You can have all the money, power, and authority, but it doesn’t change the contents of your character. This type of judgement is indicative of low-class at a soul level — if such an impoverished soul makes judgement, it means absolutely nothing in the cosmic scheme of things.

Taking food down to a homeless man on the side of a street and filming it, is noble and worthy of praise but has limited practical impact on your ability to judge the person accurately. He could be doing it for the wrong reasons. He could be doing it for reasons that do not reflect his character.

Someone who is willing to change for his/her colleagues and practically improve the work enviroment is easy to judge favourably. Superficially and cosmically valid or not, a well oiled ship runs on aligning a lot of little 'superficial' parts.

A well oiled ship has not a thing to do with superficial parts. People need to lose this ego & trying to control every little thing about those around them. It is a job, not a church or a dictatorship.

Do the job, be accepting and friendly. And eat your bologna sandwich if you damn well feel like it.

Also, filming yourself doing a good deed like taking food to a homeless person is embarrassing, and completely invalidates the “good deed.” You can easily judge that person. They are exploiting an under-classed human as a tool to further their social status, which anyone with a brain can easily recognize as low-class behavior.

'Anyone with a brain' is not the compliment you think it is.

I can tell you that a lot of coastal techies have stereotypically unrefined tastes in food and wine and they're still successful.

Ours is also a trade in which many are stereotyped as lacking various social skills.

But I’m also from the Midwest and don’t know how to order sushi.

So was I, and everyone thought I was a barbarian.

Spam.

Iceberg lettuce.

It’s not always the case though. The Bengali Brahmins or the Sarasvat Brahmins of Konkan are predominately meat eaters. It’s all mixed up.

For kicks, I'd like to take on your argument for reincarnation.

You argue that there must be a reason some people are born into fortune and others misfortune, otherwise the world would be unjust. And if the world were unjust, then I would be unable to complain when the government is unjust.

But I counter that yes, the world is unjust. Good things happen to bad people, bad things to good people, and we all are born into circumstances that we had no part in shaping. That is the state of nature. But regardless, we can and should create a society and government that seeks to be just.

Your argument assumes that the reader must believe the universe is just to demand that the government is just. But that assumption is unwarranted. Why should I believe in cosmic justice before I demand my government administer justly?

And then it requires a marvelous measure of optimism to hope that this game of semantics will create such a logical quandry for the reader that they will find no other means to resolve the paradox than to imagine first, that there must be a soul or spirit, and second, that that soul is reincarnated after death. What optimism to imagine that an entire metaphysics will be accepted as the solution to this paradox before the reader reconsiders the premises and chain of reasoning that led to this point. I would sooner conclude that the premise that not all humans are born equal is false than accerpt the conclusion of reincarnation. It's a far smaller leap.