wall. People react to things differently, I’m not going to say you’re not allowed to, and would quite prefer everyone be treated with respect and empathy. Honestly, though- is having a terror response to a simple broken wall with no context ANY better than (this is from another comment in the thread, I know these aren’t your words) having an anger response to losing at fantasy football?

Edit: ooooh I did say let’s not extend mockery. That was directed at the meme in general, the building mgmt mocking the situation rather than just fixing it.

See, if anything, this comment should be framed and labeled toxic masculinity.

In an effort to extend as much charity and empathy possible, what makes you say that? In my experience, it’s not a hard and fast rule, the people who exploit those emotions are just shitty people. I’ve definitely felt that people were using my own sadness or other emotional vulnerabilities against me, and I’ve felt the opposite - love and support getting through those emotions. I tossed out the people who used me, and kept the ones around who supported me.

Edit: hahah, kinda foot in mouth here, I just realized you’re the guy who posted about Medicare and jobs earlier, and I kinda mocked you here. Imma leave this post as it stands, because I think it’s a good conversation starter. I’ll try to do better moving forward!

I feel you bud. Sometimes life just blindsides you and you need an outlet. I hope things improve for you soon.

Guys point is, we don’t know the why. We only know the what. Sure, I think everyone can agree it’s not the healthiest coping, but I don’t know too many people who choose the healthy option in a state of extreme emotion. Is there ANY scenario you could imagine this being understandable, even if not good or healthy? Lots of people listing scenarios where I could TOTALLY see getting a rather reasonable person into such a mental state.

I’d say taking it out on a toilet stall would fall into at least attempting to not scare someone. Unless you’re like, terrified of property damage you probably didn’t witness happen. It’s a wall in a secluded place designed for privacy. I can EASILY picture a scenario where someone receives bad news, goes to the bathroom to have their mental break in relative privacy, and slams their fist into the wall a bit harder than intended. This looks like one hit to me, so it’s not like they’re sitting there hammering away at the wall. That plaster is EASY to put a hole in. Life is messy, people are generally trying their best, no one got hurt, let’s extend empathy rather than mockery.

No, punching signals anger. Anger doesn’t have to be dangerous - for instance punching a wall, or the floor. Emotions are normal, we don’t always deal with them in the most optimal manner, but I wouldn’t label someone beating up the floor because he just found out he was NOT the father as “dangerous”.

I address all of this in other areas in this thread. I don’t feel like rehashing it with you, given your unwarranted aggression out of the gate. If you want to read some actual rebuttal, go for it. Otherwise, enjoy your life.

I didn’t say it was created to hinder the poor.

I said fines DISPROPORTIONATELY PUNISH THE POOR.

If you have $1000, a $200 fine is 20% of your money.

If you have $2,000,000 a fine of $200 is . 0001% of your money, basically nothing.

This means that, relative to their money, a poorer person hurts more from the same fine. This is a BAD IDEA for enforcing rules everyone is supposed to follow. Essentially, we’re encouraging people to drive slow, unless they can pay the toll for speeding.

There are ways to mitigate this - sliding scale fines, for instance. I personally don’t like fines as punishments in general, though. I’d rather use neutral traffic calming features, that always invariably impact people who use the route the same, and make it a criminal offense to drive recklessly, akin to drunk driving.

There are a lot of clarifying information needed regarding rural fatalities. Are most of the fatalities from people who live in the area, or are they people passing through? What about the proportion of fatal:nonfatal accidents? Is it that you’re less likely to get into an accident, but when you do it’s more likely to be fatal?

Overall, like I said, I don’t really have any ideas for change for rural areas, except maybe limiting the routes trucks can take, and maybe more abundant rest areas. I truly think cars are practically a requirement as you get outside of the city, and don’t really have any notion on how to fix their issues without introducing more or worse ones.

The speed limit, in this scenario, would be set at what is absolutely, inarguably, a dangerous speed. A speed at which NO ONE can argue what you’re doing is dangerous. The bulk of speed management would be done by better urban planning. If no one feels safe going over 50, yeah, you may have the rare dumbass pushing it, but you’re always going to have dumbasses.

((yeah it seems like there’s a down vote hitting each comment in this thread hahah. Fwiw, same sentiments to you, very good points.))

I’m not sure what I said to make you reply about traffic jams? Want to elaborate?

Rural areas are an interesting case, admittedly. Most of my personal suggestions are for urban areas, even so far as my general loathe of cars - they suck in cities but are practically required for rural living.

I’d be curious to see the difference in fatalities for an optimally set up city versus a current rural setup. My gut tells me that, just due to the relatively sparse density of cars, rural driving is already significantly safer, and if you DO drive like shit, you’re likely to only injure yourself.

Ultimately, rural and urban driving are COMPLETELY different beasts, and what works for one doesn’t for another.

Edit: and, any implemented traffic calming measures are only worthwhile if they incorporate pedestrian and bike friendly implementations. Otherwise you’re just trading one problem for another. For instance, instead of just moving the curb inward, keep it where it is and install bollards every 10-15 feet or so, so cars can’t use the area but bikes can.

And as long as the penalty is fines, it’s literally “pay the toll to go fast”. At very best, this leaves a class of people completely unimpacted by traffic enforcement. But, without a drastic change in the public perception of speed limits, we can’t just say “ok 1 mph over is now criminal. Go to jail.” That’ll do way more harm than good.

I can broadly agree with these sentiments. I think speed limits, as they’re implemented right now, are largely folly and should be replaced with something that can’t be abused for revenue. And even if we agree that MOST cameras and speed fines aren’t revenue focused, we HAVE to acknowledge the possibility of abuse.

I think in an ideal world, I’d set speed limits to be higher than they are now - say, (spitballing) 100mph for interstates. It’s HARD enforced, at even 1mph over, and a criminal offense. I know this level of enforcement is already in place, technically - usually speeds like, 20 over are considered criminal - but it’s subject to too much discretion. Those cases need to be enforced almost unilaterally.

From there, addressing the rest of the speed issue is the job of urban planners. Make the roads just not fun(safe, convenient, whatever) to drive at speeds even approaching the limit. From there, enforcement becomes far more justifiable, and will consistently target people driving the most unsafe.

Obviously, reckless driving and other such penalties would be in place, to catch anything else reckless, and that’s going to be case-by-case, still subject to discretion, but at least it’s something.

I don’t disagree with anything you said. Slowing down is a good thing.

The problem I have with this approach is that speed limits either do nothing, or do marginal work compared to designing roads that aren’t able to be driven at excessive speeds. Narrower lanes, chicanes, medians, speed bumps or cushions - all VASTLY more effective at actually slowing traffic than a camera or cop saying “hey! Slow down or pay the toll!”