As many a policy wonk, politician, and economist has come to learn, this kind of “common sense” understanding of economic behavior is largely useless for understanding the real dynamics underlying economic privilege, employment mobility, and socioeconomic freedom. The *sort* of reasoning you are employing doesn’t map…

“That’s probably when they should start doing some other kind of work.”

The taxi industry =/= taxi drivers.

Great example: A freelancer working 40 hours sets their rates high enough to cover their tax burden. An Uber driver cannot change the rate.

In American usage, reported speech is almost always surrounded by quotation marks that contain the ending punctuation, while dubitative or ‘rabbit-ear’ speech, which is sometimes tagged with phrases like ‘so-called’, is often surrounded by quotation marks that do not contain the ending punctuation. (This latter form…

Genuinely sorry, but I think we’re talking past one another.

<<Fact-checking is not part of the editing process...>>

In the media industries, proofreading is proofing; fact checking is fact checking; legal review is legal review; copy editing is the nuts-and-bolts editorial development of the copying; and “editing” is the broad category ALL of these activities (inter alia) fall into.

Why do you think anothe person’s experience has to map onto a moral scheme of your own devising? I am not arguing for moral relativism, just asking if you think you have really put enough work into the system of moral reasoning you're swing around like a big stick.

Do a quick search on SSRN for published social science research concerning the prevalence of extramarital (or more broadly, nonmonogamous) sexual activity, and let us know what you find.

Well put.

Tim, how are you single?

When you hear so many people indicating that you’ve misread or misunderstood the idea being discussed, what is your response? I suppose I’d like to know, how much time are you spending on considering the possibility that you’re wrong and the majority of your interlocutors are correct in their disagreement with you?

You’re misreading it.

Incredibly, quote might not be concerned with the offense some men might take at hearing this uncomfortable truth.

Not sure what you're replying to, but I think we are on more or less the same page.

So... we agree?

I don't follow. What are you replying to?

I think the situation may be easier to grapple with if the interrogators were sociopaths hell-bent on framing a kid. The more discomforting expanation is that systems which replace human judgment and accountability with procedural authority may as a side effect produce such results. May even, in some corners of the…

Seconded!