q_id
stringlengths 6
6
| title
stringlengths 3
299
| selftext
stringlengths 0
4.44k
| category
stringclasses 12
values | subreddit
stringclasses 1
value | answers
dict | title_urls
sequencelengths 1
1
| selftext_urls
sequencelengths 1
1
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
5lsz5b | the bibclical story of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego | *biblical | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dby6r6q",
"dbyh49v",
"dbyan3h"
],
"text": [
"As per the Bible: Babylon invaded the Jewish homeland and took a bunch of them off to Babylon. Some of their names were changed to Babylonian names. The king made a big statue of himself and demanded everyone worship it. Several Jewish men refused on religious grounds. They were thrown into a big furnace to die. They didn't die. When the Babylonians looked in there was an extra person, presumably an angel/Jesus/God/some other divine emissary who was protecting them. Edit: added \"of himself\" for clarity.",
"The hebrews had been conquered by the Babylonians and many were exiled to live in Babylon. Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego were part of this group. They were raised from children to work in the court of the king as bureaucrats. They were allowed to keep their religion worshiping Jehovah. The became very good at their jobs. Meanwhile the King built a great big idol of himself and commanded everyone to worship it or face execution. People jealous of the three snitched on them and they were told to worship the statue or be thrown in a big furnace. The three decided keeping their faith was more important than obeying the king. So they were sentenced to burn. However, because of their faith, God protected them inside the furnace. The king recognized the error of his ways and brought them out and said people could worship God if they wanted. It's actually a pretty short story. It's all here. URL_0",
"curious the reason behind this question, did you catch a reference somewhere?"
],
"score": [
23,
11,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[
"https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Daniel+3"
],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
5ltigl | Why the Nazis were so advanced technologically | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dbyb6z8",
"dbyboeq",
"dbyb5ce",
"dbyb7nu",
"dbyfz3h"
],
"text": [
"They weren't really that advanced technologically, especially not by the end of the war. It's more a case that they were forced to innovate because the treaty following WWI had forbidden them to build a lot of traditional armed forces, so they put all their effort into making the next thing that wasn't specifically mentioned in the treaty. They were also good at using tactics which used the tech they had to best effect. But saying they had the best technology would be a bit like saying the US had a super advanced, practically modern carrier based navy in the Pacific. We didn't, Pearl Harbor just blew everything else to shit so we *had* to adapt to use what was left over, which conveniently turned out to be the future of naval combat anyway.",
"They weren't that advanced compared to the Allies. The British had better radars and the Germans never came up with anything like the Mosquito fast bomber for example. The Germans focused on rocketry because they were forced to. Allied air superiority meant that German bombers couldn't reach London so the V1 and V2 programs were launched. They also had guided bombs but the Allies, who had more advanced electronics, quickly came up with countermeasures. If the Allies had needed to they could have built the same weapons. As it where, they could use their bombers etc. instead. German tanks weren't that more advanced really, early in the war they just had more radios and were deployed better, later in the war they were caught with their pants down by the Soviet T-34. Late war German tanks just had more armor and powerful guns, again a design choice, not a technical limitation of the Allies. The Americans had a more advanced semi-automatic rifle than the German bolt-action rifle that remained the standard throughout the war. Italy and Japan, on the other hand, were generally one step behind the Allies.",
"What aspect are you talking about specifically? People around the world were into rocketry at the time and while Germany had the first jet engine, the US and Britain were both working on it as well. In general, a lot would be because Germany funded many of these projects directly and for years leading up to the war.",
"Germany before the Nazis was an advanced nation with great universities. It's not surprising that the Nazis were able to not screw it up.",
"They weren't, especially not at the end of the war. Anyone who says otherwise is either a History Channel host making money, or a wehraboo circlejerking over \"OMG NAZI TECH SO GOOD.\" They started off a bit more advanced but that was just because they were planning to start a war so they innovated a bit."
],
"score": [
20,
9,
5,
3,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5ltp3s | Were there any groups aligned with the Axis powers that are still around today? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dbydkw4",
"dbyknfk",
"dbydb7b"
],
"text": [
"The Emperor of Japan is still nominally head of state in Japan, and of the same line as Emperor Showa (Hirohito) who was ruler of Japan from the 20s until his death in 89. I'm assuming by 'groups aligned' you're meaning without significant change in leadership, since the former axis powers are still around, but have had changes to new modes of government. Of course, Japan has too, but I figured since we've still got the same family 'on top' it might count for you.",
"Finland is still around today too. They sided with the Nazis in WWII because they hated them less than the Russians. That attitude is still true in Finland today.",
"I may have misread your question. If you mean what countries were aligned with Japan, Germany, and Italy that are still around today then the answer is yes. Bulgaria, Hungary, Romania, and Thailand are all still in existence."
],
"score": [
15,
5,
5
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5lu9ye | why some countries spice a lot their food and others don't? | I mean, it doesn't look like their cultures are related, and they even spice their food with different ingredients... Meanwhile, nearby countries don't seem influenced by their spicing even when having the same cultural roots and/or similar naturally appearing spicy foods (those countries look like they even grow and select the ingredients to be spicier). I'm really curious about what it could mean culturally | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dbyhqu4"
],
"text": [
"Typically countries use a lot of spice when spices grow well in their climate, or when their climate is very warm and thus foods are prone to go bad. Countries with neither of these attributes tend to have mild food, other than immigrant groups who came from spicy-food countries."
],
"score": [
4
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
5lutqf | Why are "The birds and the bees" associated with sex? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dbymw7w"
],
"text": [
"No one is quite sure. Some say it was inspired by a Samuel Coleridge poem, others a Cole Porter song, where racial slurs where hastily replaced with animals. Others say it is simply an allusion to springtime and fertility, or refers to how birds and especially bees spread pollen. What is clear that in the early 20th Century, it became a running joke about parents trying to use vague euphemisms to awkwardly and unsuccessfully explain sex to their children. That, more than sex itself, it was the birds and the bees have come to mean."
],
"score": [
10
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5lvcs4 | Does religious tithing create any legal obligation for the church to the contributor? | When I pay insurance, I gain legal rights to reimbursement. When I buy membership in a club or organization, I also get certain benefits that can be legally defended. Do formal regular church tithe contributions entitle a person to any legal rights? For example, partial ownership of church assets, access to facilities, welfare support when requested, counselling, etc. | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dbyr086",
"dbyqvqy",
"dbyqybu",
"dbyr2ua"
],
"text": [
"Not unless they are made legally explicit by some contract. Legally speaking, a tithe is a voluntary charitable contribution to a non-profit organization. Many churches claim they are required by the bible, and some even track them and deny you church services if you don't pay. But like any other charitable contributions, tithing does not grant legal rights.",
"Legal rights, no. However, the church may sometimes have some political pulling power and some donors may use their tithes almost like a lobbyist would",
"No. Tithing is a gift, and therefore it does not impose any obligations on the recipient. However, some religious establishments have a yearly *membership fee* or similar. That's not purely a tithe, and it entitles the payer to whatever the establishment has said its membership includes.",
"Tithes are legally donations and thus there's no legal responsibility held by the religious organization to you. They can use the money only for the church if they don't want to be taxed on it. These laws likely vary but they have to do with a religious organization's responsibility to the government, not to its members (donating ones or otherwise)"
],
"score": [
9,
3,
3,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
5lwtp7 | Why did bands in the 60s and 70s release albums at least once a year, but nowadays it's only about every 3 years? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dbz3uzz",
"dbz3fep"
],
"text": [
"My impression: Musicians earn a much greater share of their money touring now and are less dependent on record sales. Arena shows didn't really take off until the mid 70s and stadium tours became more of a thing in the 80s. Add to that the fact that a global tour with concerts every couple days is much easier to pull off now than in the 60s both because of travel logistics and the more globalized music culture, and the result is bands beating an album like a dead horse trying to get as much play out of it as possible because they can do a 3 month tour of Asia that would have been impossible in the 60s. To a lesser degree, I think it's impacted by the fact that many albums are more heavily produced now. A lot of 60s albums were a couple weeks of recording in a single studio and then mastering. Now artists seem to deconstruct and reconstruct songs over the course of months at various studios with band mates popping in and out, sometimes each playing their part individually rather than just cutting a live take with everyone. For an entertaining documentary about a rock band recording a highly regarded modern album you could check out the Wilco movie \"I Am Trying To Break Your Heart\". That's just my impression as a music fan. I might be dead wrong. No insider knowledge.",
"some artists still release albums once a year or every other year. a lot of it now is that artists don't make much money off of album sales, the majority of the money comes from Touring. So, they release an album, then tour in support of it for a year or two, then back to the studios to record a new album, that they can then go on tour in support of."
],
"score": [
5,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5lww71 | How was it possible to avoid the draft during the Vietnam war by going to Canada? Couldn't you just move or ignore official induction notices? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dbz48k9"
],
"text": [
"If you stayed in the USA and ignored a summons for induction eventually the local board of the selective service would send a notice to the Sheriff of your county that you had not responded in a timely fashion. The deputies are and were used to people who fail to appear. It is their bread and butter. They would go to your home and make inquiries of your parents and siblings. Unless you did not tell them where you were going they were obligated to tell the deputies of your destination and new address. Periodically they would return and make further inquiries. Everyone at your home would have to carefully avoid learning how to contact you. Now you have moved and need a job. Your SSN is flagged. If you work and have withholding taken out someone will come calling. Most people reasoned that eventually they would be caught and apprehended. So most people just moved to Canada. Canada did not have to pursue draft dodgers. It was possible to go to school, work, date, marry and do anything else except return to the USA. A man could also claim CO status. After a hearing and a determination that the CO status was justified there would be a determination of what to do. Some were sentenced to work for a number of years. I knew one who went to Italy to work, wound up in Holland, married, and eventually returned to the States with his bride. Others worked psychiatric hospitals."
],
"score": [
6
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5lxj21 | Why do many female dresses include bare backs? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dbz871x",
"dbz9ran"
],
"text": [
"Be... Because it looks nice? This is a pretty odd question for ELI5.",
"Because it reveals more of the skin, which could be considered attractive, but also doesn't reveal anything that could be considered directly sexy. (like breasts) Because women want to look attractive even in higher class, but also don't want to look like prostitutes. Revealing their back can be visually appealing and at the same time not \"trashy.\""
],
"score": [
8,
7
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5lzjgc | What's the difference between the Talmud and the Torah, in Judaism, and which is more closely followed?(IE if one contradicts the other, which has more weight?) | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dbzllyl",
"dbznx3c"
],
"text": [
"The Torah is the primary holy book of Judaism. It is generally considered the first five books of the Christian Bible, although it can mean different things to different people. The Talmud is primarily rabbinical commentary about the Torah. The Talmud contains applications of the law and advice on how to live. There shouldn't be any contradictions between the two, but if there were the Torah would be the primary source.",
"The Torah is the foundation document, like the US Constitution. The Talmud contains the important commentaries about what it means, like the decisions of the US Supreme Court. When the Torah is bound as a book, it is also called the Old Testament bible. It's a familiar size and shape. A complete set of Talmud in English is 70+ volumes."
],
"score": [
16,
4
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5m04iq | why do people think its okay to leave trash at there table at a fast food resturant?? or to throw trash randomly onto the parking lot?? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dbzq7o6"
],
"text": [
"Some people simply can't be bothered to pick up after themselves. No one can arrest them for leaving a tray out, and usually they see it as a waste of time. They are receiving no benefit from throwing their trash away, and some believe that it isn't even their job anyway. All in all, people are lazy asses that don't really care about your job."
],
"score": [
6
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5m0m0n | Why is modern pornography so vulgar and violent compared to vintage pornography, which was more focused on intimacy? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dbzu5wh",
"dbzu8sn"
],
"text": [
"I would assume because people got desensitized to the way porn was shown in the past, and it just escalated over time. Like the DragonBallZ effect it has to be bigger and better every time. As people become desensitized they need something even more intents to get them off.",
"It hasn't. There is still a market out there for the more romantic porn. Issue is standing out in a market that is overwhelmed by producers and where nearly 100% of the content is available for free (even if only through illegal downloads). Plus as society becomes more accepting of certain sexuality what was once way too obscene becomes less obscene and now people feel comfortable filming it."
],
"score": [
9,
5
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5m1lc9 | Why do Serbs Croations and Bosnians hate each other? | I know they were once Yugoslavia but now that they are three separate entities why do they still hate each other? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dc04s5x",
"dc04rpb"
],
"text": [
"Firstly, it's not like they all hate each other. Disclaimer aside: There is a lot of cultural and religious tension from having three major religions in the same area (Catholic, Orthodox, Islam), which create cultural divisions that go back many centuries. They were all split up by major countries (Ottomans, Austro-Hungarians, Venetians), and developed different values, ideas, folk stories, worldviews, etc... and occupied for hundreds of years. Then suddenly they are put together into one country (which became Yugoslavia), after WW1. They are told to be \"one people, one country\" after WW2 when the communists won. The communists under Tito suppressed nationalism and religion and basically made everyone behave, since what mattered was national unity. When Tito, the head-honcho, died, no one else could step in to keep the country together and all those differences and old issues came back to the surface and they fought a series of vicious wars in the 1990s. There's still a lot of mistrust because of that. I wouldn't say they \"hate\" each other, generally, although there are sizable minorities in each community that do hate the other. I think there's a lot of fresh wounds still healing from the wars, and it's going to take a long time to heal them.",
"For the same reason other neighbouring countries dislike each other. I.e. Japan, Korea and China. Or France, Germany and England. Or Poland, Ukraine and Russia. Most of the animosity has faded between these countries by now, especially in Europe, but Serbia, Bosnia and Croatia was a very recent breakup/war. It was only a little over 20 years ago that Serbs were butchering Bosnians left and right, because they wanted to carve out a new Serbia from the rest of the Balkans, and because Bosnians are largely Muslim. As a result of the fairly recent conflict, tensions still run pretty high."
],
"score": [
9,
6
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
5m3q27 | Why do American judicial courts still have Judges if it's the Jury who decides over guilty or not guilty? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dc0lfvr",
"dc0urad",
"dc0ltvn",
"dc0y5p4",
"dc1164g",
"dc0krhi",
"dc0urnt"
],
"text": [
"In most any legal proceeding, there are questions of **fact** and questions of **law**. My answer will focus primarily on criminal law. Let's look at an example of a man who was arrested for selling what he thought was cocaine, but lab tests later revealed that the substance was only baking powder. Here we have a question of law. Does somebody commit the crime of intent to distribute cocaine if the substance they were selling wasn't cocaine, but they thought it was? Or must the charges be dismissed? The judge is the **finder of law**. His or her job is to answer the legal questions posed by the situation. Let's say that the judge determined that thinking that what you have is cocaine is enough for the charge to stand. The case proceeds to trial, and a jury is selected. The jury is the **finder of fact**. Their job is to listen to the evidence, and decide if the government has proven, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant did intend to distribute cocaine. They don't deal with the legal issues. Their only job is to consider what actually *happened*. Judges also maintain other roles. They maintain order in the courtroom, rule on the admissibility of evidence, and deal with everything that happens before and after the trial (taking guilty pleas, setting dates, hearing motions, considering sentencing). In some situations, the defendant will ask for the judge to decide the entire case, without a jury. In other situations, the defendant is not even entitled to a jury, and the judge is automatically the finder of both law and fact.",
"I was a public defender (trial attorney) for 5 years, here's a short (I'll do my best but attorneys tend to talk a lot) version of what judges do. First thing's first. There's A LOT that happens that aren't trials. Depending on where you live in the states 95-99% of criminal cases are resolved with plea deals and never have a trial, and therefore no jury is ever assigned. Judges in these situations typically just keep things moving (make sure the police files are getting sent over in time and that lawyers are doing what they need to do in a timely manner), make sure that the accused understands their rights and the plea they are taking or rejecting, and then sentencing. Sentencing is a big part of the judge's job. Unlike television most states don't let people agree to a specific sentence in a plea, you have to have a range of sentencing (i.e. you don't sign a pea to four years in prison, you sign a plea to 3-5). Judges decide the sentence within that range and are required to give sentences \"specific\" to the circumstances. This typically means they read briefs from both attorneys on the facts and additionally have the accused submit to an interview regarding their life circumstances, which can be quite time consuming given that a judge is probably giving 5-20 sentences a day. Trial actually doesn't have a ton of work for judges (I've had judges fall asleep in trial), their main responsibility there is to rule on objections. 90% of these are very straight forward and literally take seconds to resolve. The other 10% are supposed to be handled before trial (called motions in limine) and take maybe an hour, though I have seen the occasional one take an entire day. Other than that they don't do much in trial, it's pretty much the attorney's show (A lot of judges don't really like trials, they have a lot of work to do and don't really like just sitting around watching the trial). Another redditor mentioned \"questions of law,\" and while they are technically correct it's worth pointing out that questions of law are generally handled by appellate judges not trial level judges. Trial level judges don't really have the authority to decide questions of law, instead attorney's brief them on the state of law and then the judge applies what appears to be the most relevant and recent law to the current situation. For example if you go to a judge and say 'the police searched me illegally' the judge doesn't say the police should or shouldn't have done what they did, they just find the most similar existing case-law and follow that decision. Appellate courts at the highest level (Supreme Court of the U.S. and various states) will decide true questions of law. They are the only ones with the authority to change existing legal rulings and decide what the rule is in new unheard-of situations. This is all pretty simplified though. **TL;DR** Am lawyer, would guess 90% of what a judge does is sentencing and making sure cases move through the system quickly.",
"Judges still make many decisions. They rule on motions, they can dismiss jurors, decide what juries can see or hear. Judges have to make sure that all of the procedures and rules are followed so that a guilty verdict will not be reversed on appeal. And a judge has the power to throw out a jury verdict if he thinks they got it wrong. We need judges since there are bench trials, no jury, the judge decides the verdict. Although due to mandatory minimums and sentencing laws limit judges power, they still have some power in sentencing. In the US, over 90% of cases don't go to trial, they are settled by a plea agreement between the prosecutor and the defense. The judge must approve any deal.",
"Judges make rulings of law. Juries make findings of fact. A judge will say \"if your actions were intentional, your crime is first degree murder, with special circumstances that make you eligible for the death penalty\". A jury will say \"we don't believe the your foot slipped, we think you ran over those preschoolers on purpose\".",
"Imo, explaining it like I'm 5 would be using an analogy: Players determine the outcome of the game, but they still have referees/umpires to make sure the rules are followed",
"judges instruct the jury and maintain order over the court. You know, on Tv, when they shout objection and the judge rules on it and tells the jury to disregard what they just heard because its not legally admissible.",
"People can still request a \"Bench Trial\" if they dont want the hassle of dealing with a Jury. Especially in cases where the defendant might be more prone to a bias situation based on the charge. IE: I was tried for sex crimes. I knew based on my own personal feelings that if I were on a trial and the defendant was on for sex crimes I might have an initial negative (bias) that I might not be able to overcome. Fearing that I might get a jury of people like that, I opted for a bench trial in the hopes that the judge would see past the feelings of the case and only deal with the facts. I lucked out. While I was still convicted, I spent no time in jail."
],
"score": [
317,
49,
18,
12,
5,
5,
4
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5m4g2a | How are those 'scam' ads that claim to provide free technology able to exist? | Such as: click here to win a free iPhone. | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dc0wyb5"
],
"text": [
"This is all that I've understood from my research and interest; please correct me if I'm incorrect: The most common reason for this that I've found is that it's usually a scam backed up by a small team of people (typically located in India) trying to convince people to send them gift card codes and PayPal money. These \"tech people\" usually begin by buying out fake ads and scam ads, or by writing the code to make these ads themselves. The ads typically have features such as inserting a custom voice over, disable the close out/X button, create pop up dialogs, and open new tabs. One of the common pop-up tabs are the \"you've won a new iPhone\" ads. Usually these will either ask you to answer a \"survey\" or to call a number. In both cases, it is just an attempt to extract information from you for them to sell to other people. Since these people typically have these ads linked up to their servers, they can do with it as they please. Of course, this type of activity can be shut down and a little exposure will certainly scare them away. As a result, you will not typically see this type of ad from one specific source for long, but rather it is simply different people trying to use the same scam, making it seem like this type of spam is just ignored and permitted to exist online."
],
"score": [
3
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
5m4m6v | Why do the Oscars award movies from the previous year? | Why is it called "Oscars 2016" if it awarded movies from 2015? I know they are done in the first few months of the year, but shouldn't they award the best movies/actors/etc from the respective year? Thanks in advance for any and all responses. | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dc0si9m",
"dc0t2s7"
],
"text": [
"They're held around the end of February. If they held Oscar's 2017, awarding only movies from 2017, they would only have two months of movies to award. Then, when February 2018 came around, they would miss the other 10 months of films of 2017 because they could only focus on films released in 2018 (a 2 month span)",
"Oscars should be handed out 5 years later. Avoid the hype, look back at the quality, see what lasts. Avoid any embarassing CRASH scenarios."
],
"score": [
6,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
5m4nrr | Why is metal coins cheaper than paper/bills? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dc0t7ul"
],
"text": [
"The initial cost of printing a bill may be cheaper than minting a coin, but coins can last much longer in currency because they are more durable. Paper notes get torn, washed, or crinkled and need to be replaced every few years, whereas coins will last decades. When was the last time you saw a paper bill from 1970 vs a coin from the same year? While the production cost of an individual bill is cheaper than a coin, the longevity of a coin will make it cheaper over the lifetime (amount of years you can use it for) versus a paper bill."
],
"score": [
6
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5m5mzn | What kind of work do monks in an abbey do? | I've found tons of info about the daily schedules of monks and the various names for their different prayer times, but there's an oft ambiguous part just titled "manual labor" and I am curious outside of the religious practices, what kinds of work do monks tend to do? Mostly interested in European self-sustained abbeys. | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dc0z9to",
"dc10gz1",
"dc10m7x",
"dc11y0v",
"dc1d9xx",
"dc12f6f",
"dc10z87",
"dc11jof"
],
"text": [
"If it is self sustained abbey it is probably farming. Then it could be cleaning and general upkeep of the abbey buildings.",
"They do everything that doesn't need to be contracted out. This includes construction, maintenance, in some cases, farming, everything. From my experience at a Vajrayana retreat center, there are no days off. Not if there is still something to be done after the last task/project. Many westerners get burnt out if not already turned off by this aspect. For the Tibetans, though, it's how they've always lived.",
"For Christian orders, it depends on the order. An abbey I went on retreat to once sold pottery that the monks made to raise extra money.",
"Brewing, Making Jam, Winemaking, Farming, contracting, the list goes on. Some are self sustaining others have a business to make money. Depends on the Abbey Here is an abbey in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan URL_0",
"In addition to what others have said about the work monks do to support themselves (teaching, making jams/fruitcakes/coffins/honey, etc.), there is the daily running of the Abbey. Sacristans take care of the church and religious services. Guest Master welcomes and sees to the guests. Kitchen Master oversees the meals/menus/kitchen staff. The porter answers the door and maybe the main phone line. The business manager oversees the financial office(s). There is often an Infirmarian who may be a nurse or nurse practicioner who oversees the in-house infirmary and/or nursing home. Then you've got the choir master who outlines the liturgies (religious ceremonies) and works with the choir and instrumentalists. You've got an Oblate Director who manages/organizes programs with people who live on their own, but have a strong, committed tie to the Abbey. The Development director oversees things like endowments and publicity. Then there's the monk who oversees the groundskeeping and maybe indoor maintenance, though they may be two jobs, depending on how large of an Abbey it is. There is the Abbot who is like president/rector of the community who is overseeing it all and has the big picture in mind. Also, there is the Novice Master who works with new members who join, and the Vocations Director who engages with people out in the world who are interested in learning more about joining the Abbey. I am sure I am forgetting some others... In Catholic monasteries, which I'm mostly talking about, some monks are priests, so they will often serve in priestly roles at local parishes, hospitals, prisons, schools, convents, etc. So, you've got the stuff that the monks do to support themselves and then the basic housekeeping stuff that is required by a religious community.",
"The school I went to was also a monastery. Some of the monks taught religion class. The Principal was a monk, so was the Dean, another of them was the table tennis coach.",
"In the abbeys here manual labour would be maintenance of the grounds and buildings, tending their gardens and the most important one, brewing beer.",
"There is a group of Trappist monks near me who sustain themselves by brewing beer. I'm not a beer drinker, but it's supposed to be pretty good."
],
"score": [
43,
31,
17,
15,
15,
9,
6,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.freep.com/story/news/columnists/john-carlisle/2016/01/23/monks-making-jam-in-upper-peninsula-monastery/78371442/"
],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
5m6inl | why do Americans stop supporting their children and want them to move at 18 years old, and other cultures children stay at home until after marriage or until 30+? What caused these discrepancies? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dc18apd",
"dc14zt1",
"dc14xke",
"dc1cnsc",
"dc17hs7"
],
"text": [
"I think the shift occurred in the 40s and 50s. Young men coming back from the war could afford cheap houses in a brand new suburb and a car to get them back to the city for work. Of course, back then people also got married fairly young. As for they \"why\", I think a lot of it was marketing. A lot of \"American Values\" come from old marketing campaigns. But you can see why from a real estate developer's and car or appliance manufacturer's point of view creating as many separate households as possible is \"good for the economy.\" If you're parents have a big house near your job, I recommend living with them as long as possible as a sort of revolutionary act. You can help them pay down their mortgage faster, which reduces the amount paid in interests to the bankers which reduces income inequality (assuming your not already richer than the bankers.) Ultimately, your inheritance will be larger that way assuming your dad doesn't blow the extra money on booze.",
"\"The American Dream\", basically, that you can own a home and have a family at a young age. However, I grew up in Hawai`i, where even three generations living together wasn't rare, but that's because it's expensive.",
"It's a sign of self-sufficiency, which parents wish for their kids to have. But it's definitely not a singular US-phenomenon. The same is true for lots of Germans (and probably most other western cultures).",
"It comes from a specific law: The 1940's GI Bill. After World War 2, the government passed a bill which gave returning veterans substantial resources to purchase a home, open a business, or go to college. Since we are talking about an enormous chunk of American men in their late teens and early 20s here, it meant there was suddenly a demand for affordable housing and the economic resources to own a car and live farther from the city center. So with cheap housing, suddenly it was encouraged and achievable for young men with high school educations to own property - so the culture followed.",
"In America By 18 you're legally an adult and you should be done with high school. At that point you pretty much have nothing to do but work unless you go into the military or straight to college and even then many people work during college to help pay for it. So at that point it's traditionally seen that you can take care of yourself and can become independent of your parents. In reality though in today's world it doesn't really work like that most young people get low paying entry / service jobs which in many cases you really can't afford to live off (especially since min wage hasn't kept up with inflation) + if you went to college and finished (or not) you likely have a massive amount of money you owe from loans and you have to make payments on that. So it's actually pretty common for people to live with their parents much longer then 18. It's normal quite frankly for people to struggle during this time period and staying with your parents can be a big boon. Now if you do reach 18 and your not doing one or a combo of those three pillars then people are gonna give you sideways looks for being lazy in which case your parents may push to get you out of the house. Generally though if a person is doing productive things their parents will generally support them in anyway they can up to a point."
],
"score": [
35,
31,
8,
7,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5m6lec | why are automatic cars commonplace in the US whereas we never see any in Europe? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dc15l7j"
],
"text": [
"Automatic transmissions, you mean? They are not as popular in Europe, but certainly not \"never seen\". It mostly has to do with engine power and gas prices. Until recently, automatic transmissions have sapped a lot of engine power due to their construction. It meant that an automatic car, with the same engine, was slower and consumed more fuel than a manual-gearbox car. In America fuel prices have always been much cheaper (mostly because of the way taxes work), so people didn't care as much about the difference, and just got a car with a bigger engine. Another aspect is that in America, the training for a driver's license is very basic. Everybody has to have a driver's license because of the distances and the lack of public transport, and you only need to show basic ability to control the car. This is much easier with an automatic transmission. In Europe, getting a driver's license requires (by law) a much more intensive training period, and the exams are more strict. So European drivers have the training time to learn how to use a manual gearbox. If you take the license exam on a manual-gearbox car, you can drive both a manual and an automatic. But if you take an exam in Europe on an automatic-gearbox car, you get a special mark on your license that says you're not allowed to drive a manual car."
],
"score": [
17
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5m6qy3 | Why isn't Austria absorbed into Germany? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dc17mec",
"dc16div",
"dc1gb0f"
],
"text": [
"I believe it was one of the conditions at the end of WW2. Germany and Austria would not be allowed to unite. (Plus Austria was under Soviet military occupation until 1953.) Culturally, even southern Germany is quite distinct from the Berlin-Hamburg-Cologne regions. Even the language is distinct! My friends from Bremen say they can't understand Austrians. In the European Union, Austria just doesn't have any good reason to want to join Germany. It already has free trade, freedom of movement, Austrians watch German television. Independence is all upside and no downside. Austria is rich enough to not need subsidies from the German central budget. Really, it's like asking why isn't Canada absorbed into the USA.",
"Why should it be? They're two separate sovereign states with different cultures, industries, and histories.",
"The history is very complicated, but boiling it down to one defining moment, it's because Austria and Prussia disagreed over how to administer Schleswig-Holstein. At least, that was the excuse. At the time, the German-speaking countries had come together in the German Confederacy, but there was a snag: the Austro-Hungarian Empire was half in, half out, with the German-speaking parts a nation state of the German Confederacy, but the rest on the outside. The Austro-Hungarian Empire simply didn't want to split to make unification possible. The German Confederacy went to war against Denmark for the territories of Schleswig and Holstein and won, but Austria immediately started an argument with Prussia over how they should be governed -- and so began the Austro-Prussian War of 1866. At the end of it, Prussia emerged the dominant power, the German Confederation disbanded, and a new North German Confederation was formed, which excluded Austria, Bavaria and some other southern states. Eventually, most of the other states joined the new Confederacy to found the German Empire, but Austria, still part of its own Austro-Hungarian Empire, didn't. But it had problems of its own, because it had many different ethnic groups within it (Austrians and Hungarians, obviously, but there were many others). Austria-Hungary went so far as to annexe Bosnia, a Bosnian Serb assassinated a member of the Austrian aristocracy, Austria-Hungary declared war on Serbia, and so the First World War began. After the war, Austria was identified as one of the countries at fault, and forced to sign a treaty, the Treaty of Saint-Germain-en-Laye. The Empire was dissolved, the monarchy abolished, Austria became a republic and was forbidden from entering into a union with any other country without the agreement of the League of Nations. And so it remained, unable to unite with Germany as punishment for its part in starting WW1."
],
"score": [
7,
3,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5m8wq4 | Legally, what are the requirements for an action to be considered a "hate crime"? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dc1p4w7"
],
"text": [
"For the purposes of collecting statistics, the FBI has defined a hate crime as a “criminal offense against a person or property motivated in whole or in part by an offender's bias against a race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, ethnicity, gender, or gender identity.” Source: [ URL_1 ]( URL_0 )"
],
"score": [
7
],
"text_urls": [
[
"https://www.fbi.gov/investigate/civil-rights/hate-crimes",
"fbi.gov"
]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5m938l | How and why did cannabis come to be illegal? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dc1qx9k"
],
"text": [
"because of systemic political racism. back in the 1930's, mexicans and blacks smoke weed. white people didn't. so weed was make illegal to have a reason to put mexicans and blacks in jail."
],
"score": [
6
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5m93ty | Why some parts of the country call it "pop", others "soda", and others "coke". There must be a backstory. | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dc1r2sq"
],
"text": [
"Coke is specifically used around Atlanta since there's where the Coke plant is, from there is spread to the surrounding regions. It's similar to how people say \"kleenix\" or \"Band-Aid\" instead of \"facial tissue\" or \"adhesive medical bandage\"."
],
"score": [
3
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5ma08n | Why did ancient sculptors never sculpt any aroused male subjects? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dc1ycmk",
"dc1z5f5",
"dc20k23"
],
"text": [
"They did. All the time. The statues with erections don't tend to end up in art history books, unless you are studying fertility art, but they existed. Here's a link to a Google image search: URL_0",
"You can thank the Catholic Church, a few Popes in the 1600's started literally wacking dicks off statues in response to the Protestant Reformations which lead to the use of the fig leaves to cover body parts. There are some who directly blame Pope Pius IX as the biggest dick hater, he had countless works of art sullied because he didn't want it corrupting minds.",
"If im remembering correctly a small penis back then was a sign of a level headed nature, sharp wit, and a keen intelect. Kind of how back in the day pale skin and being overweight was a sign of royalty or just someone who had cash to burn."
],
"score": [
42,
16,
15
],
"text_urls": [
[
"https://www.google.com/search?q=ancient+statues+with+erections&client=ms-android-verizon&prmd=isvn&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj7i_i-l6zRAhXRfiYKHSgQCdUQ_AUIBygB&biw=360&bih=560"
],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5mbck2 | Why did early traders sail around the southern horn of Africa, when traveling to China and India, rather than make the *very* short land trip through what is now the Suez Canal? | Edit: Thanks for the insight everybody. I guess I wasn't considering the fundamental math/physics behind shipping and travel. The cost (money and energy, as in joules) of travelling across 120 miles / 200 km is so much greater than sailing that it's cheaper to sail the thousands of miles around Africa. In particular, the amount of cargo being transported made the land route even more ineffective. | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dc29ws9",
"dc29v58",
"dc2bvxo",
"dc2a13v"
],
"text": [
"On a boat, you can have thousands of pounds of goods and don't need anyone to carry it. It's floating. Your crew can sleep while you continue moving. You don't need to brave the incredibly brutal terrain of Egypt. You don't need to feed and care for the hundreds of animals that may be needed to carry your cargo holds. And also - what do you do with your boat? YOU NEED THAT when you get to the other side, and it's how they got there in the first place. It's not like they could dismantle it and bring it along across the desert.",
"Because they had very large loads in their ships. They would have had to unload their ships them carry all of their cargo to a ship on the other side to continue their journey",
"One reason that hasn't been mentioned yet is the fall of Constantinople to the Ottoman Turks in the mid 1400s. This closed off the overland trade routes that had run through the Byzantine Empire. That's one of the reasons for the search for a Western route to the far east which led to the European discovery of the Americas. It was hoped that this Western route via the Atlantic Ocean would be shorter than going around Africa",
"While the vikings could move their longships a short ways on land, it turns out that it's a lot harder to drydock a galley, place it on a galley-sized ship moving contraption, and move it 120 miles overland. Alternatively: Because they didn't have a boat once they got to the other side. I'm not really sure why they didn't simply dock on the north side, then hop in another ship on the south side. But that's probably a hard thing to coordinate. The king of the Dutch couldn't simply hop onto expedia or Uber and request an Iranian boat pick them up in 2 months. ...Yeah, you'd think they'd trade with Egyptians who would trade with Indians or Chinese ships. But alas, there wasn't a uniform level of development and the west was a couple steps ahead in naval trading at the time. You didn't see too many Indian traders or Junks parking in London."
],
"score": [
9,
3,
3,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
5md4zz | are pranks we see on TV/youtube a legal thing to do? | I have seen so many pranks on unsuspecting people and I would dread to be in their position. More specifically, is there any law against the main elements of pranks: - real scaring of unsuspecting people - police impersonation - public showing of the whole altercation | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dc2nng2"
],
"text": [
"> real scaring of unsuspecting people Unlikely to be illegal just on its own if no physical or long-term emotional harm was caused. However, depending on the nature of the prank it could be interpreted as a breach of the peace, which would be illegal. > police impersonation Impersonating a police officer is a crime in almost every single country. > public showing of the whole altercation People have a right to film in a public place and there are no specific laws that prohibit the sharing of footage taken in a public place that includes members of the public. In general, you don't have a reasonable expectation of privacy while in a public place unless there are obvious reasons, e.g. a public toilet."
],
"score": [
5
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
5mf82w | Why are so many nail salons and shops in the United States commonly owned by Asian immigrants? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dc3b057",
"dc35yqr",
"dc3dvnp",
"dc37niw",
"dc3flwj",
"dc3a4m5",
"dc3c3s1",
"dc3lzgw",
"dc3hfc5",
"dc3b3rd",
"dc35vqi",
"dc3a7b9",
"dc3t401",
"dc3htmc",
"dc3hzm9",
"dc387td",
"dc3fcsl",
"dc3g1v1",
"dc3bzpa",
"dc3ypxa",
"dc3w7ny",
"dc3igb3",
"dc36ghq",
"dc47t5l",
"dc3gpor",
"dc3vmlb",
"dc3h2kl",
"dc44zkj"
],
"text": [
"Once a community of people has established themselves within an industry, they will help other members of the same community to expand their business within that industry. So the owners of Korean or Vietnamese owned nail salons will help their friends and family to open more nail salons, South Asian/Middle Eastern bodega owners and taxi drivers will help their friends and family to open more bodegas, or buy more taxis. Many industries within a city, state or region will become dominated by a single or a few close-knit communities of people helping each other to maintain dominance in that industry. [EDIT: typos]",
"Tippi Hedren wanted to help Vietnamese refugee women in SoCal, and after they showed an interest in her manicure, she started a training program for them with a beauty school and her beautician. Those women started offering their services for lower prices and passed on their training to their children and so on.",
"Besides what's already been explained, I'll just pitch in a bit of anecdotal explanation: Mother's been in the nail industry for over a decade and owned her own salon for two years, I myself have been involved at the front/in business management for about five years. Despite her college education in Korea, her foreign degree amounted to essentially nothing at the time we arrived in the US (2000s). With few roots in the country and therefore almost no connections to get her a stable job, she stumbled upon the nail industry via a fellow church member (Korean churches and other similar monocultural institutions are invaluable resources for new immigrants in the US). The work was relatively easy, obtaining licenses wasn't too difficult (plus she could work unlicensed and learn in a real-time environment), and there were tons of other fellow Koreans in a similar situation, meaning she had coworkers she could communicate clearly with and learn from quickly. Time goes on, she gets better at the work and becomes fully licensed with lots of experience, climbs up to a managerial position but still works just as much as other employees. Work starts to get harder, more stressful with managing employees and the inevitable side-eye/dislike that comes with being a boss of sorts. She gets tired of the talking behind her back and finds herself starting to disagree with the owner, decides that starting her own business may be the best option for herself (to rest her deteriorating wrist because of work and get away from the whole gossip drama thing). Buys a pre-existing nail salon from Chinese owners, sets up shop. A commenter in here was asking why Asian immigrants seem to be more disposed to this work than others, and as another commenter explained, it seems to be purely because of tradition/a long-established status quo. I have seen a number of black-owned/employed shops and white-owned/employed shops, but they're often associated with higher/lower costs/quality. Guess Asians are just the standard given their long history in the industry? Also want to add that because so many salons are Asian, so are salon supply stores -- stronger communication/language compatibility between supply store and salon means possibly better prices and service, so this may deter some non-Asians from utilizing the often cheaper supply stores, raising their costs and so on.",
"According to my mom, the money is very good. Many of them are lacking in education and strong English skills, so more \"traditional\" jobs are hard to attain because of this fact. Working at a nail salon, you can bank up to 65k a year (before tax), although that's in the upper echelon of what you can make. Not bad for a job that doesn't require much education and English, outside of passing your certifications.",
"Already saw Tippi Hedren mentioned here and her contribution to training the Vietnamese women refugees to become beauticians. As more and more refugees arrived, they all got into the trade because of the refugees that arrived before and were trained. Made the language barrier a little easier to overcome and established steady jobs. Another interesting story similar is how most donut shops came to be owned and operated by Cambodians. [Ted Ngoy]( URL_0 ) fell in love with donuts after working at a Winchell's, worked his way up and eventually opened up his own store. Started to hire Cambodian refugees and had them operate all of his stores through handshake agreements.",
"It has extremely low barriers to entry, and family members can be leveraged to increase profitability even if they cannot speak full English. They can often get paid better there than other places without English. It is also transferrable to many parts of the country and popular in nicer parts of town. Laundromats are similar but require higher capital expenditure.",
"Slightly off-topic, but in the UK there have been hundreds of cases of nail salons found to have been involved in human trafficking, mostly Vietnamese girls, who are basically enslaved and forced to work for no pay or, worse, used as prostitutes with the nail salon only a front. URL_1 It seems to be a mostly British phenomenon, but the US has [seen a few cases too]( URL_0 ). Edit: added a little more info, fixed a typo.",
"We had a store next to a Chinese restaurant many years ago. The owner came here from China and a relative of his who was already established in the US with his own restaurant took the guy under his wing and helped him get started. Little by little, more and more relatives from China started showing up and working there. They all lived together in a tiny shitty apartment and worked like crazy. When they made enough money, they bought a second restaurant, and half the family went there. They both kept bringing more family over, living cheap, and saving for more restaurants and the cycle repeated. Their business model was somewhat like amoebas where they split and grow exponentially. I'm guessing the Asian nail salons are similar in that regard. You have a bunch of family to support and guide you, and help you get established in your own business.",
"Here's the shortest version I can give you: Back in gold Rush days, there were a bunch of Asian immigrants New to the US, and a lot of them settled in the west where gold was to be had. they immigrated over for the railroad construction jobs, and got real good using explosive and moving dirt, and using all sorts of tools and tricks that are particularly useful in gold mining. They were making decent money and this did not sit too well with the white protestant powers that be (government, landowners, the \"good ole boy club\"), who Felt that \"sneaky\" asian immigrants or stealing up \"their\" land and gold (never mind the Native Americans). So they passed some property and tax laws that taxed foreign Born immigrants a lot more than us-born whites for collecting/selling gold. These laws made it so expensive to sell the gold asian immigrants collected that Asian immigrants opted to move into industries other than gold mining so that they could still earn a living. One industry that was ripe for expansion was service industry - laundry, bath houses, and restaurants. Gold miners were often poor single men who were living in (at best) hostel style accommodations, so having access to a place to wash up, get their clothes washed, and eat a prepared meal was a necessity. Asian immigrants set up shop with public pay washrooms, which turned into washing and tailoring clothing, which turned into your modern day nail salons, spas, and dry cleaners. Restaurants stayed restaurants.",
"Source: my best friend's family owns a nail salon. Four family friends own nail salons/day spas. The tops reasons nail salons and day spas are owned by Asian immigrants, particular Vietnamese, are taxes, barrier of entry, limited English skills, and constant demand. Taxes: most, if not all, transactions are handled in cash so it's easy to hide from Uncle Sam. Many immigrants are on welfare so having a steady, reportable paycheck means these benefits are nixed. Business owners reap in the benefits of not having to pay employment taxes and benefits for their employees. The barrier of entry to start a nail salon is very low. You can get a cosmetology license from a vocation school in less than 12 weeks, rent out an old storefront, and stock it with a few $k in supplies. The expensive equipment, such as massage chairs, can be leased for a low price and deducted from the reported income (which the owners are already hiding through cash transactions anyway). Doing nails require little English and they can shit talk all day in their own language. It's a place for them to come to work and socialize with familiar faces. Instead of making minimum wage washing dishes and paying taxes, they can do nails with their own kind and make $2-4k tax free. There is a constant demand of women getting their nails done. Once the storefront is up, owners can charge employees as much as 50-60% to work in the store as commission. Mama-san then can sit back and relax if she has a good customer base while collecting a solid six figure payout. I have 2 family friends that have become millionaires this way.",
"Requires only a very small storefront, and no real capital expenditures, such as lots of inventory or expensive fixtures, so it's a very low cost startup business. That probably has a lot to do with it.",
"There is also a school called Advanced Beauty College near Garden Grove, CA (which is one of the largest places that Vietnamese Americans have gathered in the US) that teaches how to run or work in a Nail Salon. Further Reading: URL_0",
"A contributing factor could be the way banks give out small buisness loans. I watched [an episode]( URL_0 ) of \"Diners, Drive Ins, & Dives\" where an immigrant wanted to open a restaurant- but the bank refused his loan request. They agreed to give him a loan for a gas station though (which you often see owned by immigrants) and he opened his restaurant inside of the gas station. I don't really know how relevant this is, just thought it was interesting.",
"What a great ELI5. Especially because it highlights a major reason why Asian immigrants have thrived economically in the US in ways that Blacks never did: Access to capital, suppliers, and networks of support that insulate you from systemic discrimination, despite beginning with little education or language proficiency. Tl;dr Asians can pull up by their bootstraps because other Asians allow them to access bootstraps.",
"Before it was Vietnam (North and South), that area, along with Cambodia, was a French colony called French Indochina (well, the French called it Indochine). The whole huge peninsula, including Burma, Thailand, Cambodia, Laos, and Vietnam, made up the whole of referred to as Indochina, but France did not possess the whole thing. The French people came as workers and tourists, and brought with them the demand for the French Manicure. The French government there never recovered control after being run by the Vichy French and occupied by the Japanese during WWII, and so Indochina ended in 1954, creating the new states of Cambodia and Vietnam. When a series of wars there (including but not limited to the Vietnam War) created a lot of refugees, many of whom came to the west, those skills blossomed in the US because nail salons were a business that had already been established in Vietnam/Cambodia, and was marketable here. It also employed primarily women, who might otherwise not have a lot of job opportunities as immigrants with, for a large part, poor and/or accented English. Such shops also let the women work together rather than in separate anonymous jobs, and they could help each other out, with learning new job skills, learning English, getting educated, etc. -- something a lot easier to get together when everyone you work with is in your community. So, much of that started 60 years ago-- why is it still going on? Because those shops tend to transfer to people who work there already, they tend to hire within their community (including new immigrants), and immigrant women are still disadvantaged enough in the search for jobs that it's a good place for them to go.",
"Another strong reason is they are heavy on cash, or sometimes cash only, which means the numbers can be fudged on taxes.",
"And then they go home and talk to their children,\" You will not grow up to do this shitjob what I am doing. You will study hard, get good grades, and find a decent job. Do you understand me?\" Then the son will grow up to become a successful professional and make tons of money to enjoy the Western way of life.",
"This is in large part due to Tippi Hedren, an actress from Alfred Hitchcock's movies. She went to a refugee camp in California, where mainly people of Vietnamese descent lived, looking to escape the Ho Chi Min regime. As she was thinking of a way to help them by teaching them a new trade, the women made comments to her about how beautiful her nails looked. She then decided that it would be good for the camp women to learn to do nails, and flew in the manicurist who did her nails. She even enrolled a few in a beauty school. From then, the women began enlisting other Vietnamese women, teaching them their trade, and here we are now.",
"My understanding was that 1) like has been said already, there was a low barrier to entry for these jobs based on education and 2) these types of jobs were considered \"women's work\" and thus there was little complaint when immigrants filled these roles.",
"Because in China thr absolute most expensive non shanghai popstar level full manicure will go for 60rmb (10usd). So when someone pays them 40usd it is like winning the lottery.",
"Actually, just as many white people own them too, they just call them \"Spa's\" instead of \"Nail Salon\". Source: Wife owned spa and is licenses manicurist.",
"Can't say for U.S, but here in UK nail bars seem to be fronts for people smuggling gangs. It's where the poor bastards end up working all the hours god sends to pay for their passage. A couple of weekends ago the cops raided a shitload of these places.",
"a lot of asian cultures ingrain the idea of starting a business to be successful in to their citizens and beauty treatments are one that is very easy to start and grow if you are successful. offer basic services first, and then if you make enough money you can buy what you need to offer the more advanced services.",
"There's a good reply I found last year on Quora after googling this. Linked to the following comment on reddit: URL_0",
"In the past, like 100 years ago, AsianAmericans weren't allowed to own the same businesses as whites. They started businesses like laundry wash and fold.",
"I remember reading this a couple of years ago and thought it was so interesting on how it all started. When I asked my aunts why they wanted a career in nails, they said it was easier to make money, and Vietnamese people are \"known for doing nails.\" URL_0",
"As a person that owns businesses managed by Chinese people I'll say this. Chinese people quite obviously expand from within. Hiring friends and family who are also Chinese. I own a Laundromat/Dry Cleaning business which is also ran by Chinese people. It works well because money changes hands quickly and the books can be altered easily come tax season. I imagine, if you were hiring people illegally or anything like that, it would be much easier to pay illegal friends/family off of the books with cash. Of course, I'm just speculating on that part though. At the same time, all cash businesses are interesting. Ever seen $60,000+ in 1's ? It looks awfully funny if you only do bank/money swaps once a month.",
"I know this isn't the same for all of them but in the UK quite a few are used as fronts for organised crime. They hire women from poverty in Vietnam or other East Asian countries who do not have very much smuggle them in or get them visas and then pay them very little but it is still more than what they earned before and they also house them. They then use the bars to put dirty money through as nail bar customers. Discovered this at work when we were investigating the local nail bars in order to make sure there was no modern slavery occuring. The ones who are being used as slaves often do so cos no matter how bad the pay is or treatment it's better than being back home and they can also send this money back to their families. Ofcourse like I said this is not the majority and alot are legitimate but this happens alot more than people think."
],
"score": [
1982,
1603,
1587,
427,
239,
129,
116,
78,
57,
31,
30,
30,
28,
22,
14,
11,
10,
10,
8,
6,
4,
4,
4,
3,
3,
3,
3,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Ngoy"
],
[],
[
"http://www.wgbh.org/articles/human-trafficking-nail-salons-313",
"http://www.humantraffickingfoundation.org/news/2013/modern-day-slavery-british-nail-bars"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.npr.org/2012/06/14/154852394/with-polish-vietnamese-immigrant-community-thrives"
],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XURLpYWXPtI"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/166st1/not_meant_to_be_racist_why_do_immigrants_usually/c7tfljy/"
],
[],
[
"http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-32544343"
],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5mg9h6 | why we don't use a calendar of 13 months at 28 days long? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dc3cjau",
"dc3hrty"
],
"text": [
"Because a month is based on a lunar cycle which is a little less than 30 days. If the purpose of a month was to divide up the year evenly, then what you suggest would make sense. But rather, it was to delineate time by lunar cycles.",
"Tradition. It's the same reason we don't adopt a new spelling system for English even tho the spelling system we use is a tad crazy. And the same reason the USA hasn't fully adopted the metric system. It's really hard to get everyone to agree to change to a new system. For a calendar, you'd have to get everyone to throw out their old calendars, update everyone's software, get everyone used to the new system, but keep educating people on the old system so we'd still understand dates when we see them in books that were written before the change, or hear them on old TV shows or movies. The last big change to the calendar we use was about 400 years ago when they changed how we figure leap years. I believe the predecessor to our calendar used lunar months, but the calendar month hasn't been equal to the lunar month for around 2,000 years. I'm not positive about this last part tho."
],
"score": [
10,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5mgbrh | Why Empires formed in South/Central America but none in North America? | Any particular reason why the Aztec, Inca, and Mayan empires formed but in North America no equivalent empire(s) arose? Edit: Just for clarification I specifically mean how the southern empires had massive temples, cities, roads, advanced astronomy, agriculture, etc and the northern people did not. | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dc3j3hk"
],
"text": [
"Well, some of them did. Take a look at the Mississipian peoples, for example. They had a rather complex society with extensive trade routes and the city of Cahokia is believed to have been home to ~40,000 people in the 13th century. And just an little thing to mention, there was never any kind of Mayan Empire."
],
"score": [
3
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
5mh5mk | How do you represent all 88 piano keys with just 5/10 lines? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dc3k5be",
"dc3lrir",
"dc3kco3"
],
"text": [
"You add extra lines above or below the staff as needed. See [this image]( URL_0 ) of all of the keys represented on the musical staff.",
"Further to the other comments here, there's ottava alta notation that specifies notes should be played an octave higher, and ottava bassa notation for an octave lower. There's even quindicesima alta and quindicesima bassa notation for two-octave shifts. See this [example]( URL_0 ) showing the appearance and meaning of the notation.",
"Each line and each space between is a place a note could be. Also, some notes are shown as a sharp or flat of another note (so 3 notes possible for 1 note location). Music often goes well below or above the standard lines, with little added in 'temp' lines. Finally, note that the 'clef', a symbol at the start of the music lines, can be either treble or base. This anchors the lines in a high or low start point respectively. So, really as TL; DR - lots of cheaty notation bs gets away with it."
],
"score": [
8,
5,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[
"http://tmmtheory.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/keyboard-full.gif"
],
[
"https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/67/Octave_transpositions.png"
],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5mixzx | Why do Ukranians celebrate Christmas at a different date than the remainder of the world? | Ok, maybe it isn't the REMAINDER of the world. But you get the idea. | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dc3zj0i"
],
"text": [
"So, originally, christmas was set to be on the 25th of December. This was at the time when we had the Julian Calendar, named after Julius Caesar who popularized it. It was famous for standardizing the leap year, adding a day every 4 years at the end of February. Well, problem was that it wasn't completely accurate. It was a slight overshoot, and a few centuries later, to fix that, Pope Gregory standardized a new version of the Julian Calendar, named after him, due to new information and accuracy about the length of a year. It added two new clauses to the idea of a leap year, adding an exception to the leap year rule if the year is divisible by 100, meaning any year ending in 00 is not a leap year, even if divisible by 4. And an exception to that rule, where a year divisible by 400 is a leap year. Anyways, the Orthodox churches didn't agree with this, and slowly, due to this, the calendars drifted apart, with the Orthodox churches keeping with the Julian calendar. Source: Am Ukrainian, just came back from the 12 course Christmas dinner."
],
"score": [
6
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
5mjg52 | The Bloods vs Crips | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dc48x0v",
"dc4batw",
"dc48rn4"
],
"text": [
"The Crips formed in Los Angeles in the 60s as a vigilante group that went after gangs and eventually turned into a gang themselves, albeit much bigger and better organized than previous gangs. The Bloods were formed in the 70s by several gangs joining forces to fight back against the Crips. Eventually enough gangs joined to make them strong enough to take over Crips territory, resulting in a turf war. This escalated when both gangs got into dealing crack in the 80s, letting them make a lot of money, but only in the territories they controlled.",
"Imagine what it was like when Woody met Buzz for the first time, but they still hate eachother.",
"in the late 1970s the crips were just one of many gangs in los Angeles when 1 day its leader Raymond Washington attacked two students at his high school. these students Sylvester Scott and Benson Owens gathered together all the gangs that lived on piru street that had run ins with the crips, and formed a super gang who claimed they were all of one 'blood'. the origins of crips are more obscure, but the entire reason for the Bloods to exist is to destroy the crips."
],
"score": [
25,
11,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5mjquh | Where did the notion of clockwise and counter-clockwise come from and how would people denote the direction of rotation before mechanical clocks became commonplace? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dc43l41",
"dc43mcm",
"dc43mzk"
],
"text": [
"Sundials. In the Northern Hemisphere, the shadow cast by a sundial will carve its way in a right direction, as compared to facing north, which granted its name 'clockwise' to describe right-moving circular movement.",
"URL_0 > Before clocks were commonplace, the terms \"sunwise\" and \"deasil\", \"deiseil\" and even \"deocil\" from the Scottish Gaelic language and from the same root as the Latin \"dexter\" (\"right\") were used for clockwise. \"Widdershins\" or \"withershins\" (from Middle Low German \"weddersinnes\", \"opposite course\") was used for anticlockwise. > Clocks traditionally follow this sense of rotation because of the clock's predecessor: the sundial. Clocks with hands were first built in the Northern Hemisphere (see main article), and they were made to work like sundials. In order for a horizontal sundial to work (in the Northern Hemisphere), it must be placed looking northward. Then, when the Sun moves in the sky (east to south to west), the shadow cast on the opposite side of the sundial moves with the same sense of rotation (west to north to east).",
"Short answer: Sundials Because the sun rises in the east and sets in the west the shadow on a sundial will travel in the same direction every day - this is where the concept of clockwise came from. (remembering of course that sundials where invented simply by observing how the shadows of things like trees, etc moved over the course of a day) Fun fact: If the sundial had been invented in the southern hemisphere clockwise and counter-clockwise would have been reversed."
],
"score": [
10,
7,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clockwise"
],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5mjtvq | How come stuff like "Incels" or "Red pill" is mostly a male thing? | I feel like usually when women are rejected and lonely, they blame themselves and internalize it. | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dc4428a",
"dc45d3t"
],
"text": [
"The reasoning behind the Red Pill and the like is complex, and perhaps overly simplified for consumption. One of the main drivers is 'abundance theory', which stipulates that women choose and men compete (which is true in most mammals anyway, humans are not that different). However, humans are able to *think* about this dynamic, and so you get phenomena like the Red Pill which talks about the men who lose the constant competitions, or win.",
"> I feel like usually when women are rejected and lonely, they blame themselves and internalize it. The same is usually true for men, as well. This is why any set of ideas that allows one to redirect that angst finds an audience, and also why the radical externalization of incels is comes across as so unusually ignorant and self-important."
],
"score": [
39,
15
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
5mkd9p | What is the purpose of having different wine glasses in restaurants? | I just went for a dinner at a relatively high class restaurant, and there were 3 different wine glasses for each person, along with a glass for water. Why is there a need for more than one type of wine glass, and is there a purpose in making the glasses in different shapes and volumes? Does it affect the overall drinking experience for different wines? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dc4c097",
"dc4gpcr",
"dc4b2uy"
],
"text": [
"The different shapes and volumes for specialized wines glasses are used to accentuate the aromas for each particular wine type. Smell is a very large component to the experience of taste, and the specific shape and size of the glass influences the concentration of wine aroma you smell when you take a sip. Most wine glasses have a variation of the tulip shape to help capture the aromas. The long stem is designed to prevent your hand from heating the wine as you hold the glass.",
"Skeptic, inexperienced wine taster and rational person here. [Wine tasting is bullshit]( URL_1 ) and [Wine tasting is ludicrous]( URL_2 ). There are certainly better and more empirical articles I've read over the years but those were the ones I pulled up quickly. If you drink the same wine out of different glasses and have a different experience, kudos to you. I am open minded but that is most likely a placebo effect. Even world class wine tasters will drink the same wine twice and can't even reliably distinguish *red vs white*, much less cheap vs premium and certainly can't recognize it as the same wine. Wine tasting is bullshit. Yes, wines taste differently, just as Coke is different from Pepsi. Wine may even have a slightly different taste based on the shape of the glass...but probably less so than a Cola from a can or a glass or a plastic bottle poured into the same cup. It seems that world class experts base their judgment on wines based on random things such as *the time of day* and [*what they're led to believe about the wine*]( URL_0 ) more so than the actual taste. My opinion? Hoity toity people like to pretend there is a difference between glasses because it makes them seem more refined and cultured than the rest of us plebians (including the scientists and doctors among us of which I am both). Science suggests otherwise.",
"Next time you have the chance, pour the same red wine into a \"white wine\" glass AND the red wine glass. Give them a minute to settle in the glass and taste both. The red wine glass is generally bigger/wider which allows for more air to touch the wine, which opens the flavor profile up. I'm not too sure of the effects of the white wine glass on the white wine....not really a fan of it."
],
"score": [
7,
7,
5
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[
"http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2011/10/you-are-not-so-smart-why-we-cant-tell-good-wine-from-bad/247240/",
"http://io9.gizmodo.com/wine-tasting-is-bullshit-heres-why-496098276",
"https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2013/jun/23/wine-tasting-junk-science-analysis"
],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
5mkfys | Does your ehnicity have anything to do with how easy it is for you to gain weight? | Is race related obesity actually a thing? In the US, obesity rates for back women were 56.6% in 2011-2012, while whites were only 32.8%. Do genetics actually play a part in how easy it is for you to gain/ lose weight or are these statistics just down to say, tradition? For example, black people hail from Africa originally, where maybe it was tradition to eat larger meals and this has just followed down generations? Or could it be that genetics play a part in something like metabolism rates, so for example if two people from two races had the exact same meal, one might digest it slower making them more susceptible to weight gain? I understand that a lot of it comes down to the actual person and people will be extremely varied, even in their own race, but on average, is there some sort of gene that maybe one race has more of that stops them losing weight as easily? [source] ( URL_0 ) | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dc47tq5",
"dc47pip"
],
"text": [
"It has little to do with genetics, and a lot to do with social issues such as poverty and education. Black people, in the USA, tend to poorer and lower education, which often leads to behaviours that lead to obesity. (Things like not knowing enough about nutrition can lead to bad eating habits, but things like needing to work two or even three jobs to support yourself / your family can lead to not having enough time to properly cook things at home and leads to depending more on fast food)",
"I'm no expert, but I doubt that race has a causal link to obesity. Perhaps in so far that certain populations tend to have the same race and have *similar* genetic mutations. That aside, the far more likely causal link is poverty. I'd wager that most of the obese people surveyed were on the poor side of things, and that the black people surveyed, especially if they may be single mothers to boot, were just more often poor than the white people. TL;DR Poverty is more likely responsible for the obesity than race. EDIT: wurrdz"
],
"score": [
11,
8
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
5mkm3j | Why does the Southern United States react so badly to cold weather? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dc48wax",
"dc495af",
"dc4cjgr"
],
"text": [
"The Southern US doesn't experience cold weather as frequently as other regions so is unused to it. Also southern cities are less prepared to handle the weather conditions that come from colder weather (e.g., ice, snow). People also have less experience driving in those conditions and have accidents or are afraid they'll have accidents. Essentially, lack of familiarity and preparedness with cold weather. Source: grew up and live in the southern US, lived a long time in the Midwestern US.",
"Infrastructure can play a part. I grew up in New Mexico and when heavy snow hit (once in a blue moon), we had to borrow plows from Colorado. I'm living in Minnesota now and there are actual fleets of said plows here. If you're living somewhere that only needs plows every so often, chances are good that government resources have been allocated elsewhere, towards more pressing concerns.",
"I've lived in the South my entire life. In addition to the lack of infrastructure, from what I understand, the difference is here in the South, snow is usually preceded by rain that then freezes on the ground or freezing rain/sleet. This makes the roads much more dangerous than if it was just snow."
],
"score": [
6,
4,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5mlk7x | Why is it relatively easy to become a teacher when the future of our society depends on how well they perform? | "Those who can't do, teach" and other phrases highlight how "easy" being a teacher is. How come this job isn't taken more seriously? (Higher qualifications, longer schooling, etc.) | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dc4m9l3",
"dc4snba"
],
"text": [
"in most states it requires a 4 year degree and state certification, as well as continuing education. It's easier than becoming a doctor, yes, but it's not a cakewalk. And frankly, if it were harder to do, it would limit the number of teachers entering the workforce, and we already face problems with class overcrowding due to not enough qualified teachers. That's higher than the education requirement to be a police officer in most states.",
"Why is it relatively easy.... ha... haha.... hahaha... my student loan payments, masters degree, continued classes, and constant stress disagree with you. 1st question - relative to what? 2nd question - I lied, this isn't a question. Teaching is absolutely miserable. We do it because we had a disillusioned thought of what it is and the impact we'd make on kids. Some we're masochists, and some of us really wanted to coach a sport. The pay is shit. Incredibly limited options for upward mobility. We have to partake in continuing education. Parents are miserable. We're criticized constantly and told we're not doing it right. And kids are really, really starting to get the sense that none of it matters - and I mean that much differently than I think a lot of people felt who are 30+ years old when we were going through school. It can be scary as there are more kids that are violent and we are not allowed to defend ourselves. Major income inequality has made so many public schools absolutely terrifying places (to be a teacher and kid) in a lot of cities. And, god bless them, but there are so many more kids these days with learning and developmental disabilities - creating so much extra paperwork and planning for teachers. Yet, I love it. Kids are amazing to be around, they're smarter and smarter every year. There's a few special ones every year who really care and work hard. I get to coach a sport I love. And fellow teachers are some of the coolest people alive. But, to your question - it's not \"easy\" and I'm curious where you even got that sentiment or thought from."
],
"score": [
14,
9
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
5mmbwo | Why do people brag about things that are more appropriately classified as complaints? | Example 1: Facebook posts about it being 13F without a wind chill followed by a complaint. Example 2: "I worked 94 hours last week!" followed by some comment about how tough life is, but in a proud tone. This kind of thing never made sense to me. It's one thing to make a complaint, but so often that complaint comes in the form of bragging. Why do we do this? There must be deeper reasoning for this explained by social science. | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dc4moqe",
"dc4qk3o"
],
"text": [
"I'm going to go with Nietzsche on this one. He describes the phenomenon of ressentiment, in which one justifies one's own weaknesses by identifying the source of envy as objectively inferior. It is somewhat similar to the idea of \"sour grapes.\" A person has a problem, so they redefine their value system to describe their problem as being a strength rather than a liability. By claiming that their suffering had value and they are proud of their suffering, they get to claim a moral victory. This allows them to avoid the angst and frustration of admitting that their condition just plain sucks.",
"Unofficially, it's called \"humble-bragging\". It's bragging about yourself while trying to be seen as humble. Most of the time it seems to be used when somebody wants to brag about themselves or are trying to get attention for something they've done or something they've experienced, without coming across as conceited, so they disguise it in the form of a complaint."
],
"score": [
5,
4
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
5mnv5g | Religious beliefs unchanged by facts | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dc4yc73",
"dc56tzd"
],
"text": [
"The definition of faith is belief in something without proof, so offering proof doesn't do much to change that. To get down to it though, many beliefs are tied deeply to someones self image. When you challenge them, most people feel like they are being attacked and harden up. Defense mechanism. Plus don't jump down their throats, maybe astrology really helped that person through a rough time in their life. I had a girlfriend who believed in chakras and I didn't but she believed them because they helped with her anxiety. So I went along with her.",
"Religion is a non-rational subject. It isn't irrational, only non-rational, that is, the epistemology of rationalism doesn't apply to religion or any other humanist subject. For example, love is not rational, but it also isn't irrational. It is something that is explored primarily through music, poetry, literature, art, and even religion. The scientific method, which is part of a rational approach, can be used to do some studies on love, but love is too subjective and too abstract a concept for any real substantive, satisfactory conclusions to be drawn using rational methods. A novel that explores love will yield much more insight into love than any dry scientific report. For someone who believes in astrology, the Bible, or other mythological narratives, they don't believe in these as literal, rational, fact-based truths, but because they receive spiritual nourishment or moral direction from them. Religion, if used right, helps people deal with the complexities of life and the inconsistencies of the human condition. There are religious people who attempt to attribute rational thought to their respective religious narratives. For example, there are Christians who interpret the first two chapters of Genesis as though they are actual accounts of how the universe came into being. They are interpreting a non-rational mythological narrative using rational analysis, and are therefore misinterpreting the Bible. The Bible, or astrology, or any other religious belief is not meant to be interpreted the way someone would interpret a technical manual or science textbook. It is meant to be interpreted the same way we would interpret a poem or a painting. We interpret poetry or art in such a way to glean insight, inspiration, and wisdom from these works, not scientific, rational facts. When your friend says they don't care about facts, this could mean two things. It could mean either 1) that they know planets and stars don't literally impact the daily mundane aspects of human life, but don't care. They still get something out of the mythological narratives surrounding astrology. 2) that they do think that planets and stars literally impact human life and are going to believe this absurdity irregardless of evidence and argument."
],
"score": [
8,
4
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5moxqq | Why do clothing manufacturers make female pants without pockets? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dc58im5"
],
"text": [
"For various reasons, women's fashions have favored appearance while men's have been more about utility. That has led to the use of lighter fabrics in tighter fitting cuts, where pockets, especially occupied pockets, would lead to unsightly bulges. In part because of this, most women carry purses, rendering pockets less necessary."
],
"score": [
11
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5ms9pp | Why is the word "no" the same in Spanish and English? | Did one language borrow it from the other in development or did they both develop separately? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dc630bd",
"dc65da2"
],
"text": [
"Latin. French, Spanish, and Italian are all fundamentally based on Latin, which was spread across Europe by the Roman Empire, and are based off of the latin word \"non\" (which actually doesn't precisely mean no, but that's another story). Modern English, as the bastard child of French and Saxon (related to German), ended up with \"no\" as well.",
"It's not, as /u/CatRelatedUsername confidently asserts, because English and Spanish both got it from Latin. A lot of people think of English as a mixture of Anglo-Saxon and French because that's what they've been taught in schools, but in fact that's not really true: the influence of Norman French on English is much smaller than most people think. But English \"no\" and Spanish \"no\" do have a common ancestor -- not in Latin, but much, much earlier than that. It's a language so old there is no written record of it anywhere, and all we know about it is reconstructed from what we know about how languages evolve; it's called \"Proto-Indo-European\" and was the ancestor of most of the languages spoken in Europe and several in western and southern parts of Asia. Because, as I said, everything we know about it is reconstructed, linguists use an asterisk when writing PIE words to remind them that it's just a best guess. Ultimately, both Spanish and English \"no\" have their origins in the PIE root \\*ne. They evolved through different paths, though: the Spanish came via the Latin \"non\" which was originally \"noenum\", literally \"not one\", and was still \"non\" in Old Spanish before dropping the final \"n\". The English came from Proto-Germanic \\*ne (another reconstructed language), then became \"ne a\" (meaning \"not ever\") and, in Old English, \"na\" before evolving further into our modern \"no\". It's a small coincidence that it ended up the same in Spanish and English, but not much of one. Very important words like \"no\" that are used a lot tend not to change very much over time, and this is why in most European languages today, words to do with negativity tend to begin with the letter N: French \"non\", Portuguese \"não\", Russian \"nyet\", German \"nein\" and so on."
],
"score": [
4,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
5mt9xu | In the US, why do drugs that aren't addictive or highly-deadly (like birth control or blood pressure meds) still require a prescription? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dc65lwx",
"dc69zih",
"dc6675h",
"dc68q7l"
],
"text": [
"Because of what they are used for. Ibuprofen and other NSAIDs are for general pain relief and fever reduction. They are very general medicines. But blood pressure mess can be dangerous to people if they just use it because they think they may have a condition. It is all liability issues.",
"There's also the interaction issue. Many drugs can be completely benign if you take it without a real need, but will kill your ass dead if mixed with another completely benign drug. Your Dr will give you an Rx for Drug C instead of Drug B if you're already taking Drug A, which can't happen if you cut the Dr and Rx out of the picture.",
"Some, if not all, hypertension medications require regular screening to confirm damage is not being done to the liver and kidneys. Source: former hypertension patient",
"OTC vs Rx is a choice made by the manufacturer. Zyrtec was Rx for years. Over that time the manufacturer collected data that shows the drug is very safe. They take this data to the FDA, to prove the drug is \"so very safe\" that it can be sold OTC. The FDA standard for \"safeness\" is much higher for OTC than for Rx medications which will be used with a doctor's supervision. There is work going on to show statins (a common blood pressure med) are that safe. Birth control pills are probably not safe enough, and so doctors screen for cervical cancer (Pap test) and high blood pressure, which are apparently rare side effects. They aren't rare enough to justify OTC sales."
],
"score": [
25,
10,
7,
6
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5mtuey | why do they sometimes put square brackets around words in sentences or paragraphs? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dc6ayrs",
"dc6abrg"
],
"text": [
"> [W]hy do [journalists] sometimes put square brackets around words in sentences or paragraphs? There you go. That's why it's done. I've modified your quote but preserved the intent, and I marked the parts that I've modified with square brackets. Another use you'll see is using [sic] to indicate that a misspelling or bit of poor grammar was part of an actual quote, and not a typo on the part of the person writing the article (\"sic\" is Latin for \"thus\" or \"just so\").",
"The square brackets in a quote indicate words that were inserted or changed from the original. Usually these modifications are used to indicate a changed tense, or to provide information that may have been left out (such as the reference of a pronoun)"
],
"score": [
15,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5mv2ij | Why do we never forget certain techniques such as "riding a bike"? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dc6kyzn",
"dc6m2xz"
],
"text": [
"I saw a video about a week ago with a guy who learned to ride a reverse engineered bike and then he couldn't ride a regular bike until he relearned it. This doesn't really answer your question, but it was interesting.",
"Here's a link to a highly upvoted answer that was posted to this same question a few years ago: URL_0"
],
"score": [
8,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1l00xe/eli5_how_is_it_that_we_never_forget_how_to_ride_a/cbuei4q/"
]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5mv7st | Why does the monarchy remain a thing in the UK nowadays? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dc6mpcq"
],
"text": [
"As the powers of the monarchy were gradually whittled away, republicans (people who want to abolish the monarchy) gradually became less interested in abolishing it, because most people's problem with the monarchy is that it's undemocratic: supreme power is granted to someone merely because of who their parents were. But if the monarch is only a figurehead and lacks much power, most people don't seem to mind having a monarchy. I still oppose all monarchy. But it seems like most British people don't care. In both the UK and Spain (also a monarchy), the monarch and royal family are more well-liked than any politician."
],
"score": [
3
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5mwsqm | What is the minimum population size that is capable of independently constitute a fully modern society, providing all services and careers (astronauts, neurosurgeons, wildlife scientists, strippers ... etc)? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dc6y2i9",
"dc6z0h8"
],
"text": [
"We don't know. 7.5 billions (the current population) are sufficient, but no one ever tried to have \"the world of 2017 but with a smaller population\". In general, smaller population sizes will struggle to keep up with the most advanced things. As an example, modern semiconductor factories cost several billions - thousands of people are working on it for years. You don't want a large part of the population working on a single semiconductor factory, and it doesn't help to have a factory that can produce a billion computers if you don't have a billion people needing those. There are things that scale well with population, and things that don't. 1/10 the world population needs 1/10 the amount of farmers: That works. Even better: They can focus on the best farmlands, and get more food per farmer. But you cannot launch 1/10 of an astronaut to space, and you cannot build a rocket with 1/10 of the research. A smaller population will have to invest more to keep things like spaceflight and research running. If you accept longer working hours for everyone, you can compensate that a bit, but there are limits. We have North Korea and Cuba as examples of countries that are largely isolated from the rest of the world. Cuba has a population of 11 millions, North Korea has 25 millions. While those countries have problems beyond their isolation, they don't have the necessary population to keep up with technological advances. So... more than 25 millions, and less than 7.5 billions. I'll make a rough guess: 1 billion. Research costs in this world will be much higher, but maintaining our current level of technology should work somehow.",
"*All* jobs? Let's just take one. > astronauts The manufacturing chain for an orbit-capable manned rocket is on the order of half a million to one million people, most of them employed full time. Then you need to feed and clothe those, too. And don't forget, say, anal theorists. Seriously, studying gay anal sex is a full-time, legitimate, mutually cited specialty among social researchers these days. See *Black Anality* by Jennifer C. Nash, published in *The Journal of Lesbian and Gay Studies*. We very rapidly get back to 7.5 billion."
],
"score": [
5,
4
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5mzptv | Why are there state competency tests and college preparatory tests like the (SAT) and (ACT)? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dc7k2gk"
],
"text": [
"It's difficult to know whether an A from one high school is worth an A in another. Then factor in class choice. And classes offered. It starts to become a weak measuring stick. But colleges have to have SOMEthing to measure with. Making a test that is as standard as possible is one of the methods that developed over the years."
],
"score": [
8
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5n1ye7 | Please explain to me the mythos created by HP Lovecraft | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dc83bo8"
],
"text": [
"The point of Cthulhu and the rest of Love craft works is about the fear of the unknown. Nothing is ever fully explained which is kind of the point. I would suggest getting a hold of the penguin publication \"Call of Cthulu and other weird stories\". Because the stories were written at the turn of the century it can be difficult to follow l. This version has lots of notes with it that give a lot of further insight."
],
"score": [
5
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5n33zs | Why is "one" such a desirable term in branding/marketing? | It has been trendy to put "One" arbitrarily in your brand name (Xbox One, ESL One, OnePlus One -- I tried to research this and I found a company named Marketing One lol) and I've always wondered why. | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dc8jby6"
],
"text": [
"(Marketing manager who has created brand names here.) Its no different than adding \"ultra\" to an existing brand name to signify some level of difference. Similar to such version modifiers as 2.1, plus, premium, gold, platinum, silver, X, FWD, limited, etc. All of which indicate some higher level of quality. \"One\" likely became a fad because they sought something that sounded different and unique than the other modifiers I listed. \"One\" can be used in some far fetched way to indicate the first, the best, all encompassing, unique, or the only one you will ever need. However, \"one\" will soon become second or obsolete as technology advances while most of the other modifiers will never become aged."
],
"score": [
5
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
5n3ax3 | Why did we stop speaking Shakespearean English? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dc8dv61"
],
"text": [
"We haven't. Shakespeare is credited with inventing (or recording) many words and phrases and sayings that survive into Modern English. Or, perhaps you are concerned as to why we no longer pronounce vowels the same as English speakers of Shakespeare's time pronounce them — all languages change over time, as sounds that were originally produced in the back of the mouth migrate towards the front of the mouth. This effect is responsible for why many modern English speakers say, for example, \"EYE-Ruh-nee\" for \"Irony\" but \"AH-urn\" for \"Iron\". There's also a vastly larger number of English speakers today and dozens more regional dialects. Perhaps you're wondering why we no longer use grammatical structures Shakespeare would use? Shakespeare was an artist and a poet, and though he made wide use of the iambic pentameter metre — celebrated for imitating how people normally talk — he sometimes used grammatical forms that were relegated to art and formal speech, even in his day. We also have, as a society, placed a premium on clear, easily accessible explanations and communications *over* such considerations as æsthetics — word choice, rhyme, alliteration, vowel agreement, pacing, allusion, metre and so forth and so on, are all optional — if someone doesn't understand the culture-specific references you make, the idiom you use, then it doesn't matter how properly æstheticised it is. TL;DR: English is now a language that serves to communicate among many people of many disparate cultural and educational backgrounds, and different dialects and accents. It evolved."
],
"score": [
4
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5n4s0f | Why are "native American" casinos a thing. | I assume it has something to do with reservations/land use? As a Brit, my knowledge of these matters is not overly extensive. It seems odd to me that a culture synonymous with tradition and pride would be so entwined with the gambling industry. | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dc8mhnq",
"dc9546j",
"dc8xia8",
"dc8qlr7",
"dc8nqyo"
],
"text": [
"They make good money. Someone in the gaming industry figured out that tribal lands were legally sovereign and therefore the gambling laws could be circumvented if you placed your casino on them. They made a deal and the rest is history.",
"Most tribal lands (barring the huge gigantic ones in created by mashing a bunch of completely different people groups together) are pretty small. They're also almost never on valuable land. What's an industry that doesn't take up a lot of space, is pretty damn lucrative, and doesn't need a ton of natural resources? Congrats, you've got gambling. Pretty much just gambling. Casinos are one of the few fairly reliable large industries the US lets tribes have, but trying to build a casino when there hasn't been one before is hell itself. For real, recognized tribes have to fight local legislation tooth and nail to build on land they own. Fun fact, a lot of tribes don't have federally mandated reservations. Some were either never forcibly removed en masse (many ojibwe nations) but rather had land \"purchased\" from them over time; or lost all their land but returned to find it under new ownership (nansemond bands). Under these circumstances, it's super difficult to convince local governments that they don't have the right to govern lands owned by the tribes. As for the whole tradition and honor thing, that's pretty much 90% Hollywood bs. Family is important, learning the culture is important, sure, but in what culture is that not true? And it's pretty hard to keep your culture alive when you're forced into poverty, had your grandparents taken to what's essentially child prison camps to get their language and way of life beaten outta them, then told you're not a real country/American/Indian enough, and constantly legislated into not being able to do the things your ancestors did. Pretty much fucking sucks all around, honestly.",
"The tribes are technically \"Sovereign Nations\" this means US laws do not apply on reservation land. Some even go so far as to have their own [passports]( URL_0 ). It's an odd scenario where they can be US citizens, but do not have to be. Though back to the casinos. many US states have laws against gambling. Or laws requiring certain odds. These laws do not apply to the reservations, as they are not part of the state, *technically*. So they can have much worse odds. Usually the state will indefinitely lease the land to the casino in exchange for a cut of the profits. This allows them to circumvent all laws and regulation, without compromising their \"values\" against gambling. basically it's one giant loophole and it makes lots of money, so it keeps happening.",
"Before Europeans colonized North America, tribes were essentially their own countries. Colonization/conquest eroded that status over time, but under American law, tribes still have many of the powers they originally had as independent sovereigns. Before the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, there were multiple court decisions (like Seminole Tribe v. Butterworth) that said the ability to allow gaming was one of those powers still within tribal sovereignty. IGRA limited that inherent authority, regulating how tribes have to go about gaming activities and coordinating with the states -- it didn't create their authority, though. Indian gaming grew because, in some places, tribes had a competitive advantage and a good market. But only about half of tribes actually have any gaming at all, and only a fraction of those have very large, profitable casinos. Some have decided not to do gaming for the reasons you hint at: they think it creates too many problems, isn't consistent with their culture, or just won't be profitable in their situation.",
"Most posts here are only partially correct. There is a federal law in acted in the 80s that set up the structure for Indian gaming. It has very little to do with reservations being on \"sovereign\" land and often times the casino is themselves are not on the reservations. If you want to learn more Google the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988. As far as why they allow it within their culture, it's easy money and everyone would like a free paycheck."
],
"score": [
122,
16,
9,
8,
4
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[
"http://www.caretakersoftheearth.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/Haudenosaunee-passport.jpg"
],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
5n4tul | Why are the French famous for surrendering? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dc8s1so",
"dc8vo8a",
"dc8nhr9",
"dc8txhu",
"dc8o4cw",
"dc8ydld",
"dc8xd6d",
"dc8sv7i",
"dc8mzj6",
"dc9nint",
"dc9kgan",
"dc8ygeu",
"dc8vepy",
"dc9m3qk",
"dc8yudo",
"dc8rsly",
"dc9mj6w",
"dc9l6oj",
"dca3esk",
"dc8wwz3",
"dc8z5wn",
"dc8yoal",
"dc9kx2n",
"dc942ez",
"dc9lem5",
"dc902t4",
"dc9n8ck",
"dc9sj0f",
"dc9oe87",
"dc93528",
"dca4nhy",
"dc9afog",
"dc9j1tp",
"dc9i85z",
"dc9usdz",
"dc9jisu"
],
"text": [
"Honestly it comes down to historical ignorance. Many people in America only know very recent history. In World War 2 France was overwhelmed by the German onslaught and surrendered very quickly. Allied troops then had to invade Europe and liberate France so it be became sort of a joke that the French were weak militarily. Fast forward to 2003 when the French refused to back the US invasion of Iraq and this joke became even deeply more rooted as people viewed the French as weak or not willing to help the US like the US helped the French. All of this ignores the facts that France has an illustrious military history and that the United States wouldn't exist without French help. The French fought tenaciously and suffered immensely during World War 1. Their casualty numbers are staggering. Anyone who makes fun of French military history basically doesn't know history.",
"In chronological order: * At the end of the Napoleonic Wars, the French surrendered twice: First in 1814, after which Napoleon was sent into exile at Elba. Then again after he came back in early 1815 and was defeated at Waterloo. * During the Franco-Prussian War, the entire French Army was surrounded by the Germans at Sedan and surrendered. This defeat was catastrophic and cost them the war. * During World War I, the French Army mutinied and refused to attack anymore. (They still fought defensively) They decided to wait over a year until tanks and American soldiers arrived before they would go on the offense again. In perhaps the greatest intelligence failure of all time, the Germans failed to learn of the strike. * During World War II, the French surrendered after the German blitzkrieg had overrun the Allied armies in Belgium. * During the First Indo-China War, the French (who fought the entire war with a succession of terrible commanders, little political commitment, and no long-term planning) decided to try to sever the Vietminh supply lines using an airbase situated in the middle of a bunch of hills at Dien Bein Phu. Instead, the Vietminh surrounded them and shelled them for weeks until they gave up. The defeat was catastrophic and cost them the war. * EDIT: I'll also add that in 1759 the French were defeated at the Battle of the Plains of Abraham (just outside of Quebec) and surrendered. This defeat was catastrophic and cost them the French and Indian War (that's the 7 Years War to you Europeans) Fun fact: During Vietnam, American commadner William Westmooreland was asked if they could learn anything from the french experience. His reply was (paraphrasing) \"Why would we try to learn anything from the French? They haven't won a battle since the age of Napoleon.\" - which is both historically inaccurate (they won both battles of the Marne and Verdun during World War I, just to name two very important counter-examples) and indicative of Westmooreland's incompetency.",
"It's undeserved, really, as they certainly put in the effort with Napoleon etc, had a sizeable empire (still do TBH), and were simply overwhelmed in WW2. Britain and France have a long fraternal history of fighting, we make jokes at the expense of the other, but under it all there's a long, strong history of respect.",
"Same reason everyone says Napoleon was short when he was actually above average height in his time. It's just shit talking from the enemy, the french were actually bad ass mother fuckers if you take the time to google it.",
"France as a country suffered greatly during ww1 near the earlier parts of ww2 Germany attempted a hold and risky tank manuver and succeed arriving behind defenses at an unprotected Paris. Super surprised and remembering ww1 the French surrendered. The surrender thing goes back to this and anti French people perpetuating the meme. The French have surrendered at other times but historically they usually have had a powerful army that won many wars.",
"A large part of it comes down to them surrendering early in WW2 (1940)...then De Gaulle proceeding to piss off the entire Allied forces by taking credit for the liberation of Paris later in the war. Basically, when France Surrendered, Charles De Gaulle, the French President 'retreated' to England. Paris was liberated in 1944 by a combined force of American, British and Canadian forces with help from the French resistance and what was left of the 2nd French Armored. De Gaulle, however, insisted on representing it as a French victory. Insisting french forces lead the victory parade and delivering the following speech (excerpt): \"Paris! Paris outraged! Paris broken! Paris martyred! But Paris liberated! Liberated by itself, liberated by its people with the help of the French armies, with the support and the help of all France, of the France that fights, of the only France, of the real France, of the eternal France!\" So, put yourself in the shoes of a British, American or Canadian soldier. France surrenders in 1940, contributing little to the overall war effort. You've just fought a hard-won campaign, watched your friends die to liberate France...and then the French president not only doesn't thank you, but takes all the credit and represents the whole thing as a purely French victory. Hence: Cheese-eating surrender monkeys.",
"The French surrendered to the Germans after a very short campaign in the Second World War, because the German attack was very quick and effective. As a result, there is a stereotype that the French are cowards who will surrender at the first opportunity, which is very incorrect. In fact, the French have a history of incredibly successful military campaigns.",
"The French were also defeated in Vietnam, whereas the United States, won a glorious unconditional victory there.",
"I think it's largely because of WW2. But I find the whole thing a little silly. They lose a lot of their conflicts, but surrender isn't the word I would use. Even in WW2 the French resistance kept fighting long after France itself fell. And during the Napoleonic era, they ultimately lost, but they still pretty much fought to the bitter end. Like I seriously wouldn't fuck with the French military.",
"DIEU PROTEGE LA FRANCE Broadcast 21st October 1940 by Winston Churchill Frenchmen! For more than 30 years in peace and war I have marched with you. I am marching still along the same road. Tonight I speak to you at your firesides, wherever you may be, or whatever your fortunes are: I repeat the prayer that upon the louis d'or, \"Dieu protege la France\" Here at home in England, under the the fire of the Bosche we do not forget the ties and links that unite us to France . . . Here in London, which Her Hitler says he will reduce to ashes, and which his aeroplanes are now bombarding, our people are bearing up unflinchingly. Our Air Force has more than held its own. We are waiting for the long promised invasion. So are the fishes . . . Frenchmen - rearm your spirits before it is too late. Remember how Napoleon said before one of his battles:î These same Prussians who are so boastful today were three to one at Jena, and six to one at Montmirailî Never will I believe that the soul of France is dead! Never will I believe that her place amongst the greatest nations of the world has been lost forever. Remember that we shall never stop, never weary, and never give in . . . We seek to beat the life and soul out of Hitler and Hitlerism. That alone - that all the time - that to the end. Those French who are in the French Empire, and those who are in the so-called unoccupied France, may see their way from time to time to useful action, I will not go into details . . hostile ears are listening . . . Good night then: Sleep to gather strength for the morning. For the morning will come. brightly it will shine on the brave and true, kindly upon all who suffer for the cause, glorious upon the tombs of heroes. Thus will shine the dawn. VIVE LA FRANCE! Long live also the forward march of the common people in all lands towards their just and true inheritance, and towards the broader and fuller age. Broadcast London 21st October 1940.",
"The French kind of got a bum rap. It mainly due to WW2 after the German Occupied France, also they had a little issue in Vietnam that went real bad for them, I mean real bad. Huge part of it is the rivaly with England and France, Napoleonic wars and 100 year war kept that rivalry up. Also note during the Imperial Age British by the start of WW1 they controlled 25% of the world population and so it not a surprise they would use propaganda to make themselves look better. That little culture war is it own story, so I will stick with military. In reality France army is no laughing joke. Heavy Calvary during medieval times where unmatched, and feared. WW! they held their own for a long time, long before us Yank go in the fight. Just look up Verdun, which was the benchmark for crazy until Stalingrad. During WW2 they actually had more tanks which where more advance then the German Panzers at the time. The issue was they where spread them out across Maginot Line. Which kept them from spear attack of the German Bliz. This did not just catch the French off guard but also the British allies. Look up Battle of Dunkirk. Even though the French government surrendered, The military and French people kept fighting a lot of time out gunned with no reinforcements for years, they don't sound like quitters to me. Then the Indochina wars or when as we Americans join in the Vietnam war, well that was clusterfuck nobody did well in that. Also us silly Americans would not of won our little spat with England over our Independence. They recognized us as a Nation, supplied us with guns, tanning, and at a critical moment their Navy. Yeah the French cock block the British and we knew it. It why good old 100 dollar Benny when to France to have a talk. Now I just list some of really big stuff that effect the whole world but the smaller engagements are really show their strength. The French commanders are brilliant and most of time they actually show it. Which is why you heard of Napoleon. The issue with that brilliants is when it all go wrong, it like a giant spot light pointing at the mistake, and history only remember the failures more often then the success.",
"Because they surrendered in WWII, mostly. Made everyone bail their asses out. Also English speakers generally don't like the French because the French don't like anyone. So on top of them being entitled surrender monkeys they also have a stereotype of being assholes. To be fair I'm an American so my stereotype is \"being fake nice\" which in my opinion is worse than being an outright jerk. This is only compounded by the fact I'm a Southerner- which means I am both racist and compulsively friendly and welcoming.",
"The majority of people tend to know only recent history: so nearly everyone knows how france surrendered in 2 weeks during WW2 (even if they ignore the fact that, in reality, the french army during WW2 wasn't weak, but generals still had a WW1 kind of warfare in mind, in fact they tought that the ardennes would be a nearly impenetrable defence and vastly understimated tanks and motorized infantry). But they tend to forgot how french history is full of military successes (from charlemagne till napoleon III, france was one of the most successful country military wise), because those victories are \"remote\" and they feel like they are disconnected from modern france",
"Most people don't know about the French rearguard at Dunkirk, who allowed the British and some Frenchmen to escape. I hope the upcoming movie does them justice. *to actually answer your question (with something I havent seen yet in previous answers) the Vichy French collaboration with the Germans also hurt the French reputation greatly, especially as little England held out against the Germans.",
"Vichy France in WW2 is probably the biggest reason. The German *blitzkrieg* created a decisive military victory in France, but when the French Premier signed their armistice with Germany, France became a puppet state of Nazi Germany. Two million of her soldiers were held prisoner laboring for the Third Reich as hostages to keep the southern region of France in line. Then Germany occupied the southern region anyway, and this forced France to scuttle her navy.",
"they aren't, just a few words in the right places in popular culture(such as the Simpsons)has created a popular myth.",
"Primary reason is because the France was where the last 2 major wars were fought. Because of how horrendous the first one was, many French people didn't want to have to lose another entire generation of men to the second. The resistance to the second war (while still a valiant and noble effort) was nowhere near that of the first. Any student of history knows that the French are not to be fucked with.",
"The short answer is this: The French, who are among the most militarily successful people in Europe over about the past 1,500 years, refused to support an American administration which wished to start a couple of wars, an administration which included one of the most effective PR teams ever known. Consequently in the US they quickly became known as \"surrender monkeys\" and most Americans now think the French flag is solid white. Around the rest of the world people aren't as easily deceived.",
"For all the people who are saying that France is not a war powerhouse in human history: From 5th century| Battle Status| Number| Percentage ---|---|----|---- -| Win | 118 | 63% -| Loss | 57 | 30% -| Undecisive | 12 | 6% From 14th century| Battle Status| Number| Percentage ---|---|----|---- -| Win | 106 | 62% -| Loss | 53 | 31% -| Undecisive | 12 | 7% From 17th century| Battle Status| Number| Percentage ---|---|----|---- -| Win | 86 | 66% -| Loss | 33 | 25% -| Undecisive | 12 | 9% From 19th century| Battle Status| Number| Percentage ---|---|----|---- -| Win | 52 | 59% -| Loss | 24 | 27% -| Undecisive | 12 | 14% From 20th century| Battle Status| Number| Percentage ---|---|----|---- -| Win | 24| 63% -| Loss | 8 | 21% -| Undecisive | 6 | 16% A two-third overall rate of victory in battles is pretty insane. [Source]( URL_0 )",
"Look up Phony War. After winning ww1 and surviving all of its horrors, France was not prepared or willing to as a nation to fight another world war.",
"I remember seeing a great analysis of all known western world battles a couple years ago, probably on Reddit. I think it was based on Wikipedia battles pages. The conclusion was pretty clear, France from Gaul to modern day Republic was the most victorious \"nation\" of all time. So I guess you can say that this \"Why are the French famous for surrendering\" concept is a pretty biased idea of Anglo-Saxon origin.",
"Lots of good answers, but they have not had much luck in war. In fact, not many countries do, including the countries who \"win\". They got destroyed in a war against Prussia, their leader actually getting captured by the Germans. They performed magnificently in WW1 but the cost was absurd. By the time WW2 came around and it was clear the Nazis had broken them, they didn't want to repeat the horrors. Then they militarily fought against losing their colonies in the 1950's which was a strategic mistake. Vietnam ended in unexpected humiliation at Dien Bien Fu, and the war in Algeria was terrible and they still withdrew. Throw in Napoleon's defeat and it's been a rough 200 years. That being said, they are fantastic fighters, they simply suffered from being world power losing possessions when the world outgrew them.",
"As many have said here, I think much of this misconception can be traced to World War II. After the French carried much of the brunt of fighting in WWI (the US contributed little by comparison, and entered near the end of the war), Germany's quick defeat of France in WWII was shocking to the world and also to Germany, in fact. These days, many people poke fun at France's \"surrender\" in that war, which looks embarrassing compared to Great Britain's stiff resistance and, of course, the role of the United States in the liberation of Europe. The reason this is an ignorant reading of history is that there is nothing in the French character about the surrender to Germany in WWII. France is right nextdoor to Germany, and practically EVERY country that shared a land border with Germany was quickly defeated... Poland, Belgium, the Netherlands, Denmark. Germany nearly even defeated the USSR. What sets Great Britain apart here? The English Channel. Britain has water to thank for their survival in the opening years of the war. Don't get me wrong, the Brits fought bravely and smartly, and they sacrificed greatly, but for all that sacrifice and blood, they would have likely gone the way of France if they shared a land border with Germany. The US, of course, benefited even more from the vast ocean separating us from Germany. Again, this is not to disparage the fighting and sacrifices of people who, in my view, saved civilization by defeating Nazi Germany. But, with the vast differences in geography that played a major role in the war, it is unfair to point to the French as sissies among the world powers. France, by the way, had one of the most active, effective, and brave resistance movements of Europe during the German occupation in WWII.",
"Because during WWII, after the French were flanked over the Maginot line, Paris didn't have any actual defenses, so they simply gave it up to protect their army, and to make sure their City wasn't destroyed.",
"To put it short, because they realized that the 2003 war in Iraq was a bad idea and said it out loud. The Americans got pissy, tried to rename french fries, whined about the French being cowards and then proved them right by failing in Iraq.",
"I wanted to add one more WWII tidbit I didn't see. Not only did France surrender (as opposed to, say, Poland and Norway which never surrendered but continued to fight in exile) but it actively engaged Allied units. Admittedly the Americans and English they shot at were either attempting to \"invade\" French territory (North Africa) or were demanding the surrender of the French fleet (Mers-el-Kebir) but... still. This did not engender good relations.",
"The French cowardice trope attend back to ww2, they were invaded by the Germans and they surrendered just like any country would under the circumstances. However, in 2002/3 the French PM suggested that before declaring war on Iraq we should wait until the weapon inspectors finish their job as going in prematurity will increase extremism and international terrorism, the US media machine went mental, French Fries became freedom fries, there were boycotts of Genghis products called for and the French were generally verbally hung, drawn and quartered. So it's a combination of factors but considering the French were traditionally a strong ally of the US (we, the British, surrendered to does not American ones during the war of independence) then It was really fucking stupid to not listen to them.",
"Because the British don't like them, they never have, and America has become very friendly with the British, and France surrendered once. It's the easy target and bullies likes to hit hard on weak spots, so there it is. It's become a thing because during world war 2 the relations between the 'Anglo-Saxons,' as he put it, were very frosty toward France's Charles de Gaulle. Personality and differences of opinion probably played a major portion of it, but in the end, de Gaulle came to power in France and America didn't like his dirigisme so making fun of them for surrendering came very naturally. Anytime America doesn't like something they do, it comes back up. It has less to do with actual historical record and more to do with childish middle school behavior.",
"because during the cold war american schools taught propaganda instead of history, especially in regards to wars. children were taught that ww2 was won single handedly by the united states (lol) and in order to do so they had to downplay the involvement of the major players. England was depicted as one big bombsite France was only ever described as surrendering without a fight (the french resistance caused more damage than you would believe) Canadian accomplishments were simply claimed as american ones or not ever mentioned france was tactically important so the nazis took it with overwhelming force, they pretended to surrender to save lives and continued to fight the war in the shadows to avoid civillian casualties. American news then depicted that as cowardice in order to make themselves seem like the hero",
"They overwhelmingly outnumbered the German forces in WWII, but blundered it by using WWI Trench Warfare tactics, and not fortifying Belgium at all. Their forces were so severely crippled and the morale was so low they surrendered, leaving the UK as the lone major member of the allied forces until Hitler decided to invade the USSR. There were some pockets of guerrilla resistance, but in the long run, many just accepted Nazi occupation and put up very little resistance. Furthermore, their military successes were minimal after Napoleon. In WWI the army went on strike. For the past few hundred years, ( with the exception of Napoleon) France had been gradually falling behind the UK in military influence. They supported the colonies in the revolutionary war as a form of revenge for the loss of the french-indian/7 years war. Also... [Because captain america says so... ]( URL_0 )",
"Because of american propaganda. When USA beat an ennemy, he is always depicted as a glorious fighter : Nazi germany his always show as a great military force, beating all the way down in Europe, having great tanks, soldiers, and so on. By doing this american put them logically as superior from their beated ennemy : the stronger is the ennemy you defeat, the stronger you are. As the opposite, when USA loose a war, the ennemy is a unfair, don't fight loyaly, have weak soldier and weak strategy.. Look at the Vietnam : you officialy didn't loose because you were beaten in the war, right ? So, as Germany beat France in 1940 : USA > Germany > France But in fact as so much people said in this thread, France as one of the best military history of the world. We are in the middle of Europa, with no strategical deepth or chanel / ocean to protect us. But we still here after 1500 years of intense war, kicked so many ass, loose some war, but after all we have a great, great military tradition. And still today our army is one of the best in the world.",
"Not like those proud & brave Americans that rushed into WW2... 2+ years after it started, all the while selling goods & supplies to the Allies & having private enterprise support the Axis.",
"When Charles DeGaulle escaped to London in WW2, Churchill advised to turn Paris into a war zone and defend from there. DeGaulle said, \"and lose Paris?\" So they surrendered instead. Who can blame them? War is horrible, war is ugly. Why lose something irreplaceable like the city of Paris when there might be another way. The French love good living. War is the opposite of all that.",
"They explained to you the \"basis\" or the \"arguments\" to why they call the french pussies or quitters. The actual reason behind this new insult comes from the wars Bush initiated. France was the only one saying \" wtf are you doing, it's a nonsense\", and the USA got pissed, calling them pussies. The term, not being something you can easily argument ( France wasn't and hasn't been a little country over all ), derived to quitters, and then to famous for surrendering, since there are \"proofs\" for it ( even if, when you think a little, what country haven't surrendered in all the history of humanity...)",
"Because in the English speaking world we tend to see European history after the middle ages from a British perspective. All the French victories are looked past, and the wars we focus on are the ones Britain gets in on after France had grown too powerful and basically every nation in Europe teams up to cut them down to size. The two most famous defeats, the Seven Years War and War of the Sixth Coalition, were only after France steamrolling it's neighbors for decades at a time. The *Sixth* coalition. It took 6 of those fuckers to finally crack the big blue blob. And of course there was World War 2, the highest profile war of all time that the French had the misfortune of losing early on.",
"I'm just going to leave this video here in response to all the people listing French defeats. ['French Military Victories: some perspective and swearing']( URL_0 ) Basically the main reason is, like every other European nation, they were unprepared for blitzkreig. It's worth noting that we Brits also weren't prepared and were only saved from invasion by our superior navy and the channel. The USSR was the second most powerful nation on earth with vastly more territory, men and resources and they were also unprepared and suffered terribly. The second big one is the first Vietnam war. Again nothing in this war shows the French having a remarkably poor military, they (like the US after them) just couldn't handle fighting against an entire country that wanted them out. Historically the French have always been a great military power since Charlemagne and have a great military record. Losing to the blitzkreig so quickly is basically the only real reason for this record. There are other defeats but no more than you would expect from a country so involved in war. Amusingly many Brits mock the French military despite the fact our military is smaller and less well equipped."
],
"score": [
2169,
808,
179,
71,
52,
40,
39,
32,
29,
15,
13,
12,
12,
11,
10,
9,
8,
8,
8,
7,
6,
6,
5,
4,
4,
4,
4,
4,
4,
4,
4,
3,
3,
3,
3,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.militaryfactory.com/battles/french_military_victories.asp"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://s59.photobucket.com/user/lestat74/media/CapUltimates.jpg.html"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://youtu.be/CApiU7kvgB8"
]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5n51i7 | How do authors remember a lot of specific details from events or conversations they've had when writing autobiographical works? | Hey Reddit! I'm reading The Hard Thing About Hard Things (Ben Horowitz) right now, and I have absolutely no clue how this guy remembers specific numbers (valuations, stock prices), quotes from conversations, a chronological series of events, etc. to build a clear, logical narrative out of! I haven't read any autobiographies, but I imagine they'd be similar. How? P.S. This is my first ELI5, so please let me know if I've done anything wrong. | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dc8o1hc"
],
"text": [
"They generally don't remember all the details. They usually do a ton of research before writing and frame out the story in an outline and craft it into its final composition after a series of drafts. They key point being, before writing they do a ton of research and document the information."
],
"score": [
3
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
5n5p86 | Why are politicians always criticized for "flip-flopping" when their views likely changed over time to represent those more in line with the voting population (as an elected representative's opinions ostensibly ought to)? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dc8th12",
"dc8xxzp",
"dc8vtpu",
"dc8zom2",
"dc8xngw",
"dc8tpv6",
"dc8yks9",
"dc8z9ad",
"dc8vgx7",
"dc8yt9h",
"dc935t1",
"dc8wqer",
"dc8z71z",
"dc8zqfd",
"dc90abp",
"dc90z29",
"dc92gfd",
"dc8twqq",
"dc8zdoz",
"dc90trf",
"dc8z7na",
"dc8ytq3",
"dc8y24s",
"dc93da2",
"dc8zbrz"
],
"text": [
"Because their views often \"change\" *after* they have been elected while supposedly endorsing a particular view (and getting voted in partially based on that). After they are in power, changing views would almost necessarily push them *further* from the voting population since those original views were what got them voted in originally. Why shouldn't this be criticized? Also, politicians are public figures and get criticized for *everything*. If they don't change their views, then they get criticized for never changing their views, instead, possibly by a completely different critic.",
"Political parties are organized around hot button issues like taxes, civil rights, abortion, guns, religion, etc. The political parties and their lobbies and their most partisan voting base demand 100% fidelity to their issues. However, the actual work of governing requires compromise and adjustments to deal with new problems. Take taxes as an example. Back in 1988 George H.W. Bush promised \"read my lips, no new taxes\" during his presidential campaign. Of course, GHW Bush wasn't really a true believer in supply side economics and he was just saying what his political base wanted to hear. He had also made promises to reduce the deficit and balance the budget. During his first term in office, Iraq invades Kuwait and GHW Bush leads us into war. As a practical person, Bush knew that he couldn't go to war, cut taxes and balance the budget. Those 3 things can't happen at the same time. So Bush raised some taxes to pay for the war, but he was labeled a \"flip flopper\" in the 1992 election and he lost to Bill Clinton (with some help from Ross Perot). GHW Bush was almost certainly \"right\" to raise some taxes to pay for the war. His only other alternative was to add more deficit spending to pay for the war effort, which would have broken a different campaign promise (though maybe a less politically costly mistake). GHW Bush's rivals in the Republican party criticized him over \"flip flopping\" on taxes. His Democrat opponents also used the \"flip flop\" criticism, even though they agreed that it was right to raise taxes to pay for the war, because they only cared about winning the election. Your political opponents will almost never compliment you for reaching across the aisle to compromise, because they want to win elections. Instead, they'll attack you as a \"flip flopper\" because it will cost you votes.",
"As a voter, I'm bothered by these things because some principles, like equal rights and ending oppressive policies like the drug war, should NOT be dependent on what's popular. The sort of people I want representing me will have these principles regardless of mainstream attitudes of the time.",
"It is like the old saying goes, \"A man who stands for nothing will fall for anything\". People expect politicians to have thought long and hard about their ideologies and positions on issues. Politicians are not supposed to just change their ideas based on what is popular. An isolated flip-flop can be tolerated, but if a politician is doing it all the time you should not trust them.",
"A couple reasons. First is we love \"Gotcha!\" news. \"OH! We caught you in a lie or you said something else, you're in trouble now!\" That simple idea is much easier to understand and grasp on to than \"well this person thought carefully and adjusted their position.\" Now there is some legitimacy in calling some \"flip-flopping\" cases out. Occasionally a politician is pandering or trying to take both sides of an argument. Sometimes someone will say something in a red state and say basically the opposite in a blue state... in some cases it's clear they either don't have a position but are just saying what the people they are in front of want to hear. The issue is that there have been some times when a politician was correctly called out for such behavior, but that just leads to people to want to see more of it. That inevitably leads to \"this person said the country wasn't ready yet for gay marriage when the country was largely opposed to it, but now that the majority of people in polls support it they're pushing for legalization of gay marriage... they're a total flip-flopper\" which may be pandering, but also could be respecting the will of the people or changing their mind along with the rest of the country over the course of a couple decades.",
"They aren't \"always\". But one can spot the opportunists pretty quick. It's usually that behaviour in addition to other political actions. Actions like moving to a state in order to easily be elected, denying you are interested in a higher office and then turning around and running for a higher office. A history of subterfuge, obfuscation and stonewalling. Couple all that with, \"I've changed my mind\" and one can't help but think, \"hmmmm\".",
"Because its an easy attack, and a sign of one's \"weak character.\" Its a lot easier to say, \"Sen. Kerry is a FLIP FLOPPER\" than it is to defend it by saying, \"Sen. Kerry, like many in America, honestly believed that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Upon learning that it was not true, Sen. Kerry opposed increasing military presence in Iraq- for as bad as Saddam Hussein is, the United States, and our weak \"coalition forces\" do not have the resources necessary to stabilize a large and populous nation once the vacuum of power occurs.\" This is a big problem in the Untied States Senate, where compromise is a BIG part of everything the Senate does. Senators are supposed to soften the bills that come out of the house, be reasonable, and put country over party. Unfortunately, because of this silly \"flip flopper\" sitgma, Senators are afraid to govern and we get gridlock.",
"That's just empty rhetoric. **I'm** big-boned. **You** are fat. **I'm** lean. **You** are anorexic-looking. **I'm** tough. **You're** uncaring. **I** have made careful consideration, my views on the matter have evolved. **You** are a flip-flopper. **I'm** highly qualified. **You** are an elitist. **I'm** experienced with a track record of results. **You** are a Washington insider. **I** know how to compromise and negotiate. **You** cave to the opposition. **I'm** a strong leader. **You** are a dictator who shoves things down our throats. **I** make wise treaties to bring about peace. **You** negotiate with our enemies. Just empty rhetoric to whip up your base or manipulate uneducated swing voters.",
"The main reason politicians change their stance is LOBBYISTS. It has little to do with constituents. A beneficial deal was struck. Always follow the back-scratching and the money.",
"Quite a number of issues here, really. * When they campaign on a specific stance or issue, and then change it as soon as they're in power, it appears (and generally is) disingenuous. If they espoused that opinion during the election, they wouldn't have gotten elected. * When they make a strong stance on principal, and see that it's not getting them any support, they swap it to match the prevailing political winds, it comes across as fickle and pandering. * Regardless of the reasons for a politician changing their mind (including gaining more information or the situation changing - which usually makes the change legitimate and thoughtful), their opponents are going to hammer home the idea of flip-flopping because it is in THEIR best interests to make the other appear weak or indecisive. Bottom line: Whenever a politician changes their mind on an issue, the question \"why\" has to be front-and-centre in the mouth of the populace.",
"A flip-flopper is someone who changes his/her opinion in order to satisfy a crowd, and then the next day, change it again to satisfy another crowd, and repeat the next day. Tell the liberals you are pro choice, tell the conservatives you are pro life. Tell the liberals you are pro gun control, tell the conservatives you are anti gun control. A flip-flopper only says what a crowd wants to hear. Someone who changes their view over time by analyzing a situation and watching how the variables change is NOT a flip-flopper. For a fictional scenario, let's use gun control. If Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton back in 1992 said that they were against gun control and a bunch of massacres started appearing at an exponential rate to the point where a gun-related crime happened at least once every week, then it would be obvious to raise gun control in 2017. They aren't flip-flopping on their previous ideals, they are making changes to adapt to 2017's environment. If in November they said they were pro abortion and in December they were anti abortion, and in January back to pro abortion, then you have a flip-flopper.",
"It's the flop part that's bad. Flip is OK that means they changed their mind based on new information. Flip-flop is going back and forth and can be seen as indecisive and an inability to understand and take in information properly.",
"The question is clearly biased in the wrong way. The questioner ASSUMES that * Politician's views change after being elected to match their constituency's views. This is demonstrably false. In general, at least in North American Politics, the following is true : * Politician's lie when they are running for office, promising their constituency things that the constituency wants. They flip-flop later, and do whatever they damned well please, because most North American political systems have no reasonable method of recall, other than outright revolution. Donald Trump is 100% proof of this. He promised that he would get Mexico to pay for a wall separating the countries. He has already said that he will ask AMERICANS to pay for the wall. He said he would prosecute Hillary for her crimes. He has now said he will not do that. Two of the main planks the he was elected on -- he has \"flip flopped\" on. Not because his constituency changed their mind - quite the opposite - He has flip-flopped because he now has 4 years in which he can do whatever he wants, and the people who voted for him can do absolutely nothing about it. Except Revolt. ANd all of these flip-flops before he's even sworn in! Note that I am not JUST bashing Trump and the Republicans. Democrats would have done exactly the same thing, with different \"ideology\" behind their actions.",
"Their views should change with the evidence, not the polling. If 60% of Americans started sniffing glue non-stop and thought murder ought to be legal, would you want your representatives to just say \"okay\"? Additionally, it's their *job* to understand the issues. Many are bad at it but we elect people to be our proxies because we have our own jobs and can't spend all of our time reading up on every facet of every issue. They're supposed to be doing what's in our best interests **not** voting based on how we might answer a poll.",
"A few reasons. First and foremost, it's because the general population treat politics like a partisan sport, not civic duty. When it's *your* politician, it's an \"evolution of their understanding.\" When it's *their* politician, flip flopping, and a sign of hypocrisy. Additionally, it kind of *is* a sign of hypocrisy, or at least untrustworthyness. If I were to tell you that I think we shouldn't get ice cream, then say that maybe we should... how do you know what I really believe? How do you know what I am planning to do? How can you trust that when I say I am or am not going to do a thing, that I won't just change my mind later?",
"Their purported views aren't necessarily their actual views, rather they're saying it to become electable. Like Hillary all of a sudden being pro-gay when she wasn't exactly an ally in the 90s and early millennium, because back then it would have benefited her more politically to be against gay rights than for them. It's an aspect of breaking trust. Politicians say \"vote for me and I'll do this\", so you give them their vote and as soon as they're in office they say \"y'know what, I changed my mind.\" Fair enough if there's new evidence and thought on a subject that is genuinely persuasive to changing minds, but politicians very rarely acknowledge that. Rather they act as if they've always held the current view, and never thought anything different, but only when questioned directly on why the change of heart will they actually openly admit to it. Trump is actually a perfect, but more flagrant, example of a flip-flopping politician. Saying whatever it takes to get elected, and now he's won, he's quickly backtracking on a lot of his big policies, his only excuse being \"Well, this is what I actually meant.\"",
"Well, one part of the reason is that the media prefers covering \"flip-flop\" and \"hypocrisy\" charges over substantive issues, because they don't have an obvious ideological valence, and so won't alienate half the audience. That's a major part of it. But I think an even larger it is that people have a fundamentally wrong theory of politics and \"flip-flop\" charges play into it. The theory goes that we, the good people who know how the world works, keep trying to find politicians who will implement our good and wise ideas; but they keep turning out to be cynical rascals who won't do it, maybe because they're being bribed by corporate lobbyists or because they care more about what fancy cocktail party intellectual elites think about them. So the central task of politics becomes finding politicians who really, truly believe the same things we people do; the ideal politician is a terrifyingly sincere ideologue who will let justice be done though the heavens fall. But this all is a bunch of bullshit. * Voters don't have any detailed understanding of policy, nor should they be expected to. There's no reason for individual people, unless they are weirdos who actually *like* thinking about policy, to do elaborate and personally costly research before voting, and even if they tried most people would be terrible at it and come up with wrong answers. The sensible thing to do is to figure out in a very crude sense where your most basic values lie, and then go find out what's being said by people and groups that share your values but actually have the time and expertise to do policy work and go with whatever they're saying. To be fair, it's [increasingly possible to be a successful politician while being nearly as policy-ignorant as the average voter.]( URL_0 ) But this in part is because voters subscribe to the flawed theory of politics I'm criticizing, and keep voting in dumber and dumber ideologues; and still, on the whole, politicians have a far better understanding of their job than the people voting for them do. * No-one wants to believe this, but the vast majority of politicians in countries like America are sincere civic-minded people who honestly believe in the policies they advocate, and make serious and meaningful [efforts to fulfill their campaign promises.]( URL_1 ) Outright corruption in American politics is rare and very effectively policed. Campaign contributions are a terrible way to convince a politician to move away from a previously decided policy; the really important effect of campaign money is [to strengthen the hand of politicians who already want to do what the contributor wants.]( URL_2 ) If an elected official substantially changes their position on an issue it is almost always because the situation changed. Often this is because *the very same people who claim to be angry that politicians flip-flop* changed their opinion on the issue! It's well known in surveys that people tend to falsely report their past preferences to have been the same as their current ones; normal people can tell their own stories to be consistent in a way that public figures can't. The flawed folk theory of politics that gives rise to the obsession with \"flip-flops\" has larger negative consequences for society. We keep instituting badly designed reforms to fix problems that don't exist, and end up making the actual problems worse. Term limits, ever-increasing intraparty \"democracy,\" rigid committments like the infamous Norquist taxes pledge. Then when the problem gets worse we demand more of the same failed reforms. It's very troublesome and I don't like where it's taking us.",
"Some people are very adamant about certain views and will vote based upon those views. If a politician decides to change that position due to general public pressure, then he will be heavily criticized by the few that voted for him because of his previous view.",
"Wait what's happening? Why are you talking in the present tense? Which politicians are criticized for flip-flopping anymore? Did you not see the Presidential election, and the guy who won? No one gives a fuck about flip-flopping anymore, unless it's politically expedient to. I.E. if they're your opponent you accuse them, but you don't actually give a fuck if it's your team.",
"What you've described is a flip or a flop, not a flip-flop. A flip-flop is when they go back and forth on an issue, not when they changed their mind.",
"I can't really explain it. But this reminds me of when Obama caught flack for \"evolving\" and eventually supporting marriage equality after being elected. Some people were like \"You're acting less bigoted now? You lied to us! Flip-flopper!\"",
"The term \"flip-flop\" suggests not merely that a politician has changed his mind, but that he has done so for reasons of political expediency, not principle. Americans put up with an incredible amount of nonsense from our politicians, but there remains some lingering sense that *sincerity* covers over a multitude of sins. Nobody likes an opportunist.",
"Voter A hates Candidate B, because CanB hates same sex marriage. Voter B LOVES that CanB represents them in this regard. CanB wins the election and then flip flops to agree with or simply be indifferent on the issue of same sex marriage. This pisses off VotB because now their chosen candidate no longer represents them. VotA still hates CanB due to the nature of the flip flop. CanB never explains why they flip flopped, so both VotA and VotB assume its due to wanting to have the popular opinion and pandering to voters for the next election, never a result of personal growth as would be preferred.",
"People like to vote for candidates who share their views, or at least will do what they can to get their views promoted. Let's take an issue, gun control, as an example. I personally am pro-gun and do not want a candidate to represent me who would try to push for more gun control. If a candidate came up who was formerly anti-gun and is now pro-gun, I'd have a hard time voting for that candidate over another candidate who had always been pro-gun. The reason being, I want a representative who I can trust to do what I consider to the be right thing regardless of whether or not it is the most popular thing to do. In different times in our history, being anti-gay or against the Civil Rights Act would have been popular and a politician changing his views to match up with the majority would have been popular, however, it wouldn't necessarily be the right thing to do.",
"Changing your views is fine, you should always be open to changing your views if it turns out you were wrong, the issue arises from politicians changing their views for dishonest reasons. It's often very easy to spot when a politician has changed their views, simply to get votes or because they got paid to do so, also it's very unlikely for people to change their views from one end of a spectrum to the complete opposite end of a spectrum. Abandoning your beliefs is very hard, which is why people often have problems doing so. Take religion for example, it's very unlikely for someone that is very religious, goes to church every week, helps with services, volunteers, is in different groups at the church, etc to then change into someone who is Richard Dawkins type of Atheist, that just very rarely happens unless there is a major event that triggers it (say a death of a child or something like that), most people instead of becoming a hardcore atheist would instead more likely become, agnostic who doesn't go to church, but still believe some parts of the religion they were once part of and believe. It's the dishonesty of them \"changing\" which is what makes it wrong."
],
"score": [
1767,
897,
139,
104,
104,
56,
46,
36,
28,
22,
17,
12,
10,
9,
9,
7,
5,
4,
4,
3,
3,
3,
3,
3,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.vox.com/2016/7/13/12159000/mike-pence-sorry",
"https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/trust-us-politicians-keep-most-of-their-promises/",
"https://www.jstor.org/stable/27644332"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5n67pl | Why are so many school books portray Christopher Columbus as a hero, when in reality he killed and enslaved the native Americans? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dc8yoey",
"dc8yya2",
"dc8xzd4",
"dc8ypg5"
],
"text": [
"Because killing and enslaving is what a lot of heroes did in the 15th Century. It was a very different era, and finding a technologically undeveloped nation and taking their stuff is what you did to get ahead. It was going on in Africa, it was going on in Asia, and it was even going on in Europe. To put things in perspective, 1492 was the same year the Spanish Inquisition started. Judging people of the past with today's morals is always a tricky business. You pick any hero you want from the 19th Century, and they were likely racist, sexist, and homophobic, because that was a product of the times. And I certain don't think it would be right for people in 100 years to judge me because I eat meat and burn fossil fuels.",
"What a lot of these answers have missed is the Knights of Columbus. This is a religious (Catholic, specifically) organization dedicated to charitable tasks (they do blood drives and habitat for humanity a lot) and promoting their religion. They were founded in the 1880s and still exist today. These guys were some of the major pushers of Columbus to be enshrined in history as this hero cool guy, as Columbus was *hella* Catholic and they wanted that to be an association.",
"Because everything is a matter of perspective and just because deeds we consider immoral now were done by someone does not negate their affect on history. To much of the Western World he is a hero for prompting European expansion into the Americas.",
"For one reason, Christopher Columbus' voyage is what started large-scale European colonization and exploration of the Americas. Most people in the United States trace their ancestry back to Europe and, therefore, don't want to think of Europeans coming to the New World as bad. Since his voyage symbolically marks the beginning of European colonization of the Americas and colonization is what brought Europeans over, people with Western ancestry tend to want to think of it as a positive thing. Another reason is that there was a specific push by some Catholics in the United States to make Columbus a hero. In the late 1800s, Columbus was already considered a hero for finding the New World for Europeans. In 1882, the Knights of Columbus was founded as a fraternal Catholic organization. They chose their name to capitalize on Columbus' popularity since Columbus was Catholic and Catholics felt like they were being marginalized by the protestant majority. The organization grew very large and gained quite a bit of influence. They helped with the push to add the phrase \"under God\" to the Pledge of Allegiance in 1954 and lobbied to make Columbus Day a national holiday to celebrate an American hero (and to have a holiday named after a Catholic). tl;dr - Columbus is a symbol of Europeans coming to the New World and people of European ancestry want to think that that was a good thing. Columbus later became a symbol for Catholic-Americans and that helped to protect his image."
],
"score": [
38,
7,
5,
5
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5n6o53 | What did people think PTSD was before we knew what PTSD was? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dc91opa",
"dc925cr",
"dc9hm2e",
"dc9mgqu",
"dc9htvz",
"dc9jond",
"dc9ot9h",
"dc9m838"
],
"text": [
"PTSD has also been called \"Shell Shock\", \"Battle Fatigue\"... and sadly \"cowardice\" which is punishable by death. That's right, during World War I there was a very real chance that you would survive something so horrible that you are basically non-functional... and then your own side would shoot you for being a coward... most likely on the orders of someone who *knew exactly what you went through, but judged you anyway*.",
"During WWI, it was generally called \"shell shock\". During WWII it was generally referred to as \"battle fatigue\". Neither term was understood, nor were there adequate treatments for it. Some soldiers were even executed for \"cowardice before the enemy\" (especially during WWI) because they (commanders and staff) didn't understand what was going on. It wasn't until the Vietnam War that the issue was actively being studied as a symptom, rather than a cause. They tell you that war is hell. It isn't. It's far worse, because the pain and suffering never let up. I'm just thankful that it is treatable. New understandings and real compassion can now help save hundreds of vets who would otherwise continue to take lives and destroy lives - the vets and others.",
"Lindybeige does a great video on the subject URL_0",
"[George Carlin does 2+ minutes on this. They added syllables and softened the language and called it a disorder.]( URL_0 )",
"PTSD was often also referred to as having had a \"nervous breakdown\" . Often if this got around you were viewed as undesirable and week.",
"During WWI it was also referred to as 'Malingering.' Afflicted veterans received a great deal of hate for it, especially from the older veterans of pre-industrialized wars.",
"In WW1 people called PTSD \"shell shock.\" Doctors thought the shells exploding near people caused atmospheric changes that disturbed people's minds. It was thought to be a physical damage to the brain. If you ever heard a loud noise and had a ringing in your ear, you know noise can cause pain. It was thought a louder noise would damage your brain. Some doctors during WW1 were finding \"shell shocked\" soldiers that were not near any exploding shells. This led to trying to find the real causes for more effective treatment.",
"I'm going to use an old text as an example of how some people in ancient times perceived this phenomena. Hebraic/Old Testament stories of Israelite wars typically involved a time of purification before soldiers could be reintegrated to the rest of the society. Moses calls them *unclean* and commands his soldiers to separate themselves, wash themselves, their armor, weapons, clothes and war trophies after battle. They have to spend a determined number of days cleaning and talking to each other and their equivalent of a spiritual leader. You see that there's an underlying understanding that soldiers have gone through a terrible experience and need to hash it out. While it's easy to state that the purification rituals and process is to appease whatever deity for a number of religious reasons, the practical application is the use of this time to reflect on the possible ramifications involved with warfare. And hopefully to understand and begin the healing process of any psychological (and/or spiritual) wounds."
],
"score": [
40,
14,
4,
4,
3,
3,
3,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FDNyU1TQUXg"
],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oYE_unBFxuU"
],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5n6urt | Why are the red lines on the British flag not centered? | This is something I first noticed back in the early 2000's when I played Command & Conquer: Red Alert 2. Every image I've seen of the British flag has the red cross in the middle, and then red lines on in an X pattern. But the X lines don't line up. They're off center and it bothers me. Does anyone have an explanation for this? [Here I've taken the original design and modified it so the red X lines line up properly]( URL_1 ). I once asked many years ago and someone said: > The flag was waving in the wind, you only think it looks like that. [But every image online says otherwise!]( URL_0 ) | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dc960pj",
"dc93v1q",
"dc93rzk",
"dc9vhut"
],
"text": [
"The Union flag is made up of three crosses: * the [cross of St George, representing England]( URL_4 ), is a red cross on a white (representing silver) background; * the [cross of St Patrick, representing Ireland]( URL_5 ), is a red saltire on a white background; * the [cross of St Andrew, representing Scotland]( URL_0 ), is a white saltire on a blue background. The white in all of these flags is known in heraldry as \"argent\", meaning \"silver\", and is one of the two \"metals\", the other being \"or\" (\"gold\") which is represented as yellow; the red and blue (or \"gules\" and \"azure\") are \"colours\". One of the rules in heraldry is that you can't put a metal on another metal, or a colour on another colour. This already causes a problem if you try to put the cross of St George on the blue background of the cross of St Andrew, because then you'd get gules (a colour) on azure (another colour), which isn't allowed. To avoid that, the red cross is \"fimbriated argent\", meaning it's given a white outline. The original Union Flag (or Union Jack -- it's a myth, apparently, that you can only call it the \"Union Jack\" if it's flying from the jack mast of a ship) was created when England and Scotland were united as Great Britain, and so only had the crosses of St George and St Andrew: it looked [like this]( URL_3 ). Later, Ireland entered into a union with Great Britain, and it was represented by the cross of St Patrick. But if you put the cross of St Patrick and the cross of St Andrew on top of each other, all you see is whichever cross is on top -- you don't see the one below. So to depict both crosses, they were *quartered* and *counterchanged*: they were split so that each \"arm\" of the \"X\" showed half argent (St Andrew) and half gules (St Patrick). And then the quartered saltire was fimbriated argent to avoid the \"colour on colour\" problem. [This is what you see if you take away the cross of St George]( URL_1 ). The \"red lines\" aren't continuous, but they meet at a point. The narrow white strips are the fimbriation; the wider white strips are what is visible of the cross of St Andrew. [This diagram will help you to understand the counterchanging and fimbriation]( URL_2 ): for the purposes of illustration, the crosses are fimbriated or. EDIT: Formatting. Oops.",
"Because then one set of 'lines' would be superior to another. The UK flag is a combination of three different flags. The Flag of Scotland: Blue with a White 'X' The St. Patrick's Cross: White with a Red 'X' The St. George's Cross: White with a Red '+' If you combine these three you get the UK flag. However flags are also symbols of heraldry, which means that there are rules for how these things can be combined. In the case of the UK flag the Scottish flag and st Patrick's cross are 'quartered per saltire' and 'countercharged' which is a fancy way of saying that in each of the four triangular areas formed (quartered per saltrie) that the forground and background colors are reversed (countercharged). This makes it so that the flag of Scotland isn't 'superior' to St. Patrick's cross (or vice versa).",
"Technically speaking the saltire (corner-to-corner cross) in the UK flag evenly splits its width between [the red of St. Patrick's Saltire]( URL_1 ) and [the white of St. Andrew's]( URL_2 ). It looks uneven because the red and white is [fimbriated]( URL_0 ) with additional white - on the white edge of the saltire you can't visually tell where the saltire ends and the fimbriation begins but in flag terms those are considered distinct from one another.",
"Wow, I've never noticed that before. It looks...off like it's a mistake...but having read some other comments I know it's like that on purpose..."
],
"score": [
610,
29,
16,
4
],
"text_urls": [
[
"https://www.greensofgloucestershire.com/media/catalog/product/cache/1/image/9df78eab33525d08d6e5fb8d27136e95/s/c/scotland-sky-st-andrews-cross-53-eyelets_1.png",
"https://qph.ec.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-f528d63c33ec28dd8bd0cab4a852ee4f?convert_to_webp=true",
"http://m.eet.com/media/1175608/union-jack-03.gif",
"https://www.awesomestories.com/images/user/915520df7d.gif",
"http://www.flags.net/images/largeflags/UNKG0100.GIF",
"https://flagspot.net/images/i/ie-stpat.gif"
],
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fimbriation",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Patrick%27s_Saltire",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_of_Scotland"
],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
5n79ye | Why the Quenn Elizabeth receives much more press attention than her husband (King?) Phillip? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dc96xtl",
"dc971qa"
],
"text": [
"Because she's the actual queen (aka the one with the title). He's the prince consort. He has no direct claim to the throne and is just there to make royal babies.",
"Phillip isn't technically a King. He's a Prince, or Prince Consort. Monarchy is not so straightforward as that; Elizabeth, as the daughter of King George, was the heir to the throne from the time she was a child. That right isn't taken away because she married. I think the primary reason Phillip is not referred to as King is because it might make things confusing as to who exactly is in charge. Queen Elizabeth is the head of both the state and the Church of England. It's her country, not Phillip's. She calls the shots."
],
"score": [
11,
6
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5n86gu | Why do they only play the newest movies at cinemas? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dc9g2or"
],
"text": [
"There are only a handful of screens in any theater, thus the theater must choose to play what will bring in the most people. The majority of people only see a movie once in the theater with most of them around the film's opening. A few good movies will have people return for subsequent visits or draw in people who were hesitant about seeing it until they heard good things from friends, and you'll notice that they tend to stick around on the big screen longer because of it. But in any case, the theater needs to make space for the next movies coming out which means removing older movies that aren't bringing in as many viewers. That being said, many smaller theaters specialize in showing movies that have already come and gone from the primary theaters. They often obtain the rights cheaper and thus can offer cheaper admission. But they still suffer the same problem of limited screens and waning interest in older movies, so they cycle out too."
],
"score": [
3
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5n9mlt | The War on Drugs | If it is not too much to ask I'm pretty confused on this - why and when it began, who implemented it, how has it changed the public/law enforcement from before to now, is it really that bad of a concept in general, and if so, what is a good way to change it. I've read various different posts about this but piecing all of the information together is a lot harder than seeing it all laid out. | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dc9r5zo",
"dc9sm2c"
],
"text": [
"It was officially started by Nixon but not much was implentend at the the time to enforce it. It was Reagan who really ratcheted it up. It was continued by bush sr.",
"Well the term War on Drug started to become popular under Nixon when he categorized drugs abuse as public ennemy number one. That said I wouldn't said that Nixon started the war on drug as we know it. I congress passed an Act in 1970 under Nixon that categorizes drugs. That's where the system of schedule 1 and other was created. But at the same time he repealed the mandatory minimum sentence for marijuana minimum. It was also during his administration that the DEA was created. So in a way he created the foundation for the war on drugs. At that time the US had a lot of problems with soldiers getting addicted to heroin in Vietnam getting home. It really started in the early 80s under Regean that incarceration rate started to increase a lot, the CIA and US Military started to involve themselves to stop drugs shipment. You also start to see operation in several southern american country. The argument against the War on Drugs is mainly the same argument that terminated the Prohibition of alcohol. People like to do drugs, even if they are wrong for them. And making it illegal won't stop them from doing it. So what it does instead is - People get their live ruined because they consumed small amount drugs. People that may never become addict and now won't be able to go to some school or get some jobs. - It cost just so much to enforce all of these laws. The US have one of the highest incarceration rate and this is costly. So much police force that focus on that also have a cost. - It actually give such a big financial source for illegal organization, which allow them to operate at a bigger scale. The biggest crimanel were often taking advantage of that. Think of Al Capone during the prohibition or Pablo Escobar in Colombia. Money give power so you don't want to give money to those kind of person. - Education seem to be a better tool to decrease the amount of problems. Take a look at smoking. It decrease drastically with education and PSA, while drugs never decrease on a large scale. - You can control the quality of something illegal. So you end up with nasty drug that use gasoline or dangerous chemical, etc. Something without the consumer knowing it making using drugs even more dangerous. If it's legal you can make standard and good labeling to protect consumer. - Making it illegal make it harder to get help to get off drugs. Because you usually want to continue to use your drugs, but slowly decrease the quantity over time. But as a medical profession you can't provide or prepare drugs to your patient for that purpose. - Drugs will always be a large industry in the billons of dollar each year. Better get that money in the states to help education and treatment."
],
"score": [
5,
4
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
5n9vnz | In the US, what do you do if you are seriously ill but can't possibly afford treatment? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dc9tiez",
"dc9w80z",
"dca0doq",
"dca29g8",
"dc9uhss",
"dc9tkjy",
"dc9welt"
],
"text": [
"Go to the hospital and get a 5 to 6 figure bill in the mail. Negotiate it down and figure out a payment plan, or declare bankruptcy and start over",
"It is against federal law for a publicly funded hospital refuse medical service based on finances/insurance.. so, you go in debt. Most hospitals will have forms that they'll give you after your visit so that you can request aid/grants/etc, if you need them. Edit: [Link]( URL_0 ) for more information. > In 1986, Congress enacted the Emergency Medical Treatment & Labor Act (EMTALA) to ensure public access to emergency services regardless of ability to pay. Section 1867 of the Social Security Act imposes specific obligations on Medicare-participating hospitals that offer emergency services to provide a medical screening examination (MSE) when a request is made for examination or treatment for an emergency medical condition (EMC), including active labor, regardless of an individual's ability to pay. Hospitals are then required to provide stabilizing treatment for patients with EMCs. If a hospital is unable to stabilize a patient within its capability, or if the patient requests, an appropriate transfer should be implemented. Edit II: The above pretty much applies to every hospital in the US (as nearly all of them accept Medicare), clinics will vary though.",
"Thank God for the NHS. Next time you moan about a 4 hour wait in A & E just remember that you walk out with the same bank balance before you walked in.",
"I'm Canadian, but I grew up in Africa. I know a lot of people in the US. The first thing to say about the US is that healthcare is not quite that scary. I'm not saying the US healthcare system is great, but it's not quite the doom and gloom people sometimes make it out to be. Even the whole 'for-profit' debate is a bit funny. Most hospitals for example in the US are 'non-profit'. But that's a side point * The US does have support for people who cannot afford it. It's called Medicaid. So if you're poor... you have very basic health coverage * Now if you make too much for Medicaid, and for whatever reason you don't have insurance... well that enters the fantastic world of negotiations. Generally hospitals will treat you in an emergency. They can't turn you away. Then you get a big fat bill. Then you negotiate to something you can afford. The hospital is going to want to get something, rather than nothing. At the end of the day, it's debt like anything else. Bankruptcy law is there for a reason if you truly can't pay your debt * Now if you have insurance and there is a treatment that is not covered, well that's not really a unique situation even for countries with universal healthcare. It's just that in countries with universal healthcare, that treatment will simply not be available for anyone. Happens all the time in Canada, where a particular treatment will not be covered, but the person will fight to fly to the US for some expensive treatment. Sometimes they get the government to pay for it. Other times they don't. Universal healthcare systems tend to ration to keep costs down. The US tends to put the choice in your face, by saying you can do it if you pay this much.",
"You seem to think that the US is dedicated to keeping every single person alive. That is simply not the case. Can't pay?- you get no aid unless someone else steps in. Take on loans? - You are in debt until you pay it off.",
"Sadly unless it becomes something that can be admitted to the emergency room, you die not getting the treatment you need.",
"In short, America is a very harsh system. There is little or no safety net. The government is not responsible for caring for people. At best, it supports a system where people or organizations can become wealthy enough to care for the needy. Caring for the needy is an opt in system. There is massive opportunity, but the risks are yours to shoulder in whatever way you can. There is no obligation on anyone to care about their fellow citizens, nor pay for them. You will find many millions of people who will dedicate their lives to charity. You will find many millions who will horde everything without paying back one dime in appreciation to the system that made them so wealthy. It's all conceptualized under the concept of Liberty. Free to do as you wish, whether that is to be a benefit or bane. I'm reminded of a joke where Jesus is preaching and says to the gathering that they should help the needy. Someone in the crowd asks why they don't just give money to the Romans at let them help the needy. Jesus says, \"I'm starting over. Let me know where I lost you.\" It's not perfect, but it does require people to take personal responsibility for helping the needy, not pass that responsibility off to the government."
],
"score": [
48,
12,
7,
7,
6,
5,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[
"https://www.cms.gov/Regulations-and-Guidance/Legislation/EMTALA/index.html?redirect=/EMTALA/"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5nb8k3 | How did the feeling of homesickness benefit prehistoric humans and why did we develop it? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dca5or8",
"dca5ii2"
],
"text": [
"I've read a few research pieces on this topic, so although I'm no specialist maybe I can offer an explanation. Humans, unlike most (if not all) animals on Earth, have very little in the way of natural defence - our skin is bare, we don't have extra-sharp teeth or claws and we don't have the benefit of four legs for speed, so our greatest defence is our intellect and our social circles. Family units and tribal groups provide safety in numbers, so it is in a human's best interest evolutionarily speaking to stay within a social circle and maintain a bond with this circle for as long as possible. What encourages us to stay within these social groups is the human need to belong - to 'fit in' and to remain that way, so as to prolong the chances of staying within a protective social circle and therefore heightening our chances of surviving danger. Humans have an insane amount of qualities which enable us to form lasting bonds and maintain these bonds on a social level. This is an incredibly simplified version of 'belongingness theory'. Once a human being relocates geographically, leaving this social circle and safe home environment that has provided them with physical and emotional support, they feel an emotional pang of 'homesickness', which is essentially the drive to be within that safe, supportive space that 'home' (generally) is. As they say, home is where the heart is. So, one key explanation for homesickness is that the feeling of homesickness is the emotional distress we experience when being away from an environment we perceive to be safe, comfortable and familiar - which in turn explains why we mostly feel homesickness during times of stress, or being in unfamiliar environments, or generally going through some negative experiences/thoughts.",
"I am in no way an expert and this is just guesswork. Homesickness probably helped some earlier humans survive by stopping them from exploring. If you think about it, it makes sense; their home has to be pretty safe, otherwise they would die or would be traumatized and wouldn't long for it. By leaving that safe home to explore unknown and possibly dangerous places, they are putting their lives in jeopardy. Homesickness stops the exploration, and people stay healthy and alive"
],
"score": [
4,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5nc000 | In the US, what's the difference between a state and a commonwealth? | In the US, we habitually refer to "the 50 states". But, there are only 46 states, as Virginia, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, and Kentucky are actually commonwealths. What's the difference? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dca8gwf",
"dcab0go"
],
"text": [
"\"Commonwealth\" is meant to emphasize the fact that the government exists for the common good of the people living within that political entity. In the US, there is no legal or political difference between a commonwealth and a state. It's literally just the name and nothing more.",
"There are 50 states, 4 of which have the word \"commonwealth\" in their full names. Constitutionally speaking, they are still states just the same as any other. The US does have two \"commonwealths\" which aren't states though, Puerto Rico and the Mariana Islands. It doesn't really mean anything specific, they just needed a term for these two territories which have quite unique statuses, so they picked \"commonwealth\"."
],
"score": [
15,
8
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
5nc4r5 | "Gaslighting" | I have been hearing this a lot in political conversations... | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dca9npv",
"dcapn8z",
"dca9z1x",
"dcbf4qh",
"dcaluj5",
"dcb8cba",
"dcb8uv8",
"dcaowx3",
"dcagg2x",
"dcb86bd",
"dcamaxa",
"dcb806x",
"dcb8u0b",
"dcax20h",
"dcb8v7u",
"dcb8kj1",
"dcango7",
"dcacph6",
"dcb7n20",
"dcb7ujx",
"dcb9am5",
"dcb90vl",
"dcb753c",
"dcbii8q",
"dcb7f4u",
"dcbl0fz",
"dcbk6uw"
],
"text": [
"Gaslighting is a form of psychological manipulation/abuse where you deceive someone to the point where they begin to question their own reality and sanity. It is probably better explained via an example. Let's say you had a brother growing up. Then, one day, you came home, and there was no trace of him. He isn't in any pictures, all of this things are gone, and no one you talk to recalls him. Let's also say that this is a big deception. Everyone is in on the conspiracy. Your brother has moved away, your parents replaced all the pictures and got rid of all of his stuff, and everyone else is feigning ignorance. But the deception is so thorough, and they are so adamant about the lie and stick to it so well that you begin to question your own memories of your brother to the point where you begin to consider not that everyone is lying to you, but that they are right and you are just crazy. EDIT: Some people are getting this confused with the Mandela Effect. I'll admit they are similar but there are some crucial differences: 1. They both involve questioning ones memories, but in the Mandela effect the memories are false, with Gas Lighting the memories are true. 2. Mandela effect originates with the person experiencing the effect when confronted with a contrary but true reality. It is not fully understood and is a psychological phenomenon. Gas Lighting is a form of psychological abuse that originates externally, from the person presenting the false reality. 3. The Mandela effect is unintentional whereas Gas Lighting is malicious and deliberate. EDIT2: Yes, the Asian-Jim joke in the Office is a humorous example of Gas Lighting.",
"I want to use a more feasible example than some of the ones above. Let's say you see your wife kissing a coworker at your office Christmas party. You're shocked and hurt, and don't know how to react, so you just stand there stunned for a second. Your coworker sees you and pulls your wife out of your sight line and into a room with people. You follow and tell your wife you two need to talk. You ask her what's going on. She pretends she doesn't know what you're talking about. You say that you caught her kissing your coworker. Then she says she's been in that common room with the large group of people all night. You must have seen him kissing someone else. Also, haven't you had a few drinks? And weren't you smoking a cigarette while some other coworkers were hitting a joint outside? Maybe that joint was laced with something weird, that one coworker is kind of sketchy. It feels like maybe you aren't in the best place to be *sure* that was her you saw. You two should go home, she'll drive since you're a little drunk. You aren't a little drunk, but you're mad and also want to leave, so you can talk about this more. All night you argue, and all night she denies. You talk about breaking up, she calls you crazy and gets angry. You're angry too, but eventually you decide to sleep on the couch and deal with the logistics of probably breaking up the next day. At first you're so sure. But then...you aren't. The next day, the memory is a little more faded. It was dark in that side room. If you ask your coworker, he'll probably deny too. So there's no point in asking him. Should you ask some other people that were in the common room? But then if you're wrong, or they didn't see, you'll look like kind of a crazy person in front of other coworkers. Behind all of this, there's a big part of you that doesn't *want* this to be happening. Deep down, you kind of hope you're wrong. And eventually, you start to believe it. The more time passes, the more the memory fades, the less certain you can be. Your wife, meanwhile, is steadfast and resolute in her rightness, and angry at you for questioning her fidelity. Maybe you'll always sort of know what you saw, but you'll never be able to really talk about it without sounding crazy and you'll never act on it. This is gaslighting.",
"From Wikipedia: \"Gaslighting is a form of manipulation through persistent denial, misdirection, contradiction, and lying in an attempt to destabilize or delegitimize a target. Its intent is to sow seeds of doubt in their targets, hoping to make them question their own perception, memory, and sanity.\" It's a common tactic used by abusers. In simpler terms: Person A (usually a narcissist or sociopath) does something harmful or wrong to another, often dependent/trusting Person B. When B tries to call out A or question them concerning the wrongful act, A insists that B was misunderstanding or misremembering the situation and blowing things out of proportion, even though B was really in the right. Over a period of time, B will begin to doubt themselves and will be less capable of addressing any abusive or harmful situations because, after all, they have a history of \"blowing things out of proportion.\" Person A is now free to continue to harm B and get away with it so long as no outside party that has not been gaslit notices what's going on.",
"C'mon, /u/hamsterberry, this'll be the third time today I've explained gaslighting to you. Are you not smart enough to understand or do you just not respect me enough to listen? This is why everyone calls you a scatterbrain and no one wants you around. You're lucky I love you because no one else would be willing to put up with this. Anyway, that's what gaslighting is. Now did you remember to pick up the thing? Seriously, we talked about it this morning and you promised you'd pick it up for the party. Oh, *of course* you don't remember the party. Heaven forbid you remember something that's not entirely centered around you. Luckily I'm used to you disappointing everyone, so I did it myself. This is why our friends never come over anymore. They just can't stand being around you. Is it my fault? Is it something I did to make you like this? Oh there you go, blaming everyone but yourself. Typical /u/hamsterberry. You're lucky I love you. ^^ That ^^ is gaslighting.",
"I think the simplest way of putting it is that if you tell someone something enough, they'll eventually start to believe it. It doesn't have to be some elaborate ruse. But if you're in an abusive relationship for years, and constantly getting put down and accused of things... You start to wonder if there really is something wrong with you. My ex was a legitimate sociopath who would beat the shit out of me and then claim I did it to myself, or come up with far fetched stories about these contrived ways I had to be cheating on him (when in reality, I was rarely allowed out of his sight). I knew *those* accusations weren't true, but the smaller things he would say were far more insidious. Constant put downs and name calling and insults broke me down to the point that even a couple years later, I don't really believe that I'm worth anything or capable of achieving anything in life, because for so long I had it drilled into my head that I was just a junkie whore. Before I met him, I was pre med and worked as a teacher but I don't even remember that person. All brainwashed away...",
"I was in a relationship with a guy who gaslighted me constantly for almost two years. It would range from small things like he would ask for a cup of tea and then when brought it deny he ever asked for one. We would argue about things and he would say the most horrible, malicious things to me, but when I brought them up later he would twist everything to make it seem like I was the sole aggressor in the argument so I would end up apologising to him instead of getting the apology from him that I needed. We would make plans together but then when it came to it he would deny any knowledge of it. One time we were out with friends and I gave a guy he didn't like a hug/said hello, and he later accused me of kissing this person (which I absolutely did not and would not do), insisting that I was drunk and I didn't remember and that all of our friends witnessed it. This blew into a huge argument and he kept making up more elaborate scenarios and continuing to insist I was so drunk I didn't remember (I wasn't that drunk and I remembered everything, though by the end of the argument I started to believe him). One of the most bizarre instances was that he got a couple of books for Christmas once, and when I was gathering my books from the house to move out he insisted that they were my books so I should take them, and began to get angry, which led me to question my sanity even as I was moving out and so I took the books, but that was one of the most fucking weird occurrences in the entire relationship. He was also repeatedly physically aggressive, often for no apparent reason, but afterwards would claim that I started the fight, that he never hit me, that I needed help/I was making it up/was losing my mind. When I first met him I was quite confident, outgoing, fun-loving. After two years I was an agitated nervous wreck, having regular panic attacks, in a pit of despair and depression, genuinely believing that maybe he's right, maybe I am crazy, questioning all my friendships (because he did a very good job at making other people believe I was crazy as well as myself) which led to me pushing many of my friends away because I didn't trust them anymore, blaming myself for every argument we had and desperately seeking forgiveness because I believed he was the only person I had left. It's a process of slowly chipping away at a persons sense of self and their sanity until they no longer even believe or trust their own thoughts.",
"A form of gas lighting that I have not seen in the comments is creating a false sense of self. I had an ex-wife who constantly described me as forgetful. The phrase, \"Remember I told you about this? You always forget things.\" was constant. I was the \"forgetful\" one in the relationship. After I was divorced I realized that I wasn't the one who was forgetful at all. She would project her own faults on me so that I was made to feel less-than. After nearly 18 years of it, she had convinced me that I was \"just not good at remembering things\". Recently I heard my daughter say \"I am just clumsy\" when she was explaining a cut on her knee she got at her mothers house. I am now working hard to stop the gas lighting with my kids and let them know they are not \"defective\" when they are not perfect.",
"There's no such thing as gaslighting. Where did your crazy mind latch onto that but of lunacy. You are crazy if you think I'm trying to make you crazy. I love you! I just wish you weren't so crazy. /Gaslighting",
"\"Gaslighting\" describes a form of psychological abuse where one person deliberately tries to make another person doubt their own sanity by denying the correctness of that person's memories and personal experiences. If you heard it in political conversations, the term was probably abused. Some people will accuse anyone who disagrees with them about specific events of gaslighting: \"I say that happened and you say it didn't, so you're gaslighting me!\" In a political discussion, people often talk about evens they did not personally witness so they rely on unrealiable sources and the view is heavily dependant on interpretation. The term \"gaslighting\" is really not appropriate in that case.",
"Edit: Yeah, this was way too long. I think gaslighting is something you have to go through, something you have to see up-close at least, to really understand how insidious it is, and how it works. TL; DR- He had me convinced that I was experiencing postpartum psychosis and I was looking into mental health facilities for in-patient treatment. Those were some of the worst years of my life. Next month is my 5th anniversary of getting out. I don't ever like to compare anything to rape that isn't rape-- but this may be the exception. It was one of the grossest violations of my personhood that I have ever endured. He violated my mind. I had to be convinced by a very caring, very competent therapist that I wasn't crazy, that I wasn't malevolent, and that I was being viciously abused.",
"Gaslighting means intentionally making someone question their own sanity by messing around with their reality. It can involve things like moving things from one place to another without their knowledge, talk about something and then deny you ever talked about it, switch their newspapers (in old days) and change clocks. This makes it easier for you to claim the other person is crazy, and the other person, if they fell for it, will also begin to have second thoughts. Apparently in the old Victorian times, a lot of men \"gaslighted\" their wives whenever they accused them of having an affair or doing something immoral. It was easier for men to claim women were \"paranoid\" and \"anxiety-ridden\", and this also benefitted them if they wanted a divorce. This was also used by con-men to cheat men out of their money by making fake companies and \"hiring\" employees. This eventually became a popular theme or trope in literature and cinema, where a shady man married a woman, and the woman, who is the protagonist and generally a housewife and secluded from the world, begins to question her own sanity. It is a great trope for thriller, mystery and horror genre, including a movie named Gaslight, where the husband said the wife only imagined the occasional dimmining of gaslights in their house at fixed regular times. In political conversations, it is used to accuse the other side of trivializing someone's concern by saying, \"Its all in your head\". This can involve saying \"As a woman you shouldn't be afraid of strangers at night, its all in your head\" or \"Millenials are the worst generation. They have everything, and they still complain.\"",
"The top comment paints a very dramatic picture about what gaslighting is, and while it may be true, I think in reality it's more subtle than that most of the time. Although I was raised in a mostly normal family, my mom has always been more cold, not very affectionate. Gaslighting is something she's very good at. For some reason, my mom must always think she is the one who is right about everything, and is notorious for denying things happened a certain way. She also has a history of implying that my feelings and emotions about things are not accurate or valid, which is a form of gaslighting.",
"Chapter 7 of Animal Farm is an excellent example. \" \"That was part of the arrangement!\" cried Squealer. \"Jones's shot only grazed him. I could show you this in his own writing, if you were able to read it. The plot was for Snowball, at the critical moment, to give the signal for flight and leave the field to the enemy. And he very nearly succeeded–I will even say, comrades, he would have succeeded if it had not been for our heroic Leader, Comrade Napoleon. Do you not remember how, just at the moment when Jones and his men had got inside the yard, Snowball suddenly turned and fled, and many animals followed him? And do you not remember, too, that it was just at that moment, when panic was spreading and all seemed lost, that Comrade Napoleon sprang forward with a cry of 'Death to Humanity!' and sank his teeth in Jones's leg? Surely you remember that, comrades?\" exclaimed Squealer, frisking from side to side. Now when Squealer described the scene so graphically, it seemed to the animals that they did remember it. At any rate, they remembered that at the critical moment of the battle Snowball had turned to flee. But Boxer was still a little uneasy.\"",
"See the movie that inspired it. It's a great one. URL_0",
"I'd just like to say I'm very disappointed that this thread was not a series of \"what?\", \"never heard of it\" & \"is that even English?\", thus teaching OP by example. Shame, Reddit.",
"Gaslighting is a form of psychological abuse where you attempt to make a person doubt their own sanity through repeated, insidious deception, slowly chipping away at their certainty. Are you old enough to remember 'candid camera'? It was an old (70sish) TV show where they'd set up all manner of pranks on unsuspecting members of the public, and record their reaction on a hidden camera. I remember one clip where they'd called a carpenter in to build a shelf for a wall... which they'd secretly made adjustable. He measured the wall, then while he measured the piece of wood to fit on it, they pulled the wall in a couple of inches. Cuts the plank, goes to fit it... wtf. Measures again, goes back to the bench, they adjust the wall back again, rinse and repeat a few times for laughs. Now imagine doing the equivalent kind of thing to someone over a period of years - making arrangements then denying all knowledge, editing diaries/calendars to suit, slowly eroding all their confidence in their memory and grasp on reality, then using that doubt to get away with more shit right under their nose, etc etc. It's shitty and evil and manipulative, is what it is. *However*. It's also one of those terms that gets massively misused by... certain kinds of people... to mean just about anything they like, down to simple disagreement. \"No it isn't, that's bullshit.\" \"Stop invalidating my opinion! I won't let you gaslight me!\" If it isn't fucking with the evidence *in order to* erode someone's confidence in their sanity and memory, *then it isn't gaslighting*.",
"This happens in dating a lot, too. I would think this is how a lot of people end up with low self-esteem and body dysmorphic disorder.",
"I believe it came from an old movie or TV episode of the same name where a husband would slowly turn down the \"gas light\" daily to the point where his wife believed she was slowly going blind.",
"Having been in such a relationship and reading good, but a little extreme explanations of what Gas Lighting is on this thread. Feel I can pitch since I 5 years in such a relationship. In the simplest form, Lets say your significant other and you get into an argument because she was rude, disrespectful, and demanded you do something she wanted. You don't feel comfortable doing it and explain you cannot, She blows up on you. You guys take some time and cool off and then agree to talk about it. She will say twist the events of the argument to make herself look better, she will say she calmly asked you to do something and you overreacted and were a big jerk who started shouting at her. Your not to sure, maybe you did over react, maybe she was calm, i dont remember shouting, but why would she lie about that, maybe that did happen. She will follow up at how poor your memory is and all your friends say so. Using Gas lighting she can win any argument to get what she wants. She is altering you reality. One time it will not hurt, but after years you will left with tons of insecurity and unsure of reality. Only way to break the spell is to be aware of it, keep a journal. In my case i don't think she gas lighted me with awareness. Its more of that how she was used to dealing with arguments. She honestly believed she her version of events. when confronted, she would double down.",
"Essentially our president elect is the personification of gaslighting. Changes his story mid sentence, says and does crazy things and then blames everyone else and takes denial to an art form.",
"Others have explained it in a general sense, but I thought I'd try to answer including how it is misused in the political debate. First, the typical example of how it will come up, because I've been accused of gaslighting people. A. You are insane, that is not how this works. 1+2=3, it is a fact. Here is the video documentation: video dot net If you don't see that, you are the definition of delusional. B. Stop gaslighting me. 1+2=42 In this case, it is plain observation. While it may be exaggeration for illustrative purposes, that is the principle at play. In real gaslighting, the intent is entirely different. A. You didn't see that thing that happened. What you really saw was actually this other thing. I never said 1+2=3. You must be overtired or maybe took too much of your prescription drug. B. Stop gaslighting me. I distinctly remember it. I have an audio recording. ___ In the first case, A is merely laying out fact. Yes, maybe A is mistaken or just wrong, but the intent is not to deceive, but to point out actual error. Person B is decieving themselves if what A is saying is actual fact. In the second case, B is saying the truth, and A is the attempted deceiver trying to induce self doubt as a mechanism. In the first case, B is paranoid/delusional, running afoul of Dunning-Kruger effect, where in they are incapable of seeing their own flaws in logic on their own. The famous example of that is the guy who tried to thwart camera security by squirting lemon juice on his face. You know, because it's invisible ink.... In the second, A is a psychopath. Disregard for the truth or the wellbeing of others with a motive for personal gain. Again, exaggeration for illustrative purposes. People do minor things along these lines and don't necessarily qualify for those given personality disorders. Just taking it to the extreme so the differences are more notable.",
"watch out for this common signs : 1 he is telling you, you are crazy 2 you are often confused 3 you have trouble making decisions 4 you find yourself apologizing to others a lot 5 you have to make excuses for your partners behaviour to others 6 you feel you don’t deserve your man, because he is so much better than you 7 you feel joyless in your relationship 8 you have to lie to your partner to avoid conflicts 9 you are constantly second-guessing yourself 10 although everything else in your life is good, you are not happy 11 you are withholding information to friends and family to avoid explaining yourself 12 you feel there is something wrong with your relationship, but you can’t quite put the finger on it 13 others remark you have changed significantly since you are with your partner 14 you feel like a failure 15 you carefully think about bringing up a topic in a conversation with our partner 16 others try to protect you from your partner 17 you are already preparing excuses for things you are doing if those signs hit the nail you should get to know common [gaslighting techniques]( URL_0 ) to be prepared",
"My SO and I both are aware of gas lighting so when we do it, it is to mess with each other. I hid her keys in the freezer. After 10 minutes of not finding them I say \"check the freezer, you have acting off lately, something you would do.\" Then she laughs. I laugh. The toaster laughs I shoot the toaster. Good times. Edit: TOASTER",
"My ex-wife used to move things like decorations and pictures around the house and then deny it. I guess she did it for no other reason than to fuck with me. It wouldn't be from one room to another, just simple moves like turning a vase around or making a picture crooked on the wall. I finally caught her in the act one day and she fessed up to all the other instances. I really did think I was losing it for a while. But then again, she is my ex for a reason...",
"Them: The rain is dry. You: It's not. Them: The rain is dry. You: I'm standing here in the rain, and i'm getting wet from it. Them: The rain is dry. You: I'm telling you that you're wrong. rain is made of water, it's therefore wet by default. Them: The rain is dry. You: You're an Idiot. Them: The rain is dry. You: I'm not an Idiot. Them: The rain is dry. You: Whatever, I'll leave you to your fantasy. Them: The rain is dry. You: Yeah, Sure. Whatever. I'm tired of hearing it. Them: The rain is dry. You: Yep, of course it is. /sarcasm Them: The rain is dry. You: Well I could have sworn it was wet, but maybe i'm just crazy.",
"Ugh this hits close to home. About 8 years or so ago I bought a red button up shirt for my parents annual christmas eve party. I specifically remember buying it because ironically enough my brothers ex g/f was the the person running the register. Well at some point that year I see the shirt in my brothers closet shortly after I had lost mine. I said hey that's my shirt. He denies it vehemently. I am adament it's my shirt. I can even remember buying it and what I bought it for. I was so confident it was mine. We go back and forth about it for a long time and he continues to deny it. Flash forward a year or so later my mom is showing pictures from last years christmas party and there I am wearing the shirt. I confront my brother with this picture, and he brings the shirt out and shows how his name was sewn into the tag. At the time I thought okay maybe it is his and I'm going crazy? Didn't occur to me until later that my brother doesn't sew his name into any of shirts. Let it go for awhile. Basically decided it was possible my brother bought the exact same shirt as me, at the same time mine went missing. And that I was crazy or projecting what the shirt looked like to fit my version of the story. The kicker is a few years later I'm at my brothers house and he wants to go out to eat at a nice place, but I only have a hoodie on me. I ask to borrow a shirt. He brings out the red shirt, and says I can keep it because it doesn't fit him and he doesn't know why he bought it anyway. (It was my size - my brother is short and stocky, I am tall and lanky). Anyway I thought that was a decent example of gas lighting, with a happy ending for I ended up finding out I wasn't the crazy one :).",
"Here is the simplest, most easy-to-process example that I was told when asked about gaslighting: Two people live in a house together. As with any home, everything is in its place--you know your keys are always in the green bowl, the extra phone charger is always on the kitchen counter, etc. These things you are sure of, for you see them every day; they are always true to you. One afternoon, you return home from work and place your wallet on your nightstand, as you have done every day for many years. While you sleep, your roommate takes your wallet and moves it to the top of the dresser. The next morning, as you are collecting your belongings and heading out the door, you have a moment of panic upon seeing that your wallet is not on the nightstand where you know you put it, but rather on top of the dresser. When you ask your roommate if they moved it, they say no. The next night, your roommate moves your wallet to the bathroom sink. The night after that, they move your wallet to the kitchen counter and your keys from the green bowl to the junk drawer. Slowly but surely, your sanity chips away as you begin to doubt your own memory, your own experiences and actions. This is the simplest form of gaslighting."
],
"score": [
2310,
1797,
203,
118,
71,
70,
47,
46,
28,
22,
22,
20,
18,
16,
13,
11,
10,
10,
9,
8,
8,
7,
5,
5,
5,
5,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0036855/?ref_=nv_sr_1"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://gaslighting.org/gaslighting-techniques/"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
5ndvu5 | Ontological, phenomenological | What do these words mean when used in a sentence? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dcaol9y"
],
"text": [
"They are philosophical terms. Ontology refers to the study of the nature of being and existence, and Phenomenology to first person experience and consciousness. What they mean in a sentence depends largely on the rest of the sentence, but that's a start."
],
"score": [
3
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
5nep6o | Why is the UN in New York instead of a neutral country like Switzerland ? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dcawqgt",
"dcax9pp",
"dcaw88f"
],
"text": [
"There's two parts to the answer. It's in the United States because a vote was taken on where it should be, and the United States won. > When a vote on the location of the headquarters was taken in London in 1945, the United Kingdom, France, the Netherlands, and Canada voted for a European headquarters. As Mires writes, “The rest, from Latin America (Brazil, Chile, and Mexico), the smaller nations of Europe (Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia), the Pacific (Australia and China), the Soviet Union, and Iran voted for a new start for the new organization, in the United States.” [Source]( URL_0 ) It's in New York because the Rockefeller family donated $8.5 million to buy property in New York for the United Nations building. > The Manhattan site was selected after John D. Rockefeller, Jr., offered to donate $8.5 million to purchase the land. [Source]( URL_1 )",
"Why do you say Switzerland is neutral? They absolutely are not, we are not in WWII, and Switzerland is no more neutral than any other country. The only place neutral is no country, which practically means you only get Neutral land if you build a boat, anchor it in the middle of the ocean, and get host country to declare you're not part of them, which isn't really a good place to hold meetings with world leaders. The UN has the next best thing, it's built on land that the [US declared is mostly exempt from US law]( URL_0 ). Then the UN built extra buildings with the same privileges in other countries.",
"There is also a UN in Vienna, Geneva, and Nairobi. According to Google these sites are all considered neutral ground, and were decided by the general assembly."
],
"score": [
12,
6,
5
],
"text_urls": [
[
"http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_world_/2013/09/23/u_n_general_assembly_how_did_the_united_states_end_up_hosting_the_united.html",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Headquarters_of_the_United_Nations#Proposed_alternatives"
],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraterritoriality"
],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5nh7dn | How is food at chain restaurants exactly the same at every location? | I've heard different explanations, even that all the meals come pre packaged and just get heated up in a microwave, but that sounds wrong to me. How is it possible that I can order the same menu item at Chili's in Maine, Alabama, and Hawaii, and always get the exact same thing? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dcbh6lt",
"dcbho3u"
],
"text": [
"Because chains use structured methods to ensure the same experience at different locations. They do this by using uniform training methods, equipment, and supplies. Each restaurant is essentially the same engine in a slightly different looking car.",
"Chains are highly centralized. I am a mystery shopper, so I go to inspect these sorts of consistency concerns. The central chain folks set the recipes. They all buy their chicken at the same place. Spice blends are prepared centrally and sent to each location. New restaurants are opened by experienced chain managers, who train them upholding the brand standards. These are very specific. For example, \"Lettuce for tacos should be dark green and crisp. Must be cut into 1 inch squares.\" This level of regulation seems intense, but it's how you get that same experience in every location."
],
"score": [
10,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
5nhbaw | The protests and near-revolution happening in Mexico. | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dcbj9tf"
],
"text": [
"Mexico is going through a process of economic modernisation, this should be welcomed but there are some aspects which are extremely unpopular. The main bone of contention is the scrapping of fuel subsidies meaning that the price of fuel will rise by about 20%. There are other issues but it's all being exacerbated by the fall in value of their currency caused by America's presidential election. Economic modernisation is best done when the economy is doing well - which was the case last year, however Trump's election and his belligerent stance towars Mexico has had a major negative influence. As such, modernisation is hitting people hard and they don't like it."
],
"score": [
3
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5njgms | Why is it that teachers have such a low salary? And isn't it counter productive to say they need more teachers but offer the same pay for more work? | I hear all this stuff about teachers and how for such a stressful job, they get low pay. I was curious what you all think or if you have an answer I'd love to know. :) | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dcbx52y",
"dcbwur8"
],
"text": [
"The recognition that there is a need for better education and the work load for teachers is too high does not directly translate into more money being available to hire or pay for teachers. Funding will not automatically materialize just because people on the ground want more. What happens is that people are given a budget and need to decide how to best apply that volume of funding to the task of education. Paying less allows a given amount of money to pay for more headcount, while paying more will (in theory) attract superior talent. So you need to balance the number of teachers hired with the quality of individual attracted, and this likely leaves you with a tough workload to prop up salary. Right now a public teacher probably makes around $50k-$60k. That isn't *amazing* but then 5th grade math is hardly rocket science either.",
"I'm a teacher. I think that a simple answer is supply and demand. Despite what you may hear, there is no teacher shortage. Every opening has dozens upon dozens of applicants. What is ridiculous is the difference in pay among districts. Neighboring districts, with similar populations can have vast differences in pay, even though the curriculum is, nearly identical."
],
"score": [
7,
5
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
5njxp4 | Anarchism and anarchist | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dcc0v0s",
"dcc1dqv"
],
"text": [
"here's a good thread that's come up before: URL_0",
"Anarchism is a political philosophy that advocates self-governed societies based on voluntary institutions. These are often described as stateless societies, although several authors have defined them more specifically as institutions based on non-hierarchical free associations.Anarchism holds the state to be undesirable, unnecessary, and harmful. While anti-statism is central, anarchism entails opposing authority or hierarchical organisation in the conduct of all human relations, including, but not limited to, the state system. Anarchism does not offer a fixed body of doctrine from a single particular world view, instead fluxing and flowing as a philosophy. Many types and traditions of anarchism exist, not all of which are mutually exclusive. Anarchist schools of thought can differ fundamentally, supporting anything from extreme individualism to complete collectivism. Strains of anarchism have often been divided into the categories of social and individualist anarchism or similar dual classifications.Anarchism is usually considered a radical left-wing ideology, and much of anarchist economics and anarchist legal philosophy reflects anti-authoritarian interpretations of communism, collectivism, syndicalism, mutualism, or participatory economics."
],
"score": [
3,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[
"https://na.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/vxy2f/the_anarchism_movement/"
],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5nluom | Why are final seasons/episodes of shows often done/received poorly? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dcckx0u",
"dccixzq",
"dccmuwe"
],
"text": [
"Last seasons are often bad because the show has run out of ideas, their ratings are falling, so they have to try something new to breath new life into the show. When it works, you keep watching, when it doesn't, you get a bad last season. It also has a lot to do with the cast. Ashton Kutcher and Topher Grace were the two most important characters to *That 70s Show*, without them it was greatly diminished. Last episodes are tricky because expectations are high, and often differ between the fans. If you liked Tracy (the mother) but didn't like Robin, a mid-season episode of *HIMYM* the features Robin wouldn't bother you so much. But a season finale where Robin lives happily ever after and Tracy gets screwed, no so much. Plus, the creators are on the spot to be creative. A lot of shows end with a \"and the all lived happily ever after, the end.\" That's ok for some shows, but a lot of creators was something more, especially for shows like *Dexter* and *Breaking Bad*, where happily ever after doesn't fit. That means taking risks, and often, the risks don't pan out. Finally, getting that perfect, tie up all the loose ends in a completely satisfying and appropriate end is really hard. I think that was the deal with the much maligned ending of *The Sopranos*, there was no perfect way to wrap it up, so the creators left it up in the air.",
"Well for one reason, it's the same reason that we will never see Half Life 3. They're too hyped up and will never meet expectations. If valve were to release HL3 everybody would be expecting the best game in the world. If a series has gone on for long everybody will be awaiting the ending and thinking about what might happen. When it's not up to the standard that they created in their head, it's just stated that they should pretend it couldn't happen. Another reason could be that shows go on for so long, and use up pretty much all the ideas the design team or whatever can come up with, so there is not really a good way of putting a good end to something that is just floating along, ie the Simpsons.",
"As a general human thing... Our expectations go sky high then after watching the show wevre let down because it wasn't what we wanted or didn't blow me away like I thought it *should* have."
],
"score": [
5,
4,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5noi20 | What actually has Joe Biden done to deserve the PMOF and all the recent bro mojo? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dcd59id"
],
"text": [
"Holy hell, [Joe is literally the poorest dude on the Senate.]( URL_0 ) It's actually been a point of ridicule for him."
],
"score": [
4
],
"text_urls": [
[
"http://www.davemanuel.com/pols/joe-biden/"
]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5nqxne | Why do US states all have different laws instead of one for the whole nation like other countries? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dcdl3cn",
"dcdn0qn",
"dcdlswb"
],
"text": [
"The United States was originally founded to be a federalist confederation of independent states. Meaning it was supposed to be something akin to the E.U., where there is free trade and one can travel from state to state without a passport. The federal government was supposed to only regulate interstate trade, foreign affairs and provide for the protection of the entire nation, while the states were to handle issues within their borders and city and county government were to handle laws at the most local level.",
"This was adopted intentionally. When the original colonies declared independence from Britain, they were already self-governing entities with their own legislatures (mini-Congress) and Governors (mini-President). They'd just fought a war against a foreign *King* over their liberty. As such, the colonies were very wary of surrendering their authority to a strong, centralized national government. They were afraid it would become tyrannical. They also did not want to surrender their authority to other states--For example, Delaware is a tiny state and didn't want to be dominated by larger states such as Virginia. Keep in mind, no one had really done something like this before. Although some European nations had parliaments, Kings had a nasty habit of dissolving parliament when it suited them. The Colonies did not want an overly strong centralized power. The idea itself is called \"Federalism.\" The first attempt at this, under the Articles of Confederation made the states very strong and the national government very weak. This didn't work out very well. States were printing their own money, the national government couldn't make the states pay taxes and overall most everyone was in agreement the national government wasn't strong enough. This lasted about 10 years. Next came the Constitution, which has been our current system for over 200 years. Under this system, the States have powers which are reserved to the States which the Federal government can't have and the Federal Government has powers which the States don't have. Overtime, the law has blurred quite a bit. For example, the \"necessary and proper clause\" also gives the Federal government powers to achieve it's stated or \"enumerated powers\" under the Constitution. For example, the Federal government had the power to establish a post office...but to deliver the mail, it needs roads. So it became accepted that the Federal government could collect taxes to pay for that. The Federal government also has the power to \"regulate interstate commerce.\" That clause has been interpreted to give the Federal Government all sorts of powers. For example if you commit a crime and cross from one state into another in the process of doing so, you could be charged with criminal violation of both the state laws *and* the Federal laws. In modern times, the Federal Government has come up with clever ways of doing things it doesn't explicitly have the power to do. States receive tons of money from the Federal government every year for various things. This is a powerful bargaining tool. It can either give States money to do what it wants or it can stop giving them money it currently gives them if they don't do what it wants. Federalism itself, while redundant and inefficient also has a fair number of benefits. It makes government more representative and allows States to employ different strategies to solve their own problems. If some things work better than others, that might be something other states would like to copy. Today, the country is large and the states face different problems. If the Feds passed one law for everyone it might help some states and not help others. Also, states with huge populations like California, Texas, Florida and NY would control policy for everyone else. Why should they care about those dorks in North Dakota or South Carolina? Congress wouldn't give one shit about them. Best to let them have their own governments so they can focus on themselves.",
"Everyone should keep in mind that the USA was much smaller in size when the bill of rights and constitution was created. The USA wanted to be \"for the people\" (after leaving British rule) and designed the legislature to have checks and balances as well as separation of powers so not one body would be all-controlling. The US constitution is the \"supreme law of the land\" and everyone is subjected to it. In some cases, we see states that have laws directly conflicting with federal law, i.e marijuana legalization. Technically, a federal officer can charge someone in Colorado/Washington with possession even if it is decriminalized on a state level. However, each state has autonomy to create their own laws and they are generally catered to it's demography and geography. This is constantly what we \"debate\" about in our politics, the separation of powers. Some want the federal government to regulate everything, some want the states to decide individually, and others want little government involvement. The previous poster (Raven1586) is correct in saying \"The federal government was supposed to only regulate interstate trade, foreign affairs and provide for the protection of the entire nation\". So, it has evolved from there as our national interests and resources change throughout time. Edit: Example of conflicting state/federal law."
],
"score": [
33,
17,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5nqy5a | Why is it so hard to say "I'm Sorry" ? | So i was attempting to reprimand my 2 year old for pinching my 7 year old, and when asking him to apologize, his lips just quivered and he started to cry, and instead of saying I'm sorry he hugged her. I think most of us have been there, we know we're wrong- or know even if we are not wrong, a simple "I'm Sorry" would kick start the healing process. But even as an adult; it is just hard to say "I'm Sorry" | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dcdl43p",
"dcdpj4y"
],
"text": [
"Many people have a hard time admitting weakness, and many people associate apologising with being in a position of weakness. This *might* have some roots in Classical Conditioning, because as a child you are often *forced* to apologise by authority figures, and this quite often involves crying or at least feeling bad. In your specific example, it's quite possible that, even if a parent is 100% gentle and non-accusatory and explains to the child in a calm and rational way *why* they were wrong, the child might be emotionally overwhelmed by the realisation that they hurt someone. Sometimes when you're overcome by emotions it is hard to speak, and this is much more severe with children who don't yet have full control over their emotions. The child in your example, though did *express* their feelings, which is definitely a positive thing.",
"Being forced to apologize as kids gives it a connotation of defeat, admitting you're wrong, and being wrong is bad. In college I worked in a department with a woman from Colombia who would instantly apologize for any mistakes she made, even pointing them out herself. This was in an environment where most people avoided apologizing, shirked blame onto others, denied their mistakes, and didn't take responsibility for errors. I found her lack of scapegoating admirable. If a professor came in hot-headed and ready for argue fault over some error, she'd just apologize and defused the hostility - unlike others who would come up with reasons why the professor was ultimately to blame, escalating the problem to avoid apologizing. But she didn't wallow in guilt, she fixed the mistake or moved on. Now if I screw up, instead of trying to excuse or explain it away, I just say \"I'm sorry\" and do what I can to repair the situation. That's the higher road. When I see coworkers who still try to pass the blame like a hot potato, instead of admitting their wrongdoing, I see that as the ultimate weakness. They know they're to blame, but they're too proud or scared to own it. I'm still not sure if it was cultural, or if she was just a very upstanding person, but \"sorry\" didn't feel like a taboo after working with her."
],
"score": [
9,
7
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
5nrdlh | Why does a crowd screaming at something like a concert always sound like it's only women? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dcdscxv",
"dcdre3v",
"dcdyh7i"
],
"text": [
"\"Piercing\" noises, like a higher pitched scream are going to be more noticeable than a lower pitched scream and at least some of the men are going to go for a higher pitched \"woooo\" (which requires a raised pitch to be enthusiastic) rather than shouting \"yeah\" or \"ah\" which would allow for both the lower pitch and the desired volume. For evidence of a crowd without noticeable female screaming I present [Mang0 beating Hbox at Genesis 3]( URL_0 ) (Crowd outburst at 3:20). You'll notice that there are a couple of whistles near the end which can be heard clean and sharp over the cacophony of lower-pitched shouting and yelling.",
"I live beside a bar- there is nothing louder and more piercing than a group of WOOOO girls.",
"Everyone has two voices. They have their normal, lower, [chest voice]( URL_0 ), and their higher, falsetto, [head voice]( URL_1 ) (some people like Mariah Carey even have a 3rd voice called a whistle register). A male falsetto voice is much like a female's regular voice, and a female falsetto is almost like a high child's or young girl's voice. When you scream, you're screaming with your head voice in falsetto. So when a bunch of people in a crowd scream, they're all screaming at their higher pitch registers, all of which sound like women's and girls voices."
],
"score": [
16,
7,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lBxkMBp3ScA"
],
[],
[
"https://youtu.be/JjMGKs9kThI?t=4m40s",
"https://youtu.be/JjMGKs9kThI?t=4m47s"
]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5nrz8h | Why is it possible for Germany to be such an integral part of the European Union despite its track record of WWI and WWII? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dcdu2ir",
"dce05uk",
"dcdtpd8"
],
"text": [
"After WWI the allies basically left Germany in ruins and forced them to pay reparations to make up for the destruction from the war. It was similar to putting them in jail, it was meant as punishment. We quickly realized this caused WWII so after the war the allies tried to actually prop up Germany for various reason, to combat the Russians or to actually help out etc. This was more like rehabilitating Germany compared to punishing them. To add to that the German people themselves have gone through great efforts to fix what they could. They have immense amounts of Holocaust museums and I believe their schools even teach the Holocaust in an effort to prevent it from happening again compared to just a history subject. Today they have a very powerful GDP especially for how small their population is which is in part to the post-war efforts. If memory serves they also played an integral part in establishing the EU (possible to prevent another Holocaust). So having money and being a founder also help get you a seat at the table of power.",
"It wasn't 100% intentional, I'll avoid the important but already mentioned factor of German rehabilitation and focus on the practical issues. The predecessors of the European Union were founded as a way of rebuilding Europe and to avoid another war between European states, based on the idea that by increasing dependence between countries and allowing them free access to resources without the need to go to war, peace could be maintained. West Germany was a founding member of the European Coal and Steel Community in 1952 because not in spite of its track record, that plus the Soviets on the other border. Cut to the 2000s, European integration progressed into the EU, West Germany was allowed to absorb the East in large part due to their post WW2 rehabilitation but was still called the 'Sick Man of Europe' in comparison to states such as France and the UK. This situation changed after the 2008 crisis, the power of states such as Italy, Spain and eventually France collapsed and many others were dependent on Germany money as they were left with the largest and healthiest economy on the continent. Economic power led to political power and from several roughly equal states the situation changed into germany being a cut above. **TLDR: Everyone else collapsed in the crisis they got stronger**",
"After WW1, punishing and shaming Germany was tried, this (debatably) caused WW2, after WW2 helping Germany was tried, seems to have worked better."
],
"score": [
8,
4,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5ns42k | What does the saying "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle mean? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dcdvg78",
"dcdunog",
"dcdumi3",
"dce7z09",
"dcdwe1w",
"dce0ff9",
"dcealkk",
"dce80s7",
"dcdwz4k",
"dceee9n",
"dce7pwu"
],
"text": [
"Basically, being able to see your argument from your opponent's point of view without being convinced that it's true. Take abortion for instance. People who are pro-choice *should* be able to see the merits and value to a pro-life standpoint, *and understand why that standpoint seems right* to someone, even though they disagree with it.",
"You can think through things you don't accept or agree with, like opposing ideologies, politics, religions, etc. Why does the opposing political position think the way they do? What are their motivations? How did they come to those conclusions? What are the consequences? You don't have to like them, but you can understand them.",
"Being open minded is a true sign of intellect. If you can separate your personal beliefs to be able to accept or deny the validity of a concept then you are \"educated\".",
"I agree with most of the \"open-mind\" and \"putting yourself in other shoes\" comments but I'd like to focus on a different aspect. It's about thinking about something without accepting it as true. What do I mean thinking about it? Well, let's suppose tigers are blue. Then what? Well, they wouldn't be very well camouflaged. They would probably have to radically change the way they get food or otherwise go extinct. Also, why would they be blue? Maybe a different environment could cause that, which would make the previous consideration irrelevant. What if God doesn't exist? Well, then God couldn't be the basis of morality. Is there any basis of morality at all? Would it be objective, something out in the world, or maybe the basis would have to be us as a society deciding what is right or wrong, or maybe it would have to be based on personal growth for each individual, or something else entirely. I know Tigers aren't blue, but I can still think about related issues. I, personally, don't care whether God exists or not, but there are implications and questions if God does exist, and different implications and questions if God doesn't. There is no such thing as an isolated \"fact;\" every fact is connected to many others. To be able to think about something is, in part, to be able to consider those connections. Whether you believe in God or not - heck, even if everyone in the world believed in God (and, thus, there are no actual shoes of the other to put yourself in) - you should still be able to consider what it would *mean* if God didn't exist. So, I think the quote is partly about the relationships between propositions, rather than fixating on the truth value of those propositions. After all, Aristotle is the father of category logic, which is all about those propositions and not, primarily, their truth. For instance: All X are Y Some X are Z Therefore Some Z are Y This is a valid argument - if the premises are true, the conclusion MUST be true, but we have no idea if the premises are true because it's just formal. If we fill it in: All dogs are rocket ships Some dogs are bars of soap Therefore, some bars of soap are rocket ships If the premises were true, the conclusion would have to be true: If it were the case that, in actuality, all dogs were rocket ships, and it really was the case that some dogs were bars of soap, then some bars of soap would HAVE TO BE rocket ships, namely, the bars of soaps that were also dogs (because all dogs are rocket ships). So, we looked at the implications of some claims, even though the claims are obviously false and absurd. Better yet, some claims are not obviously true or obviously false, but figuring out their implications can help us to solve the question of truth, and also to figure out all sorts of other things, too.",
"In my opinion, it's similar to the idea of \"putting yourself in someone else's shoes\". I think the argument is that a wise person should be able to understand why someone else might adopt a belief or idea that they personally disagree with. Just take any controversial belief you may hold and compare yourself to others who would oppose that belief. If you're pro-LGBTQ, try to understand why someone might be anti-LGBTQ. If you're pro-choice, try to understand why someone might be pro-life. If you're pro-gun-control, try to understand why someone might be anti-gun-control. If you support prohibition of drugs, try to understand why someone might support legalization of drugs. A huge amount of people take sides on any given issue and are either unable or unwilling to consider the perspective of people who oppose them- dismissing opposing arguments as senseless, stupid, pointless, misguided, etc... I think that Aristotle is saying, a wise person is able to take a side while actually understanding why the opposing side believes what they do and respecting them.",
"If you can't play devil's advocate and argue the other side of an issue, you don't understand the issue. Aristotle's statement is broader than that, but it's one aspect of it.",
"I'm not sure the others have truly captured the meaning of the phrase. More than 'seeing it from the other side', it suggest that you should put aside a conception of what is and isn't correct when entertaining a thought and just follow that thought naturally. So it's not to say 'lets see if I can understand why people don't like abortion', but also 'lets set aside the view I hold that considers abortion to be a possible good, and run through the argument again on a blank slate'.",
"Building on what others have said, I feel like this could also mean that you shouldn't blindly accept everything you hear. It's totally valid to say \"I've heard this opinion, and I understand it, but I don't know enough about the topic to have a truly educated opinion on the matter\". Being able to say \"I don't know\" is a sign of intelligence, whereas saying \"I know everything\" is a sign of ignorance. My two cents.",
"Basically it's intellectual empathy. being able to see another opinion in an unbiased way as an objective observer without necessarily having to agree with it. it's a valuable skill once you have kids if you want to understand and communicate with them...",
"It has to do with logical thinking. We can utilize a number of ideas related to each other via a system. We can analyze the system logically and reach conclusions, even if we don't take the facts to be true. The idea is to analyze the system's logic, not voracity.",
"A note I'd add, in addition to what others have said, is this: It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to hear a thought _that goes against your assessment of how the world works_ and not become angry or offended. I.E. is the argument internally consistent? If so, you can \"grant\" that the view is logical, based on the foundational assumptions. That means if you and the holder of that view disagree on topic X, it's really that you disagree on foundational assumptions, not on the actual topic."
],
"score": [
1581,
138,
112,
49,
27,
12,
12,
7,
3,
3,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5nsbu1 | All guns shoot, so why are shotguns in particular called shotguns? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dcdwo2j",
"dcdwibx",
"dce5egg"
],
"text": [
"Because shotguns shoot a large number of smaller pellets, frequently called [shot]( URL_0 ). That name comes from an early manufacturing process using [shot towers]( URL_1 ), which were tall towers from which molten lead was dripped and via air resistance and surface tension they would form into spherical pellets and land in water to cool.",
"Because not all guns shoot ammunition that has \"shot\" pellets that are packed into the shell.",
"The \"shot\"-part does not come from the past-tense of \"shoot\". The \"shot\" comes from the name of the projectile that the gun shoots. Shotguns fire shot... just as BB-guns fire BBs, pellet-guns fire pellets, dart-guns fire darts, water-guns fire water, laser-guns fire lasers, etc."
],
"score": [
53,
6,
6
],
"text_urls": [
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shot_%28pellet%29",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shot_tower"
],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5nscqw | Why is it considered romantic for human adults to refer to their sexual partners as "baby" or "babe"? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dcdzd8q",
"dce4790"
],
"text": [
"Psychologically, romantic love is similar in many ways to love for a child or parent, so that is probably part of why.",
"Well, it isn't universal. Calling someone a diminutive term like that in Swedish (for example) sounds just as ridiculous as it actually should. So basically, no, English does it for some reason, but not all cultures."
],
"score": [
6,
4
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5nsw46 | How do generations work/progress? (millennial, gen x, baby boomers, etc) | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dce28iv",
"dce4dqh",
"dce25oz"
],
"text": [
"\"Generations\" aren't a real thing; they're a method of generically classifying a group of people who were raised with similar experiences; for example, \"Gen X\" generally means people who grew up with MTV, home video games, cordless telephones, and glasnost. Millenials grew up with internet, cellular phones, 9/11, common core, etc. So, it *sort of* lines up that a parent will be a different generation from their kids, but in terms of actual years born it doesn't line up -- for example, my wife is a little older than me, and she falls on the edge of baby-boomer, and I fall on the edge of Generation X, but all our kids are pretty much millenials, although the oldest sort of falls into Generation X too. This isn't all-encompassing, though: the experiences of a Gen X inner city black person is going to be quite different from a Gen X farm kid from Nebraska, vs one from Southern California. The aspects of \"Gen X\" very general, and tend towards very macro things: media, economy, national laws, public history. Some people use these terms for analysis reasons, as an easy way to identify poll subjects or classes of people, others use it as a badge of \"I belong\" and \"us vs them\" -- Millenials get a lot of the short stick for this from Baby Boomers, who clearly don't remember what crappy workers they were when they were 19 -- but there's not a lot of cut-and-dried science to it, it's a blurry continuum.",
"It is completely subjective and arbitrary but usually revolves around some central defining feature. If such a feature is missing, the generation is often vague, and exists between more distinct generations. For example, you have: * The Lost Generation - names for the manpower lost in World War I * The Greatest Generation - those who came of age during the Great Depression and served in WWII, a period that saw the US right in prominence * The Silent Generation - kind of placeholder, many served in Korea and Vietnam * The Baby Boomers - children of the Great Generation, beneficiaries of the post WWII economic boom * Gen X - smaller, cynical general trying to escape the shadow of the larger Baby Boomers, post moon landing, post Watergate...also, first computer literate generation * Millenials - first internet and post 9/11 generation In all of these generations, you have gray areas. If you were born in 1960, you are going to be called a Baby Boomer, but you didn't worry your draft number or enjoy the Summer of Love.",
"Your perception of generations doesn't fall in line with the scientific definition. In general generations are 15-20 year spans. Your parents are Gen Xers. That generation birth year ranges from mid 60's to late 70's. Millennials were born from early 80's to mid to late 90's. The generation being born now are referred to as \"Gen Z\" \"Founders\" or \"Post-Millennials.\" Generations are a methodology to group and generalize seemingly disparate groups who's only commonality is the time they were born in. In doing so people are able to make assumptions and form ideals around the common experiences and so forth of a group."
],
"score": [
7,
4,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5nw7r4 | Why do western parents have a tradition of kicking out their children when they turn 18 while in Asian cultures, parents often support them at home until they get married? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dcet1jb",
"dcex57o",
"dcf3j62",
"dcezlki",
"dcey5bc",
"dcf3nti"
],
"text": [
"western cultures are further removed from tribal/clan living arrangements. The idea that the \"family unit\" sticks together and supports each other for life likely faded during urbanization and industrialization - the jobs/opportunities to support a growing family were no longer in close proximity to where you grew up. You had to move to the city to get anything done. China was still using family unit and clan structure to support people's communes into the late 1900s. Also, other Asian countries (such as japan and the koreas) have limited land-mass to support enough distinct living spaces for everyone to be able to move out and live separately so early in life - using larger plots of land per family, but supporting that family for generations, was simply a more feasable use of the limited space.",
"Actually in South América(where i'm from), Italy, Spain and plenty others european countries, parents tend to support their childrens troughout university. So i think its more like an US thing more than a western one. Here in Argentina that \"at 18 you are moving out\" it's extremelly rare, and i know people in other South American countries and have family in Italy and it is the same. That is because parents want their children to be more educated and to get a nice job and try to get experiencie without having the weight of maintain a house, paying for everything and such (cause you know, ur salary wont be good at first), so they help them. Of course if you are a lazy monkey, things will be different.",
"There's some interesting wording in your question. It's leading, to say the least. As a general rule, Western cultures put a high value on independence. We raise our children to be productive, contributing members of society and on of the measure of that is their ability to become independent from their immediate family. There are very few families who \"kick out\" an adult child as soon as they turn 18. It certainly happens in isolated cases, but it is not the norm. Most families help the child transition into adulthood by helping them go to college, or just generally get on their feet. Contrary to what other comments have stated, in the case of a catastrophic event, most families (not all, most) will readily step in and provide aid or allow an adult child to temporarily move back into their childhood home until they're recovered (health/finance/whatever). Again, there are exceptions to everything but I'm speaking of the norm. As a general rule, the idea of an adult child continuing to live at home is seen as shameful in Western cultures. It would be considered a sign of either laziness or inability to support oneself. This is really only sustainable during a thriving economy however (and don't kid yourself, Westerners, even during recent recessions our economic state was still head and shoulders above many non-western countries). During hard times, the percentages of cohabitative families in Western cultures increases dramatically.",
"While I don't think it is uncommon, I don't think it is as common as you might think. I suspect it is more common for lower income families who just can't afford to keep supporting an adult child. I think it is also likely that a lot of young adults want to move out of their parents home because parents have rules that conflict with what a young adult wants to do. In my and my husband's families, extending to aunts/uncles and cousins, many of the children went off to college at 18 but were welcome back into the family home whenever they wanted or needed it. It was definitely more common in my husband's family, who were fairly well off than my own, who were fairly lower middle class to poor. My own children are welcome back into my home whenever they need it. I want them to be independent, successful adults (they want that, too), but sometimes circumstances create a situation where they need a little help.",
"This is becoming less common in the west, due to financial situations. A good portion of kids in their 20s, 30s, or occasionally 40s even still live with their parents because they cannot afford to live independently.",
"In Western Europe and Southern Europe, parents usually support their children until they finish university, if they can afford it."
],
"score": [
36,
16,
11,
8,
7,
4
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5nx9nr | Why is it not ok for USA to have a normal, positive, bilateral relationship with Russia? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dcezjzd",
"dcez606",
"dcezrwx",
"dcf3pky",
"dcf1y2v",
"dceyvqd",
"dcf5swg",
"dcez1ei",
"dcf3dd3",
"dcf0500",
"dcf75f9",
"dcf0kb0",
"dcf744b",
"dcezwgd",
"dcf6p60",
"dcf5uhy",
"dcf2980",
"dcf2kgj",
"dceytgr",
"dcf5x2w",
"dcf6g2r"
],
"text": [
"Yes and no. It would be much better if they were able to do that and hopefully they will, but it's naive to think that's going to happen anytime soon. Even though we have common enemies to some extent, both sides don't want the same things. When Obama first took office, he did try to calm things down with Russia. He unilaterally withdrew planned missile defenses from Eastern Europe. He reduced our nuclear arsenal well below treaty limits. In contrast, Russia invaded Georgia (prior to Obama's tenure), he's built up the Russian nuclear arsenal well in excess of treaty violations, is developing new missile technologies Russia which are in blatant violation of treaty, conducted a proxy war in Ukraine, war crimes in Syria, has been flying bombers into West Coast airspace, buzzing US ships and jets, has been enabling Iran's nuclear program, etc. The US wants peace, stability and to overall maintain its influence and the status quo. Russia is not happy with the status quo and wants to increase its own power and influence. Russian attitudes have grown increasingly disdainful of the US and sanctions employed to curb Russia's behavior only antagonized them further. Russia hasn't kept to its current treaty agreements and has no intention of doing so. More talking is unlikely to change that...unless...do you have something novel you think they should talk about? The US has a few options. 1) We do nothing and passively let Russia do what it wants. This avoids escalation for now but emboldens Russia and other nations to take advantage of our absence to do all sorts of things we don't like. This may lead to even larger conflict later (think how European diplomacy failed to prevent WW2). 2) We employ more sanctions. This may weaken Russia but is unlikely to curb behavior. It didn't work in Cuba, it hasn't worked in North Korea and it isn't going to work with Russia. Additionally, our allies in Europe depend on Russian oil among other things, so the sanctions would be fairly limited. We also run the risk of pushing Russia to establish deeper ties with countries who are already our adversaries. 3) We escalate the situation. *The point of this is to avoid war. * When the US says \"Hey man, I have zero intention of fighting you. Let's talk and cool things down,\" that does not have the desired effect. It just tells Putin he can do things with impunity since no one will stand up to him. When you say, \"you chill the fuck down or I am prepared to annihilate the ever living fuck out of you,\" he'd be more inclined to listen. That also risks war and a bad one. On the other hand, shying from conflict now may risk an even larger conflict in the future. 4) We tell Putin he's awesome and we love everything he's doing. We try to be just like him, help him do all sorts of stuff and hope he will see us as his buddies. This achieves none of our policy goals. It enables Russia. It weakens the US. This situation is a bit different from the Cold War. Back then, the US and the Soviets had 2 very ideogically opposed world views and both thought the other side may risk nuclear attack at any moment. Russia knows we don't want to nuke them. And we...well...reasonably expect Russia isn't about to nuke us out of the blue.",
"Because both are great powers with conflicting interest. Russia isn't a model of democracy, but that's not really the reason why the US isn't friend with them. Saudi Arabia is probably worst than russia in that department, but their interest somehow align with those of the US. Ukraine. Both the US and Russia don't really care about what the people in Ukraine really want. The US want to expand their influence in the region and limit Russia's influence. Russia on the other hand feel threaten. Think about it, poland, hungary, baltics, etc. They are used to be friendly with russia. It's a great buffer zone to protect your territory. Missile are thousand kilometer away from your border and so are enemy troops. But now the US have anti-missile shield unit in Poland, Romania and Turkey. Hell they even have nuclear missile in Turkey and Germany. Russia also have lost of alot of their access to the Meditterean. They still had a base in Sevastopol that their lease from Ukraine, but with Ukraine possible joining NATO, they just couldn't protect their trading line anymore. Russia just used the presence of Russia speaking people in Ukraine to protect their interest there. Not really democratic, but I pretty sure the US would be doing the same if needed. They invaded a couple of country for the same reason in the last 60 years. Syria. A lot of people think that the involvement in of Russia and US in syria is to back their own friend in the region and prepare work for a pipeline. The US back Saudi-Arabia and Qatar pipeline going from Qatar to Turkey go through all US ally except Syria to sell Arabian oil to europe. But their is also a Russian backed pipeline going from Iran to Syrian mediterrean port for export. Syria is highly unlikely to allow both pipeline going through and the winner will have a huge economic advantage in the years after the war.",
"Since everyone here is pushing the official mainstream US narrative, I guess I'll play devil's advocate. What OP hopes for won't happen so long as the US continues to act deceptively towards Russia. No, we don't want to spread democracy. We want to dominate the world economically and politically. Gain greater access to foreign markets and resources. Ever since the end of the Cold War, and despite early assurances to the Russians, we have continued to push further and further into the traditional Russian sphere of influence by supporting the expansion of the EU and Nato to include the Baltics and Eastern Europe. We began installing antiballistic batteries in those host countries and told the world it was to protect Europe from missiles from rogue nations. Lie. It was to undermine Russia's nuclear ability to defend itself. Next we orchestrate a coup by undermining and destabilizing, with the help of a fascist opposition, an elected government in Ukraine. We did this to inch closer to Russia as well as secure our position in Ukraine. This is how it works. We give this new puppet goverment tons of IMF and WB loans we know they won't be able to pay and eventually default. Then our econ hitmen swoop in and restructure the loans, force austerity measures as a condition, which forces them to privatize public services and state enterprises in order to sell them to US firms at firesale prices. It's all about privatization which is nothing more than a means to grab markets and resources. This the the Washington Concensus. BTW the 1% benefits from this, not 99% of Americans. All this aggression and deception is to prep Russia for the same fate. Now we have US troops in Ukraine and Poland, further projecting US power closer and closer to the Russian border. How is that not provocative? How would we like it if they stationed troops in Canada and Mexico. So yeah, there you have it. A different take. Downvote away and then go read \"The Shock Doctrine\".",
"A normal, positive, bilateral relationship first requires both sides to honor their agreements and act responsibly. Russia has invaded it's neighbors to oppose their desires for closer ties to the West -including invading and annexing a portion of Ukraine, ignored its treaty obligations, ramped up confrontational tactics (illegal flyovers, subs in national waters, irresponsible confrontational maneuvers around allied military planes and vessels) with NATO nations, and used hacking and disinformation campaigns to sow discord and meddle in the elections of the US and our allies. Ignoring all of that and saying, \"Aw shucks, let's be friends, pretty please?\" doesn't promote normal, positive, bilateral relations. It legitimizes the illegal and/or dangerous actions of a bullying nation. If and when Russia returns to operating within the bounds of responsible society, they'd be welcomed within it. Now? It's always a bad idea to legitimize a bully and his tactics. Of course with trump coming to power, it seems Putin has a chance of getting the US to agree to just that. Disgraceful.",
"Complicated question. Depends whom one asks. But stuff is political and there are longstanding tensions between the two, so you're unlikely to hear 'yes'. This will probably get long, convoluted and appear to be tangential (there are a lot of threads and it's past midnight). You have to remember it was only about 25 years ago the USSR dissolved. Before those 25 years there was about 40 years of intense propaganda, competition and distrust on both sides. Those things reduced, but did not halt, after the dissolution. So there are still many, many people who have ingrained in their beliefs that Russia is an enemy. It's become a cultural thing in some respects to continue to view them as an enemy. Now with respect to Russia and it's recent events, there are two broad camps. There is the Russia is expansionist and a threat to the west view. There is also the view Russia is threatened, acting like a cornered animal and the west fucked up. That second one is rarely repeated even though it is a serious position held in academic circles. Why is it not repeated? A combination of Donald Trump being pro-Russia (and Trump being a very disliked president elect), the above propaganda and anti-Russian culture and western/American exceptionalism (this is related to the propaganda, but I feel like an elaboration on this would be useful). What is American/Western Exceptionalism? At it's heart it's the idea that people tend to view themselves as being exceptional. That's not abnormal really, most groups of people (or individuals) tend to justify their actions and beliefs, while struggling to see the viewpoint of the other side. Unfortunately, this can and has lead to a biased and hypocritical view, especially in combination with the propaganda. E.g., how the two other replies at this point justify/explain the actions of the US. One has justified it by saying it's exporting democracy (which is very recent and even then debatable)*. The other has justified it because Russia invaded a country. The problem with this view is the US has invaded more countries, involved in more wars, more interventions etc in recent times (they're completely mistaken to think the US does it far less), so if that's a valid justification we should expect all to abandon the US. Those are two very common justifications by the way and implicit it those is their side is right. There is a kind of cycle where these kinds of views and thinking are shaped by the media at the same time as shaping the media. *I've heard it said western exceptionalism is the modern equivalent to white mans burden. An interesting thought whether you agree or not. And on top of all of that complexity, there does exist real conflicts in interests. The EU and NATO want to expand eastward, the US supports both (and it makes sense strategically from their own perspectives). Russia views the encroaching of those organisations as threats. They back different sides in Syria (again, makes sense from the respective positions). TLDR It's the combination of historic, cultural, political factors as well as conflicts of interest that gives the appearance of it not be acceptable. > Wouldn't it make sense if they sat down & talked things out? It might, it depends on if it were to result in any change. It really is difficult to tell from where we stand. For instance, if one were to view China as the enemy (and Trump does seem to be signalling that at the moment) it makes sense to try and deprive China of their friends, friends like Russia. In that case increased ties to Russia would be very important.",
"Nobody has ever said it's not ok for the U.S and Russia to have a good relationship in fact many would like for that to happen problem is that both countries do a lot of things that piss off the other and both feel they are in the right and that backing down would be a sign of weakness. I mean it'd be cool if you had a nice relationship with your neighbor for example. You could let each other borrow stuff and things like that but one day he takes a dump on your lawn and continues to do so every day after while making sure you know it was him. Are you gonna be cool with that person after that? probably not you could try to ask him to stop but he tells you to screw yourself and starts taking even more dumps in your yard. At this point I highly doubt you're gonna be having a positive relationship with this person anytime soon.",
"I am somewhat shocked at the lack of any mention whatsoever of the US' vast military-industrial complex in the top rated comments.",
"Countries that try to become some sort of Empire (in the economic sense) or at least dominate those around them have a problem if another country tries to be an Empire. Why do you want to be an empire? Basically it is about getting ressources to produce things with and markets to sell those things to, there might be ideology and military strategy in it, but it basically is about ressources and markets. From that follows everything else: You want to keep your markets? You need to control the seaways from and to. You need to have some sort of military control over your areas of influence to not lose them. Now imagine there are two or three or five of those \"big countries that want to be Empires\" and obviously there will be intersections of the areas they want influence in. Obviously, there are \"problems\" that arise. For example take Syria: Russia has influence in that area via their local dicator, the US wants the russian influence gone, as such the russian-friendly local dicator. Russia wants to keep it. The US wants it gone. This is just an extreme case, but the world is littered with \"areas of influence\" of this \"country that wants to be an Empire\" or \"that other one\". This, in a pretty simple nutshell, is geopolitics explained. It lead to the european powers start WWI (GB, Germany, France, Austria, Russia, Italy), GB and France start wars in Africa, Japan to attack the US in WWII (they wanted a pacific-empire), the Vietnam-War (US vs. Russia), China having problems with the US over Taiwan, ... The \"sitting down and talking it out\" has precedences in history. For example during some parts of the Cold War there was an agreement of \"Don't fudge with our areas, we don't fudge with yours\", which mostly worked. You also had the then-superpowers Spain and Portugal basically split the world among themselves 1494, simply because they knew that a big conflict would destroy them.",
"It is ok to have one, but it is because Putin's Russia would never reciprocate equally. He lies and violates his own people's rights, that is not opinion. NYTIMES did a good spread a fewe years back about the Russia outside of main cities, showed how they would print out big posters to hang on sides of buildings in crummy towns to make it look like the buildings were in good condition, in order to lie to the people about how good things are going. Like something you'd see our of a North Korea",
"No one is suggestion that it's not ok. In fact everyone would prefer Russia and US talk out differences. What your suggesting is a red herring. The concern is that the US does not bend to the will of Russia or any other country that does not respect human rights as much as we would like them to.",
"What always kills me about conversations like this is all the devil's advocate armchair politicians that come out of the woodwork to tear the US down. It's an established fact that the US has inappropriately handled countless situations, sure. I don't think anyone would argue that, but do you seriously want them to \"take their ball and go home?\" Not that the US would do that, but really, are you so unhappy with how the US has handled things that you'd be fine for it to withdraw its influence and let Russia have at it? Because that's how plenty of you whiny snots sound right now.",
"Please just take a couple of minutes to look at this Wiki article. It really gives an interesting look at the basis of Putin's foreign policy. [Foundations of Geopolitics]( URL_0 )",
"Imagine Russia was your neighbor. You try to get along with them but they keep taking advantage of your kindness. They let their dog poop in your yard, they park their car in your spot, they play loud music, etc. So you decide you will throw their dog poop over the fence and back into their yard and you tell another neighbor about it. Well Russia finds out you slighted them and retaliates. So you talk to the home owner association and they crack down on your neighbor. Russia then starts acting less bad or worse depending on what they feel like. You know that if you aren't a hard nose they will go back to their old ways because you had previously tried to ease tensions and go back before their were issues. Now add to the complexity money and friendships and you get the whole picture.",
"There are massive underlying reasons why the two cannot really tolerate the other existing. It's arguable that the present conflict is an offshot of a millenium-long struggle between the Catholic Rome and Byzantium. Not only do Russia and America fail to agree on certain basic facts, but the value system is utterly incompatible; it's a clash of civilizations. Like it or not, the Putin administration fully represents the political alignment of 90-95%% of Russians; any replacement of him is going to be *worse*. Russians are historically nationalistic, authoritarian, collectivist and conservative. They don't really care for individual rights; if you try to liberate them, they will fight tooth and nail to keep their dictator. \"Democracy\" is a swear word in popular Russian political discourse, a synonym to the slow rot of the 1990s and submission to foreign elements; it's nothing to be desired, and that's why lack of it is not a problem. This is, of course, fundamentally incompatible with the ideology of the United States, which is universalist and totalist - any disagreement with it is seen as a moral flaw, a position inherently illegitimate. Whether you view said ideology as liberal democracy or, as the Alt-Right does, white genocide, Russia stands vehemently opposed to it. So, unless the US adopts a kissingerian realist approach to politics, or every last Russian man, woman or child is exterminated, it is eternal war. P.S. Dear potential downvoters, I am a pro-Putin Russian, I emphatically do know what I'm talking about.",
"It's fine for us to have a normal, positive, bilateral relationship. There's nothing *wrong* with it. The problem is that there's no real benefit to the United States. Right now, Russia's suffering. After they invaded Georgia and Ukraine, the West said, \"Enough's enough.\" And we put sanctions on them, specifically targeting their finance and energy sectors. Those are basically the two things Russia has to offer anybody because their economy is tiny, relatively speaking. And in response to this, Russia has stepped up efforts to basically dismantle our governments and our alliances. They're trying to break up the West so that they can continue to attack and invade other countries *because their economy is so tiny*. It's desperation, really. But before you go feeling bad for them, you have to remember that their growth comes at a cost to us. And remember that if we had normal, positive, bilateral relations, they'd *still* want to expand and break up the EU. And that's *bad* for us, because the EU is our #1 trade partner. Our #2 partner is China, but that's a whole different kind of trade. It's easy for us to trade with Europe because they live a lot like we do, and so the stuff we make for Europe is the stuff we make for us, too. So, in short: it's not for shits and giggles that we have poor relations with Russia. It's because we have mutually incompatible goals. We want a unified Europe because it helps our economy and creates jobs, and they want a broken-up Europe. Let's take Lithuania for example. Through the EU, Lithuania can rely on all of Europe's economy, and not just Germany or Russia's. Through NATO, they can rely on all of Europe's military, and not just their own. And these two things get in the way of Russia's expansion into Lithuania by force or by influence.",
"Well then what will both sides overspend their money on? Peace? There's no $ in peace and love. Scare people and they will spend blindly for the illusion of \"safety\"",
"Here in Canada. Young JT just appointed a new foreign affairs minister. That just so happens to be barred from entry to Russia but speaks fluent Russian. Also we have a large presence of force (lol) in Latvia. The funny thing is that it's pretty quiet news here at home ...",
"To have a normal, positive relationship you have to assume that both parties can be both normal and positive. Also, that you could trust the other party in the relationship. Russia is like a duck: appears calm on the surface but really kicking everything that gets in its way underneath.",
"Russia annexed Crimea, it's not a democracy, if the US doesn't oppose them then Putin would be emboldened and slowly begin to expand his influence and territory. First Chechnya, then Crimea, maybe another slither of Ukraine here, Belarus becomes a vassal state there... and before you know it Russia is back to it's USSR size.",
"Well, it is not that it's not okay, it's that it is not the best interest. You can think of the countries in some similar way you do of companies. While it is theoretically possible for Apple and Microsoft or Pepsi and Coca-Cola to have good relationship or perhaps some kind of partnership it is not their ultimate goal, eventually they want the monopoly of the market. It is same for countries. While they might cooperate, say, against ISIS, long term relationship is probably not going to happen. USA is in the leading position and helping Russia is probably worse for them in a long run and I'd say it is more likely for Russia and China to get friendlier instead.",
"Europe doesn't want to have to buy its oil through Russia as a middle man. It's in the US and Europe's best interest to keep Russia contained and economically disadvantaged. We benefit from sanctions and funding radical groups that will interfere with Russian interests, forcing their support of oil industries in allied countries to be expensive and unreliable. With falling oil prices Russia is growing desperate and making aggressive maneuvers towards grabbing land and resources that will help them stabilize their economy. Russia doesn't want a civil war in Syria, we do. The world in general doesn't want to see two world powers at odds again. But I don't think anyone could argue that we have a right to undermine another country economically to keep them from being successful, and attempting to keep its people in poverty."
],
"score": [
2014,
79,
77,
66,
39,
23,
21,
16,
10,
9,
9,
5,
5,
5,
5,
4,
4,
3,
3,
3,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundations_of_Geopolitics"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5nxwn9 | Why if I carefully copy a Chinese character nobody can read it but if a chinese person draws it really fast everybody can read it although they don't look alike? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dcf319l",
"dcf7587"
],
"text": [
"Chinese (and derived) characters have particular stroke orders. They are made of smaller components called radicals and eventually, when you practice them enough, your hand just memorises the motions required to draw it so you can draw symbols - that look extremely complex to somebody who doesn't read the language - with ease. If you copied a Chinese character very carefully indeed then I don't see why it shouldn't be readable by a Chinese reader, but it definitely would be more difficult for you to recreate it - because you're essentially copying a set of lines that you don't understand from a page, whereas someone who can read and write Chinese will have learned how to draw it. Also, handwritten script has differences to the kind of formal fonts you'd see in typed documents.",
"First, speed does matter. There's certain ways to write strokes that depend on speed at certain points of the stroke. Second, stroke order matters. If you don't write the characters in the correct order then the spacing of radicals don't work out. The radicals are the individual parts used to make a character. It's like trying to fit items into a box, knowing you can only fit everything into the box if you put everything in a perfect certain order. If you stuff stuff into the box and things stick out weird or have gaps, it makes the character really hard to read. Going back to the radicals, these \"mini characters\" give meaning, sound, or just help differentiate characters. All characters are made of a combination of radicals. Most radicals also have variations. If you mess up writing the radical or space it weird, it can look like another radical entirely; making your character incorrect. Considering all the variety of characters, it's hard to pinpoint the exact character you're writing even if you mess up a little bit. Third, experience. I am assuming you are not a native, and have maybe learned Chinese for a little while but less than 5 years. A chinese native, especially one that grew up speaking and writing the language has a very high understanding of the characters and how they should look aesthetically. You may have spent a lot of time on those few characters, but you don't have the eye for it yet. Someone who knows the language has written specific characters thousands of times. They're going to be able to recreate those characters quickly and accurately simply from experience."
],
"score": [
17,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5ny00z | When, and why did the human heart become representative of love | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dcf4cne",
"dcfc03y",
"dcf8toq"
],
"text": [
"The organ heart was associated with love since ancient times itself: The Egyptians believed the heart was a moral compass and the Ancient Greeks thought it contained the soul. I think this belief rose from the fact that the earliest experiments in anatomy showed the majority of the nerves leading to the solar plexus in the chest. Thus researchers began to believe the heart was the centre of emotions, thoughts etc. Soon the heart symbol became an important part of Christian art often associated with paintings of Jesus",
"Because that's where the pain is when it's broken. I don't know about other people, but I literally feel ache in that area.",
"Basically what said /u/mossbergGT , I'll add that it is also the \"core\" of the soul (see for the example the Sanskrit hṛd which means heart (as the organ) but also spirit/mind. You ought to know to that you've got a distinction between \"reason\" and \"love\". Reason is in the brain, and love (which isn't reasonable!) is situated in the heart. You can see for example some text of Plato for that. This binary system isn't really found in Asia though."
],
"score": [
29,
3,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5ny02t | How do names work in the US? | How do names work in the US and how come some people decide whether they want to be called by their first name or their second or third name. For example, there is this streamer who's full name is Thomas Jefferson Chance Morris. Everyone calls him Chance and nobody knows him as Thomas. And what is Jefferson? His father's name? Why does he have so many names? Other people's names consist of only 3 names but two brothers share different middle names. Why? Where I am from (east Europe) we have a first name, father's name and a family name (aka surname). We always share the same father's and surname with our siblings. My children will be called by Their name, my first name (for their father's) and my surname. We only use our father's name for official documents or if it happens to share same names with someone else in one place at the same time (at school for example), which believe it or not is very common. I guess the reason for this is because we don't have many migrants and we usually name our children after their grandparents and giving our children "western" names is kinda taboo to be honest. Parents get offended if we don't name our children after them which is kinda stupid. I don't understand it but I will never name my kid the same as my dad's. I don't know if I explained it well but I hope you will understand. :) | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dcf3fbf",
"dcf3or6"
],
"text": [
"In the US, people will call you whatever you want. You could say, \"Call me Chocolate,\" and most people would.",
"I was born in California in the mid-1960's, my Mom was raised in Michigan and my Dad was raised in California. I, and my three siblings were given three names--first, middle and last. Both first and middle were given by my parents, with no regard to family or tradition, the names were simply chosen by them as they saw fit. None of us were named after anyone else in the family. My Mom said she was \"tired of all the 'Johns' and 'Marys', so she chose slightly less traditional names for us. Our last names are all the same, the same as our Dad's last name. When we marry, traditionally the wife takes the last name of the husband, her first and middle name remain the same as they were given--only her last name changes. In my experience, a person having more or less than three names is equally uncommon. Some people choose to be known by one of their names in personal spaces and by the other name in professional spaces--that is personal choice, not dictated by tradition. Some people choose to be known to all by their middle name instead of their first name simply because they like their middle name better--that is personal choice, not dictated by tradition. We are allowed to change our names legally. We are allowed to legally \"do business as\" a different name, but we must disclose the fact publicly."
],
"score": [
16,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
5nyqs5 | When did abs become so fashionable, and why? | If you watch Tarzan and gladiator movies from before the 1980s, you almost never see defined abs on the male leads, even if they're otherwise muscular. I googled to see if I could find any exceptions, and instead found photos of bodybuilders from the 1950s who didn't even have defined abs. So, when did defining those specific muscles suddenly become fashionable, and why? Or if it is less a case of defining the muscle and more a case of reducing body fat, why was that so less common in the past? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dcfbwaw",
"dcfa1te"
],
"text": [
"My theory is that standards of beauty always correspond to physical attributes that are rare or hard to acquire. Back when everyone was out working fields all day long, being a bit plump and quite pale was fashionable. The opposite of what the default lifestyle led you towards. It took a lot of effort, rare genetics, or a lot of power, to look like that. Now it's the opposite. Especially since the 70s/80s with the rise of widespread automation and such, the default lifestyle (in the West, at least) involves sitting or lying down almost all day, every day. This means that, by default, most people get plump or fat. So now that it's hard to be lean, leanness is what is prized. For men, the hardest part to get lean is the stomach and chest, hence the fashion of sculpted abs and chests (leanness is more important than muscularity, as it's easier to put on muscle and fat with a surplus of food). For women, it's butt and thighs, hence the fashion of muscular butts and the thigh gap. Nothing worth having comes easy.",
"It's entirely a matter of reducing body fat, for visible defined abs when they are relaxed you need to be at [7% body fat]( URL_0 ). It requires hard constant work, and it was difficult even for actors in the past to achieve that level. Now thanks to better knowledge of diet and to examples seen on TV many more people obtain the highly coveted six pack. Schwarzenegger reported that the muscle definition of Bruce Lee was one of his inspirations."
],
"score": [
6,
4
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[
"http://www.tasteaholics.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Body-Fat-Percentage.jpg"
]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
5nz8cg | If someone really did have multiple personalities and each personality had no idea what the others do, what would happen if one of the personalities murdered someone or committed another terrible crime? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dcfdubs"
],
"text": [
"Realistically, if we're assuming this is in the United States, this condition would be brought forward and evaluated by a designated mental health official. If it was determined that the crime was committed as a result of these personalities, the individual would likely get to plead insanity and be admitted to a mental hospital for rehabilitation and treatment."
],
"score": [
9
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5o06sb | Why do department stores put small clothing sizes on the top shelves and XL on the bottom? | I just came from a Target store, and like many places they rack undergarments (in the men's section) so that the small sizes are up high, and the larger stuff is at the bottom. Do they get a kick out of seeing short guys jump and big guys bend over to look at underwear? I don't get it. | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dcfkh9z",
"dcfo6ns",
"dcfp5im"
],
"text": [
"You don't stack something bigger on top of something smaller it doesn't look good and falls over. Didn't you ever play with blocks as a kid?",
"Because the most visually appealing clothing are small sizes. It caters to the hopes and aspirations of people who wish to be thin. They visualize in their mind how appealing the clothing looks on a thin person, even though they will choose the XXXL size when they buy the product.",
"They do it with shoes and bras as well. My size four shoes should be at the bottom where I can get at them dammnit."
],
"score": [
9,
6,
4
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
5o084v | why do working American youth under 18 get taxed? Isn't that taxation without representation? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dcflv4s"
],
"text": [
"Just to add, \"taxation without representation\" was a popular sentiment in Revolutionary times but it's not like it's in the constitution or anything. Lots of people are taxed without representation. Hell, the city of Washington D.C. adopted it as a motto because they have no voting representation in Congress."
],
"score": [
5
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5o1is8 | Broadway shows on tour - what are the logistics behind moving those insane sets? | I'm always so taken aback by the insane sets of Broadway shows on tour. How do they move these from city to city? Is everything moved, or do they do a lot of rentals on tour? I can't imagine the amount of planning it all takes | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dcfwk0l"
],
"text": [
"Everything is moved, even the sound system. The set pieces are designed in modules that easily assemble and disassemble, and to easily fit into a truck for transport. The host venues will have everything needed to lift and support the sets. Other than that the shows will travel completely self-contained."
],
"score": [
3
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
5o1izt | Why do humans crave a happy ending in movies? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dcfx6nz"
],
"text": [
"It's not humans. It's mainly Americans. If you watch foreign films, they have realistic endings."
],
"score": [
6
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5o1v1z | Why is there often a 'humor gap' between younger and older generations? | Like people in their 20's tend to think that photos of animals with captions on the internet are funny, but when shown to older folks, say, parents or grandparents, the response is usually not a laugh. They don't understand the humor. What causes a gap in what people think is funny? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dcg37bv",
"dcg4l0c",
"dcgdd12",
"dcg7mym"
],
"text": [
"Been there done that type of thing i guess, do u find the same shit funny at 25 that u did at 10?",
"Generational and cultural relevance and involvement - they just aren't involved in the culture that makes these memes so they don't get it. In this case its most probably because they don't spend as much time on social media or the internet broadly. It's happened through history though culture is always evolving.",
"Context being everything here: For example, making Hitler jokes is dark humour today, but its certainly more common than it was immediately post-holocaust- the horror was fresh in the minds of the world, and was considered inappropriate.",
"It's sometimes because the younger generation wants to split off from their parents and make something unique of themselves. And one of the ways to do this is to actively reject your parents sense of humor and define your own."
],
"score": [
9,
6,
3,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
5o2g3x | besides religious reasons, why is there so much violence and turmoil in the Middle East? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dcg50pa"
],
"text": [
"Very limited natural resources and massively overpopulated. There are few opportunities there. Massive poverty. No infrastructure. Dictators. and Mammon. It's always about money. Always. The religious hatred simply exacerbates these and other problems like tribalism and perceptions of race."
],
"score": [
6
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5o2map | Why do credit cards have expiration dates? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dcg6s8d"
],
"text": [
"Because credit cards decay and banks put a limit on their usable life so that vendors (shops) don't have to deal with credit cards that are falling apart. Because if somebody gets their hands on your details - there's a limit on when they can use it (albeit a rather large one) Because the technology that goes into credit cards constantly improves (think chips and stuff like that) so they want people to have to most up to date (and secure) credit cards. Because banks want you to keep your details up to date. If you never needed a new card you would just forget. This kind of forces people hands. Because it's an excellent opportunity to try and sell you new or upgraded products."
],
"score": [
52
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5o37js | how do books sometimes have on the cover "the new bestseller". How can it of been a bestseller at the time the cover was designed and no copies had been sold? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dcgb2ne",
"dcgbobn",
"dcgqy2r"
],
"text": [
"Because there's no formal definition of what a \"bestseller\" actually is or not so anybody can call anything they want a bestseller. You'd probably upset the bookstores you need to keep onside if you started calling shitty books by unknown authors bestsellers but you could. There are lists of \"bestsellers\" out there but none that is official recognised as being the seminal authority (like the billboard charts used to be for music). It's very similar to how movies will call something the \"New Michael Bay Blockbuster\" before it's even been released and they know what ticket sales are going to be.",
"They're predicting that thier book will be a big hit It's like calling yourself the next gold medal winner It's meaningless bullshit talk",
"Pre-orders may push a book into bestseller territory weeks (or more) before it is actually released."
],
"score": [
21,
11,
5
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5o3c4t | Why do people get charged for not having Health Insurance in America? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dcgb9pn",
"dcgh205"
],
"text": [
"A lot of people wouldn't buy health insurance, but then when they got sick they would go to the hospital anyways. The law says that hospitals can not turn people away for emergency care. These people would rack up very high hospital bills and not pay. The hospital or the government would have to pay for them. Barack Obama developed something called the Affordable Care Act. The deal was that health insurance would be cheaper for everyone, and they couldn't turn you away if you already had a disease already, but everyone would have to pay for insurance upfront. This meant forcing people to buy health insurance. If you didn't buy health insurance upfront, you would be fined for not buying it (to cover the cost when you inevitably got sick and went to the ER anyways.) This was potentially against the US Constitution. The government was basically forcing people to buy something, regardless of whether they wanted to or not. This went to the Supreme Court, and they decided that this was legal and the government could indeed force people to buy health insurance. In the short term, people had to pay more. They had to pay a relatively small monthly fee to get health insurance. Because more people were buying health insurance, it was like buying in bulk and the costs went down to match. But even though the costs for insurance were lower, it was still higher than not paying at all and then just sticking the bill with someone else. A cheap dinner is still more expensive than a dine and dash. There were other problems with this system, but that's the gist of it. The basic options are simple. The Democrats favor a system where everyone pays a little bit and everyone gets healthcare. The Republicans favor a system where you don't have to pay, but if you don't pay, you don't get treated. The old system was the worst of both worlds where people didn't pay, but they expected full treatment anyways. The tricky thing with Obamacare was that when people are healthy, they don't think they'll get sick, and when they are sick other people don't want to let them die. The Republicans are voting to repeal Obamacare, but it's not clear what they are going to replace it with yet. It might be better, but if it tries to keep the nice parts of Obamacare where people are treated no matter what, but they don't have to pay, it's going to be very expensive for the taxpayer in the longterm. If it's better, it can address some of the very real problems with Obamacare and improve on it a lot. How well it turns out remains to be seen.",
"It's not a charge it is a tax. If you do not have health insurance, then you have to pay the tax when filing your annual taxes. Other redditors commented on the why. My insurance costs increase more than standard annual raise at work. I lose every year. I was forced into high deductible plan. So I pay more in costs and significantly more in deductible. I contribute to health savings account that is depleted by deductible. So I don't know why I am required to do high deductible and save when they net out and still have to pay directly out of my pocket. I have a temporary employee that goes to the ER for everything even migraines and colds. I question who pays for their weekly ER visits. Ok I am going down a rabbit hole with this. I am not happy with the new system. Some of my specialist doctors have switched to no insurance and cash, credit card only. They are charging much less and were able to reduce needed office staff to keep up with insurance paperwork."
],
"score": [
11,
5
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5o4caf | Why did America lose the Vietnam War despite having an overall superior army and economy? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dcghrld",
"dcgicjg",
"dcgipfo",
"dcghcxt",
"dcgtvpe",
"dcgiud2",
"dcgk2bk",
"dcgmb0z"
],
"text": [
"The Vietnamese were guerrilla warriors all the way and used ingenuity over might. Here are just some of the low-cost tactics they used to defeat the U.S. army: 1) When they discovered that Americans were using \"jumping landmines\", as in when you step on them they spring up and explode in the air, they had their scouts follow US troops and spot where they were planting them and risked their lives to dig them up...and plant them in the tops of trees to that when US copters flew over the trees, the downward pressure of the rotors would cause the mines to jump and explode at the helicopters. 2) Manipulate curiosity - The VCs noticed that many Americans had a childlike curiosity. So if they planted a Mickey Mouse doll in the middle of the jungle, troops would invariably be like \"wow, what's this doing here?\", pick it up and trigger a bomb. 3) Insect warfare - Living in the jungle, VCs were accustomed to seeing scorpions and tarantulas all over the place and quickly realized they freaked out Americans. If they didn't have bombs at their disposal, the VC would rig boxes full of spiders or scorpions and a trip wire would bring them down on US troops who would shriek in horror, thereby giving away their position and getting mowed down by gunfire.",
"It is said that America won the battles but lost the war. The intent of the US was never really to win the war in a traditional sense. It didnt try to invade the North and topple that government. However, there was not sufficent support in the south for that government as most people just viewed any foreign power as no different from the previous. This was exploited by the North which led to the toppling of the goverment AFTER US troops left. There are a lot of historians that view the entire intent of Vietnm as just being a demonstration of US resolve to not let China or Russia meddle in SE asia without understanding the US would act. The comments about the soldiers being ineffective are inaccurate, the US consistently inflicted a 10+ to one casualty ratio on their enemies.",
"The US couldn't win the war without invading North Vietnam and they couldn't win the war with North Vietnam unless they invaded China, which would've led to World War III. So they kept grinding for a while, hoping the VC would take enough casualties to give up but the willingness of the US to fight the NVA/VC wherever they were worked against them as they could choose the place of battle. This meant a lot of fighting where the US attacked carefully prepared defensive positions, where the NVA fought them in close quarters where the US couldn't bring its artillery and air support to bear. So the North, even though they lost more men than they killed, controlled the rate of attrition so that they never lost more men than they could lose. The turning point of the war was the 1968 Tet offensive. The VC launched assaults on the cities of South Vietnam hoping to trigger the collapse of South Vietnam. This did not happen and the VC lost a lot of men, but it still proved decisive as it came after US military brass had repeatedly promised that they were winning the war, there was \"a light at the end of the tunnel\". Tet also showed that the South Vietnamese military was incapable of standing up against the North on their own. So the US had the resources to keep grinding, but it seemed that the war could go on indefinitely. The factors that led the US to exit Vietnam were: *Growing political unrest at home. Not enough to threaten the US social order, but growing and not seeming to stop growing as long as the war went on. *Declining morale among the US troops in Vietnam. In extreme cases this was expressed in \"fragging\", where unpopular officers were killed by their own men with a fragmentation hand grenade, but also expressed in widespread drug abuse and refusal to follow orders. Not severe enough to paralyze the US military machine in Vietnam, but growing and not seeming to stop growing as long as the war went on. *The fall of the \"Big Domino\". The US entered the war partly because of the Domino Theory: if Vietnam went Communist, the theory went, the rest of SE Asia would follow with Indonesia being the crucial \"Big Domino\". After the Indonesian military had massacred the Indonesian Communists this was not a concern anymore. *Distraction from the Big Show in Europe. The US military brass wanted to prepare for conventional warfare in Europe against the Soviet Union, not getting experts in fighting penny ante guerrilla wars and develop weapons for counterinsurgency.",
"The US military was not trained for guerrilla warfare. Super dense jungle and it was often difficult to distinguish the enemy from civilians. These things along with the American technological superiority (napalm) led to huge losses on both sides.",
"The Vietnam War was not a traditional war. More like an extremely futile police attempt to squash and ideology (\"communism\"). But that never works, because people will not ever let you tell them they HAVE to think one way. So the U.S. ended up looking worse than the actual dictatorships like China. The reason people kept joining the Vietcong is ironically similar to why Americans joined in the Revolutionary War, because apparently a far away nation was trying to bully them into compliance with their ideas. Might sound weird but to them, what the U.S. was doing looked like that.",
"The US \"lost\" the war in Vietnam because the US wasn't fighting to win but fighting for the sake of fighting. There was no clear criteria for what would amount to \"winning\" the war such as taking territory or seizing infrastructure. This lack of direction led to things like fighting to take a hill only to walk away the next day, then fighting for it again next month. American was fighting to stop the spread of communism into South Vietnam. What that meant in practical terms is that the US was fighting the locals until the locals wouldn't fight anymore... and it turns out there is always more fighting to be done. A superior army doesn't matter when you aren't fighting a conventional army; the US could defeat their enemy anywhere they chose to settle down a fight, but they couldn't stop the guerrilla fighters from holding out somewhere and causing trouble indefinitely. In effect the US military was trying to obtain a political objective and not a military one. You can put a weapon in a soldier's hands and say \"Secure that objective and kill anyone who would stop you!\" but you can't do the same and tell them \"Turn those people into a capitalist democracy!\" The military was just the wrong tool for the job, regardless of how well they fought.",
"According to my vietnam vet Grandpa it was because of pressure from the public on the administration to stop fighting a war that wasn't ours",
"The US lost primarily because the US really didn't want to be fighting it. Soldiers sure didn't want to be there, people back home didn't want to be there, and there were a lot of communist sympathizers. The US could have won if everyone had been on board with it, but they weren't. Having difficult to work with rules of engagement didn't help matters at all."
],
"score": [
28,
11,
9,
6,
6,
5,
3,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5o4cqj | Why is single payer healthcare cheaper overall than its alternatives? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dcgk2ys",
"dcgibcm",
"dcgu6gs",
"dcgm5mf"
],
"text": [
"The current system \"wastes\" a lot of money due to inefficiencies in dealing with all the different insurance companies, different plans, etc. so hospitals and doctors offices have to employ teams of people who deal with this bureaucracy to determine what is/is not covered, differing co-pays/out of pocket costs, submitting the billing to the insurance companies, etc. And then those insurance companies, in addition to paying claims are also spending money on marketing, shareholder profits, etc. that are not paying for medical coverage. So if, say 25% of money going into the system is paying for additional office staff, marketing, shareholder profits... right there that's billions of dollars that could otherwise go to direct medial care instead, or cut the costs of healthcare without sacrificing care. As for those who argue that the free market/capitalism is better than state control.... well, health insurance is just about the least capitalistic industry there is. For the vast majority of people with insurance, they have no real choice/say. Their employer chooses a provider for them (based on low cost, most likely), and then the options are most almost always either pick from HMO or PPO plans from same company, or simply \"here's our plan, take it or leave it.\" And the service provided by the insurance companies reflects their knowledge that you are stuck with them as a customer. You can't just take your business elsewhere... both because until ObamaCare individual plans were un-subsidized (employers typically pay 1/2-2/3 of premium costs, ObamaCare had tax credits based on cost of plan and income), and until ObamaCare costs were based on your personal health history -- if they'd even cover you (small, far in the past conditions or minor pre-existing conditions could be enough to get denied coverage) -- would often make it cost prohibitive to seek individual coverage vs. employer plans.",
"Because it turns the health care market into what's essentially a single buyer market. The government is purchasing all healthcare related things. When there is only a single buyer in a national market, that gives that buyer an enormously strong position when it comes to negotiating prices, far more power than people would have as individuals. For pharma companies, they basically have a choice between negotiating a price that the government agrees with, or not selling at all to that country, losing a country wide market in the process. Most companies don't want that, so it leads to a lower price.",
"Both private and public healthcare have inefficiencies, it is an open question which inefficiencies are more costly. With private health, many people will avoid seeing a doctor for minor problems, to avoid medical costs. Those minor problems often major problems and emergency room visits, which are more expensive in the long run. Also, single payer means the government has a lot of negotiation power, and it could lead to a more streamlined system without insurance company middlemen. You also have the non-medical costs to consider. There is a lot of money tied up in injury related court cases. They become a lot simpler when you don't have to worry about who pays for medical costs. You also have employers who are afraid to hire new employees and employees who are afraid to change jobs or start businesses, because of health benefits. That's not to say public healthcare is all roses. It would be a new government bureaucracy with all the inefficiencies it brings. Hypochondriacs would no longer have a disincentive to demand unnecessary treatments. And at some point, a government bureaucrat will decide whether or not it makes sense to paid for a 90-year-old in poor health to have a $50K treatment that is unlikely to extend their life by much.",
"Additional admin costs at all levels of healthcare, at a pretty large amount of admin hours per patient. Standard bulk buy sense, the more you have to bargain with the cheaper the deal can be for you. Say you want to buy a drug that can be produced by multiple companies, under an Insurance system then the companies set the price and can artificially inflate the numbers (or get doctors to force their brand). In a state system you have the power to go to a supplier and say \"I want it at this price\", if they don't give you that price you can go to the next, until you get a price you're happy with. You also have the part thats somewhat #1 and somewhat #2, take a ER situation, guy gets brought in on concious, the ER has to factor in the potential annoyance of getting that money back ontop of every patient they serve, because if one patient either dies in their care or isn't able to pay for the service everyone takes that cost. This is why forcing mandatory insurance, even if its just a pot of money held by someone and paid out for what ever the client wants makes sense within the system, as it further reduces the overheads of every part of the emergency/semi-emergency medical treatment chain."
],
"score": [
12,
8,
3,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.