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
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
5o5yfc | What is the US Gun Lobby and how does it have such a large political influence? | I'm from the UK and apart from knowing they're legal to buy, I don't know a whole much about the US gun system even though we still end up talking about it over here. Some follow up questions would be what's a likely scenario if guns were successfully banned and how 'hard' is it to acquire one? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dcgtofk",
"dcgthjw",
"dchiecr",
"dch9s8v"
],
"text": [
"The gun lobby is just a group of organizations and activists who believe in protecting and expanding legal access to firearms. The largest and most powerful organization is the National Rifle Association (NRA). The reason they're so powerful is because they're incredibly well-funded, which gives them deep pockets to wage media campaigns against politicians they don't like. As far as acquiring a gun, the laws vary state-by-state. If you go through a licensed store, you can walk up to the counter, pick out a gun, pay for it, and then after a waiting period of a few days and a background check to ensure you're not a criminal, you can pick it up. In some instances it might be easier to purchase a gun, and in some it might be harder. For guns to actually be banned would require a repeal of our Second Amendment to the Constitution. For that to happen, the overwhelming majority of Americans would have to come around to a change of heart and believe that guns should be banned. Even if that happened, there is likely to remain a small part of the population that would refuse to comply and give up their firearms. Whether this segment would be wiling to actually fight over it is an unknown question. A lot of people say they would go to war if someone tried to take away their guns, but we have no real way of knowing what would actually happen.",
"It has a large political influence because there are a lot of gun owners here[I own several myself]. Buying a gun from a business[this includes gun shows] requires you to have a background check done for every gun purchase. Private party sales do not require a background check but in my experience most sellers want you to show a concealed carry permit or a permit to purchase firearms permit. There is no scenario where guns will be banned, it's just not going to happen.",
"The US \"gun lobby\" has so much power because it is one of the largest legitimate grassroots lobbies in the country. Its membership base is massive. It is one of the purest advocacy groups out there, regarding actually being in the spirit of lobbying. This is directly opposed to the anti-gun lobby, which is primarily backed by a few members of the wealthy elite and little else.",
"I'm a constructionist - the legislature makes the law and the judicial branch interprets them based on historical context and semantic evolution and applies them to real situations. - since this seems to be the intent of our founders. I find that some historical context helps greatly when trying to understand the 2nd amendment. It is based on the \"natural right\" of defending yourself, family and property, which was recognized in British law at that time. The exact text of the amendment is \"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.\". Now, a millenial or any other modern person will interpret that sentence as \" a well governed Army (or group of paranoid anarchists living in the woods, but that just doesn't make sense), being necessary for the protection of THE State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.\" But, in the late 1700's up until the late 1800's or later there often wasn't much police presence in rural areas. Back then, communities had to actually band together to protect themselves from hostile natives, criminals, or to apprehend a criminal. In the context of the time, \"militia\" refers to able bodied citizens who band together to exercise their natural right of self defense. You can think of this as a blend of the current National Guard and the Wild West \"sheriff's posse\". (Yes many local and regional \"civil\" wars were fought throughout the country by militias - as in one county/town vs another - up to the 20th century) Also, at that time \"well regulated\" meant more along the lines of \"well equipped/skilled\" since most people already engaged in some form of physical labor and probably hunted in one form or another and thus could handle a musket with basic proficiency. Seeing the above, a more historically accurate interpretation of the 2nd amendment is that of respecting and expecting people to be willing and able to defend their own liberty and freedom rather then deferring that responsibility to the State. A moder phrasing of the amendment might be along the lines of \"A capably trained and equipped populace, being necessary to the security of a FREE state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.\" Edit: sorry, I typed this on my phone and had to pause a few times."
],
"score": [
10,
8,
4,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
5o8577 | Why is China's air pollution so much worse than any other country? | Is it even? It seems like you only hear about China. | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dchd3kn",
"dchh2u8",
"dchpcbs"
],
"text": [
"A lot of factories (where the companies don't care about the environment at all) are located inland. The winds come down from the west, across the factories, and carry the pollution into the coastal cities. But, the answer is, generally, Chinese companies don't really care about the environment.",
"India is bad as well. Certain parts of Iran aren't that great. China is in the process of sacrificing the environment to gain economically. America was doing the same thing till the EPA came about. Environmental protection does come with a cost and businesses simply weren't doing it. \\ China is starting to invest a lot in green energy. They understand that they are on borrowed time. They are trying to shift from coal power plants to other means, but it will take some time.",
"They're just a little behind. Less than 50 years ago most of the rivers in Europe were full of dead fish, trees were dying from acid rain. Thousands of people just due to smog in London alone. They just need to implement similar regulations to the western world and they're working on it. After all, the history books explain exactly what needs to be done."
],
"score": [
63,
24,
9
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
5o8p7k | How did the letter "C" go from having the sound 'k' all around in Classical Latin, to having different sounds ('s', 'ch', 'ts', 'th') before 'e' and 'i' in modern Romantic languages (excluding Sardinian)? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dchpu1q"
],
"text": [
"It's a process called \"palatization\". Basically, it happens because pronouncing words involves dragging the tongue all round the mouth in very precisely controlled ways: sometimes people start making it easy on themselves by cutting corners. When enough people do the same thing, it gets picked up by everyone else in the community and becomes a part of the new \"official\" pronunciation. The \"k\" sound is known to phonetics as a \"velar stop\", which means that it's pronounced by pushing the tongue against the velum, a part of the roof of the mouth near the back. But \"e\" is an example of a \"front vowel\", meaning that to pronounce it you have to push the tongue forwards, while \"i\" is a \"central close\" vowel, meaning the tip of the tongue has to go up and slightly fowards. In practical terms, to pronounce \"k\" followed by one of these vowels, you have to start by pulling the tongue back, then quickly thrust it forwards. That's too much like hard work, so in the Romance languages, people started pronouncing the \"k\" sound with the tongue a bit too far forwards, away from the velum and nearer a part of the roof of the mouth called the \"palate\" -- hence \"palatization\". Depending on exactly how far forwards you put the tongue and exactly how hard you push the air out (and some other factors), this gives you \"s\", \"ch\", \"sh\" or \"ts\". The \"th\" sound is unusual and is pretty much restricted to the Spanish spoken in Spain. I'd have to look this one up if you want a really detailed explanation, but essentially it's what you get if you push the tongue so far forwards, it ends up against the teeth. (There is a story that a Spanish king had a lisp and so everyone in the kingdom was commanded to lisp as well, but that one is an urban myth.) Paletization also affected the \"g\" (which is also a velar stop), which is why we have a \"hard G\" and a \"soft G\"."
],
"score": [
6
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5o9dvb | What is the law on using a brand name product in a movie/show? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dchnmi5",
"dcho8jy"
],
"text": [
"For the most part, brand name products can be used in a movie or TV show without any restrictions. Brand names are protected by trademarks, but unlike a copyright or patent, they don't stop other people from using that name. What they do is prevent people from using that name deceptively. If you have a popular restaurant, I can't open one with the same or a very similar name, hoping to trick people they are related. Trademarks are only about making sure consumers aren't fooled. There are a few other legal restrictions, you can't slander a brand, you can't make it appear the brand is endorsing you, but beyond that, they are fair game. However, there are a lot of good reasons a TV show might choose not to use brand names. Brand names complicate the networks' advertising model. If an episode prominently features Coke, Pepsi isn't going to want to pay for commercials...and Coke no longer has to. Using generic or fictional brands allows the show to maintain neutrality. Similarly, it preserves the value of product placement..why give it away if someone is willing to pay? And when companies arranges to their products featured on a show, they don't want it to play second fiddle so another brand. Customers often have strong loyalties, aversions, and preconceptions about brand name products. Your Chevy fan might scoff at a Lincoln shown in a good light, while your Budweiser drinker might be insulted when the show's buffoon is always holding a can. A TV show runs less risk of alienating their viewers if the lead drives a Vista Cruiser and the comic relief drinks Duff beer. Fictional brands also can allow for more creativity. You want a major corporation to crumble, or have your favorite coffee chain be a front for a secret government agency? It works much better if you aren't tied to a real brand. Finally, avoiding brands keeps shows from becoming dated. A show that is 10, 15, even 20 years old can still seem plausibly modern...especially if no one ever makes a phone call. But one look at Kramer drinking a Crystal Pepsi, you might as well be watching The Dick Van Dyke Show. Even when the brands are the same, the logos and packaging can change, and that can hurt a show's value in syndication.",
"Where you see a brand name, it's been cleared and indeed the brand probably paid or at least supplied stuff for free. We had a scene with a family eating breakfast, we got sent a palette of things people might have on a breakfast table - all from the clients of a product placement agency. Every vehicle was from one manufacturer. It means we didn't have to pay for cars or cereals. The makeup was also all freebies from another manufacturer. Kids clothes from another. Blockbuster films will be able to sell pack shots for brands, those gratuitous shots are gratuitous for a reason. Most films are satisfied with free stuff they don't have to mock up at a cost. We can use brands, and it'll be without consequence to do so most of the time if the use is incidental, but where something is in focus in shot we tend to fake brands. This is in case the brand owner decides they don't like the film for whatever reason and sends lawyers to threaten us. Maybe through a silly coincidence of timing and cutting, we make a connection between Kellogg's and white supremacy - they might become upset and injunct. The fact is that rightly or wrongly the cost of reshooting a scene might be $100k since you've got to get everyone and thing back together for a day. Now we'd try and do a digital pack replacement instead, but it's still better to invent a brand our lawyer clears before we even start shooting, and it gives the art department something fun to do."
],
"score": [
42,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5o9qda | Why do some languages use words with a "flem" noise? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dchqm8d"
],
"text": [
"Why does English use a lisping noise? Why does Spanish use a rolled tongue noise? I don't think anyone knows *why* languages have the sounds they do. The people who study such things just document the sounds and track them across time and space."
],
"score": [
3
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5o9r55 | Why do we talk weirdly to babies? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dchr2r5",
"dci9w9o",
"dchv62z",
"dci011c",
"dchpwkx",
"dci7tsn",
"dci160f",
"dchpovr",
"dchzkoy",
"dchq8k5",
"dci2ebw",
"dci1e58",
"dci1y4b",
"dchyqcu",
"dcilfzf",
"dchxwtn",
"dci0db0",
"dci6cmv",
"dchszuc",
"dci68ox",
"dci0vdp",
"dci10nc",
"dchpujx",
"dchw1lo",
"dchtjtk",
"dcik7bx",
"dcifhr3",
"dchznwy",
"dcia80b",
"dcib0d6",
"dci9ynk",
"dci553d",
"dci3f9k",
"dci4izi",
"dcia2sb",
"dci2ut8",
"dciekz8"
],
"text": [
"I studied language acquisition in college. I just wanted to note that child-directed speech (motherese) is not universal among all human cultures. Some cultures do not use motherese (such as Samoa and Papua New Guinea) and just speak to children the same as they speak to anyone else. I remember studying about one culture (I can't remember which culture it is) that does not even speak to a baby (child) until the baby starts speaking. The babies in that culture learn the language by hearing it, not by being spoken to. Regardless of whether child-directed speech is used or not, or even if the child is not spoken to at all, children all pretty much learn and progress in their language development in similar steps and at similar ages. To sum up, we talk weirdly to babies because it is what is normal in our culture, not because it benefits the baby.",
"Preschool teacher here, with a masters in education. Simply put, babies and animals like high pitched cooing. It feels safe and comforting to them. The high pitched baby talk portrays a positive emotion to babies, while grumbling or yelling would likely make a baby upset. That explains tone, but the type of language we use demands further explanation. We tend to say things like, \"woooooooooow, what a big girl, playing with the choo choo train! Chooooo Chooooo!\" Talking to an adult, we would never extend the vowel sounds or ask about the Choo Choo, we would just say train. Adults say these types of things, in short, to help children understand vocabulary and assign words to objects and actions. We exaggerate vowel sounds to encourage them to start imitating and speaking. We offer a play-by-play of what we are doing (\"you are playing with the train\") and state the obvious, (\"the train is blue, the train has wheels\") just to let the kid know what's going on. But, if we are trying to teach them to talk, why not just say train? Isn't Choo Choo train harder to say than train? Yes, but we like to offer the child basically an adjective and a noun. \"This is a train and it makes the Choo Choo sound, so it's a Choo Choo train\" or \"this is a cow and it says moo, so it's a moo cow\". It basically provides a scaffold for the children; if they forgot cow, maybe they will remember the moo part. Or they can learn to associate the sound with the object, the color, the shape, size, etc. All about vocab building and recognition. Lastly, it is also because it helps us bond with the babies. We as adults feel the need to \"get into character\", to shift our speech patterns to acknowledge to ourselves and others the special relationship we have with the baby. Our nurturing, loving, never swearing, always teaching side kicks into gear and we babble and coo away. It's a learned social behavior that conveys to both the adult and baby that they are in a loving relationship.",
"Oh! I recently came across [this]( URL_0 ) study. It looks at why we also do this to dogs and cats. While not super relevant, part of their conclusion was that we talk this way to things that can't communicate back to us (dogs, cats, babies, etc.)",
"There's a big difference between gibberish/jargon (an infant's non-speech sounds or mispronounced words) and motherese (a caregiver's exaggerated speech). That's a key distinction when reading this thread. My kid said \"bup\" for cup and \"guk\" for milk. I didn't use those words with her because I wanted her to use the real words once she was able to learn and pronounce them. The baby words are cute, so write them in the baby book so you don't forget. Here's a link to an article that explains it well, using references to actual studies. URL_0",
"Babies can hear higher pitched sounds better in early development, and a friendly tone always helps. they're not really learning language at that point, but the concept of language, so just confronting them with speech and words gets them trained to listen, even if they don't yet understand anything. As for made up words, I think you should generally pick up on their sentences and confirm them in proper language. Don't tell them they're wrong, just repeat it correctly, and they'll pick it up.",
"My sister talked like an adult to her daughter and forbid baby talk from the rest of us, as well. It seems to me that the result of that has been a 7 year old who has the vocabulary of an adult (I'm not joking, one of the most adult words I've heard her use has been \"omniscient\"). I live on the other side of the country now but everytime I go back to visit I am completely floored by how smart and how good her vocabulary is.",
"You need to listen to this episode of Radiolab. Radiolab - Sound As Touch URL_0 It's probably better than any ELI5 I could muster on the topic. But it has to do with tones and musical pitch connecting to emotions so we can begin the very beginnings of communication with infants.",
"They do which is why it's not a good idea at all to keep up baby-talk gibberish. It's fine to make fun of it and get a baby laughing just don't stick to it. When you stick to gibberish you're teaching them gibberish-speak at the time their brain is most receptive to learning proper language. As an aside for nonsense fun one guy I know raised his child with a made-up nonsense word for \"cup\" and he seriously didn't tell her he made up the word, and it's not a real word at all, until she was something like 10 years old. She was furious. He never ever stopped laughing about it.",
"If a baby says something in gibberish, and you repeat it, it's a good way of teaching the basics of language and sound. You're reinforcing their attempt to talk, and repeating the same thing encourages them to try the same sound again, and thus helps learn the cause and effect side of what comes out of their mouth. As for things like baba for bottle and other baby slang, that's not a good idea. It usually starts with the parent saying bottle, the baby getting as close as they can with 'baba', and then the parent just sticking with baba from then on. Of course because of that, it takes the kid way too long to realize they've been saying it wrong all along.",
"It is known as motherese and it has recently been proven to help babies develop linguistic skills much easier. **Why baby talk is GOOD for children: Speaking 'motherese' helps them develop language skills much faster** Some may feel that using exaggerated speech style is harmful But baby talk has important implications for language learning in children Features of baby talk present infants information about their language Baby talk tends to be spoken slowly, with key words at the end of a phrase Link: URL_0",
"This would be better in AskScience because a bunch of people here are just posting anecdotal / urban myth style bullshit",
"I don't know if it actually helped but my wife and I made sure we never did \"baby talk\" to our daughter when she was an infant. We always talked to her like she could understand everything we would say to her. She has managed to start forming sentences and actually talking with us at what feels like still an early age.",
"Related questions: why do (some) people have special baby-talk with their pets, or for that matter, why do some young couples engage in it with each other? So, top comment = best answer is correct: Motherese is not universal, and as far as we know, it doesn't make a meaningful difference for language acquisition. Of course it is speculated, but with little evidence or theoretical support, that Motherese eases acquisition. But one is leaving aside the question of *why* there is Motherese to stop there. There are three possibilities: it is an evolved behavior with some selective value, OR it is an evolutionary spandrel effect, related-to selective pressure on some other trait (i.e. it's just a coincidence), OR it is not in the genome at all, and is strictly a cultural development. Based on my linguistic and cognitive science studies, I am inclined to take option three. I see Motherese as a kind of combination of body language and dialect in an intimate setting. It is \"intended\" perhaps to be simple, educable speech, and the labile vocal affect (whether a male or female does it) seems to evoke maternal instincts - but what sets it apart are the pragmatics of its context.",
"One theory is that it's something we do instinctively because it actually helps babies to learn speech. Typically with baby talk, we slow down our words and very much exaggerate the pronunciation of words as well as the facial movements and expressions that go along with it.",
"There seems to be some confusion regarding what \"baby talk\" constitutes. See /u/sippy_cup 's response to get a good summary of some of the features of what has been referred to by linguists and speech-language pathologists as \"motherese,\" or more recently \"infant-directed speech\" (IDS). Many of the comments seem to be objecting to the use of vocabulary that people associate with kids (i.e., \"doggy\" and \"kitty\") and modifying grammar in ways that are not associated with adult-like speech. That is not what IDS is. IDS refers to the exaggerated prosody, hyperarticulation, and higher pitch that tends to feature in the vast majority of cultures' speech to pre-lingual infants. Older children do benefit greatly from being exposed to more complex sentences and a wide vocabulary, but that is not mutually exclusive with parents using infant-directed speech to their babies while they are pre-lingual. There is actually plenty of evidence pointing to benefits from IDS. To quickly add a few sources for the curious: facilitates word segmentation: URL_3 URL_7 babies prefer to listen to motherese (and getting babies to listen is crucial for language acquisition): URL_2 URL_5 …similarly, babies respond better to IDS, and there is neural imaging evidence for it. Improved response even when it’s a stranger. URL_4 URL_1 URL_0 IDS input shows more exaggerated pronunciation of similar consonants that babies need to distinguish in their native language URL_6 Edit: clarity",
"I don't. I try to speak to any young child very clearly and properly, because every child I've met that was raised that way seems to get a much better grasp of language and speaks much better at a much younger age than those who get baby babble spoken to them. Most of the children that get baby babble spoken to them have that infuriating \"kid lisp\" (the one not tied to any medical condition that would cause a lisp, it's just people not making them speak correctly) to their speech. Just talk normal to kids and they grow up knowing how to speak properly.",
"The short answer is that it actually HELPS them learn language much easier. Baby talk stresses certain syllables in language that allows babies to catch on easier. Speaking normally is kind of a more advanced and difficult version of language for a baby. As for why we naturally do it without realizing this? I would argue natural inborn tendencies that stem from evolution.",
"My mother NEVER used baby talk with me, and as my primary caregiver regular English is all I heard. I was never around other babies. I could speak perfect sentences since I was nearly 2. My sister, on the other hand, was used to baby talk and motherese from mom and my other cousins all born the same time as her. She could not speak plainly and used baby speech until about age 5. I wonder if this is related or coincidence?",
"Babytalk is different in different cultures. Through baby-talk, we are unwittingly passing the sounds of our language to babies. Our brains are basically pre-programmed to teach other humans. (or so I hypothesize) The way my anthropology professor explained it is basically thus; We are born capable of making the same sounds. We can essentially make all of the sounds used in virtually any language. As we grow older, we abandon the sounds that are not used. For the most part, those sounds that are not used in our native language are lost. Of course, you can re-learn them later but not so easily as you do when you are say, an infant or toddler. So we baby-talk to babies to teach them how to talk.",
"I have 2 boys. My older one I always talked to like I would anyone else. He started talking at 10 months, and has never had any speech issues. Actually had quite a large vocabulary by a year and a half. Met my boyfriend, had my second with him, and went around in circles about talking \"baby talk.\" Words like baa-baa instead of bottle, di-di instead of diaper, and so much more. My BF even got mad at me for trying to help him properly pronounce a word when he was 2. He is six now, and while is is incredibly intelligent, he has always had issues with correctly pronouncing words. Babies are not stupid, and shouldn't be insulted by talking to them like idiots.",
"Because they react with bright eyes and cute smiles when we do. It's that simple. They train us to do it.",
"If I'm not mistaken, isn't language a very visual thing for newborns. Simply seeing the expression and way your mouth moves helps more than the sounds themselves. Another reason babies tend to put their fingers on your lips and mouth goes along with this as this helps them \"feel\" and understand the movements of sound. Someone with more time than me can provide links I'm sure. With my daughter we always spoke to her like we would any other person and her vocabulary a few years later is incredible. No science behind our thought process, it just always seemed like the best thing to do.",
"Its a lot to do with the tonality of your voice. 'Baby talk' usually uses a soothing type tone which is somewhat reassuring to an infant on an instinctive level. I'm sure there is a scientific post about it somewhere but it's 8am and I'm exhausted.",
"We're talking to babies and animals in a stupid way because otherwise we would feel like the stupid one talking to them normally.",
"Honestly, I do it because if I used normal sentences the baby wouldn't understand anyways and it would look like I'm talking to myself. And the added enthusiasm in the goofy voice normally makes the baby comfortable around you.",
"Gees there's a lot of anecdotal comments here. I can't speak from all disciplines, the psychological literature is extensive on this and the general consensus is that it DOES help with language acquisition. We stress important words and important parts of words during IDS (Infant directed speech), keep baby's attention better, and carries emotional cues. Here's a decent review article on it that's public access. There's plenty more but many are behind pay walls. URL_0 Just to be clear, IDS refers more to the sing-song-y, higher pitched and exaggerated way we talk to babies. Not necissarily using nonsense words or poor grammar.",
"I'd like to add a little interesting detail. There is some research showing that infant-directed speech contains more *iconic* language (reviewed in [Imai & Kita, 2014]( URL_3 )). Iconic language refers to words whose forms in some way *resemble* their referents. In English, iconic words are somewhat limited, but we can point to onomatopoeic words like \"splash\" or \"bark\"–they sound like the things they mean. What is interesting about this tendency is that studies have also shown iconic words to be easier to learn (e.g., [Imai et al., 2008]( URL_1 ); [Lockwood et al., 2016]( URL_2 )). So, it may be that parents use more iconic words with infants because, on some level, they are aware that they are easier to learn. The Imai and Kita (2014) paper also reviews some interesting work showing that people will tailor the amount of iconic language they use to the language ability of the listener. (Of course, we have a bit of a chicken and the egg situation here. Do parents use more iconic words earlier on because they know they are easier to learn? Or is there a set of early acquired words that *become* more iconic as parents (and others) exaggerate their iconic properties? This is discussed by [Perry, Perlman, & Lupyan, 2015]( URL_0 )) Edit: Am a PhD student studying psycholinguistics.",
"Well think about it, what else can you possibly say to the baby? youre not gonna have a full conversation with this cute little bundle of goodness that babbles and makes noises, about how successful your last quarter was.",
"Could it be to sound as less intimidating and as caring as humanly possible?",
"Because it's a lot less awkward than \"I'd greatly appreciate it if you didn't cry, Charlie.\"",
"I think its more of a pitch thing. Its like when we talk to our dogs in weird voices and they get all excited. I think the same happens with babies.",
"My wife and I never spoke \"baby talk\" to my daughter (who is now almost 3). I did change the pitch of my voice, but not the enunciation. I can't say about all toddlers, but she can enunciate very well. We've never really had to help her out with her S's or R's.",
"We talk baby talk to babies because they aren't able to make all the sounds of speech with their mouth until they've learned how to make the easier sounds first. Baby talk emphasizes these simpler sounds, and exaggerates the movements of the mouth so that the baby can see how these sounds are made.",
"My baby can hold a decent conversation you understand and she's 2. I've told her what everything is since she was a baby constantly talking to her. It's just corrections and new things from here out. She can count to 10 and knows her full name along with my wifes and mine. I don't talk like i would talk to adults to her. Just more enthusiastic. Im hoping to have her reading before kindergarten.",
"I speak normally to my toddler. It's strange, but he actually seems to respect me more because of it. His mum and grandma are always gibbering away at him and trying to coerce him to do stuff or follow them, whereas I'm just like \"Come on Terry, we need to go or we'll be late for the football', and he just follows me with no drama. They do shit like try and trick him into eating vegetables, but I'm just like 'everyone need vegetables, Terry, get on that broccoli and you'll thank me when you're bigger'...and then he just eats it. It's weird, and it kind of works with dogs too.",
"It's been found to be quite important for caregivers to show emotional responsiveness and expose babies to language. \"Baby talk\" is a fun combination of the two. In fact, lower income families seem to talk to their kids less, and it is associated with poorer school performance. [This study]( URL_0 ) estimates that kids whose parents talk to them a lot hear around 30 million more words by their third birthday than other kids. The kids in the first group show consistently better learning outcomes. (Although there appear to be many other factors in play, chatting to your tot can have a strong positive effect.) tl;dr: It benefits the developing brain and leads to stronger academic outcomes. It's also fun af.",
"'Baby talk' holds several advantages to let them learn the language better. Like with dogs, high pitched talking comforts them and makes them feel happier. We often repeat words multiple times e.g. \"Where's the ball? Here's the ball! Here's the ball!\" , so that they'll remember it better, (just like repeating what you're studying makes you remember it better,). There's also words we use, instead of more difficult words, that usually consist of the same sound repeated twice. For instance, mother is hard for a baby to say, 'mama' is a lot easier, this goes with a lot of words, 'papa, peepee, choochoo,...' (I'm sure you can think of some more, English isn't my mother language, so I don't know all of them. :p) If they say something (that is, when they learn to speak), people also might reciprocate by repeating it, (and correcting it if needed,) so that he/she gets confirmation what they're saying is right."
],
"score": [
3947,
2880,
836,
146,
122,
98,
90,
82,
39,
38,
37,
26,
19,
18,
17,
12,
11,
9,
9,
9,
8,
8,
7,
5,
5,
5,
5,
4,
3,
3,
3,
3,
3,
3,
3,
3,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[
"http://www.sciencealert.com/grown-up-dogs-don-t-pay-attention-to-your-high-pitched-good-boys"
],
[
"http://www.parentingscience.com/baby-talk.html"
],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.radiolab.org/story/91514-sound-as-touch/"
],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3937814/Why-baby-talk-GOOD-children-Speaking-motherese-helps-develop-language-skills-faster.html"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16905571",
"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21867764",
"http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0163638385800059",
"http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1207/s15327078in0701_5/abstract",
"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5039709/",
"http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-8624.1990.tb02885.x/abstract",
"http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0010027706000722",
"http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0010027715301189"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0078103"
],
[
"http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0137147",
"https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Hiroyuki_Okada4/publication/23300126_Sound_symbolism_facilitates_early_verb_learning/links/0046351fd0a4ed1f5b000000.pdf",
"http://www.collabra.org/article/10.1525/collabra.42/",
"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25092666"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.aft.org/sites/default/files/periodicals/TheEarlyCatastrophe.pdf"
],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5oa07d | Why do British cops not carry guns? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dchr86b",
"dchr3ub",
"dchqrcq"
],
"text": [
"They're generally not needed, for several reasons: 1. the police is much better trained, and specifically, trained in conflict resolution and in how to de-escalate crises, 2. since few members of the public have guns, the risk of armed confrontations is also much lower. But probably the main reason is that *the UK has a different idea of what the police is supposed to be than the US does*. The UK doesn't *want* an armed police force. Back in the 1800's, a British politician came up with [these founding principles]( URL_0 ) of modern policing. The UK, and most of Europe, has taken them to heart. The US, not so much. In the UK, the police is seen as members of the public, meaning they are supposed to cooperate with their community, and they are supposed to do *what everyone is supposed to do*. And they are seen as an alternative to military force, not as armed enforcers for the state. This also means that they have to abide by the same constraints as everyone else. I can't go around shooting people just because they're behaving badly, *so the police shouldn't do that either*. In the US, there is kind of a view of the police as enforcers who exist *outside* the law. They're special, they can do things you can't. They are given wide-ranging powers and are free to shoot people pretty much *if they decide it is the right thing to do*. Or to put it simply, a big part of the way US police works is through fear. \"We'll shoot you if you don't behave\". The UK police force is supposed to work based on respect, trust and approval from the public. (That's the idea, anyway. Of course, they can't always live up to these lofty goals.)",
"In Northern Ireland, all police officers carry firearms. In the rest of the United Kingdom, the majority of police officers do not carry firearms; that duty is instead carried out by specially-trained firearms officers. ... The arming of police in Great Britain is a perennial topic of debate.",
"Guns are a lot harder to get in this country. It's not impossible to get one legally but there's more hoops to jump through. As a result less crimes are carried out by criminals armed with a gun. Knife crimes are far more common. Police officers are also trained to defuse a situation rather than take instant control like in the US. Talking down someone and if pushed using non lethal methods are generally encouraged. There is still an armed response unit in all areas if required."
],
"score": [
56,
6,
4
],
"text_urls": [
[
"https://www.durham.police.uk/About-Us/Documents/Peels_Principles_Of_Law_Enforcement.pdf"
],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5oae3p | Why do so many people who are antisemitic deny that the holocaust happened? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dchssbq",
"dchtah5",
"dcht2vg",
"dchsyqq"
],
"text": [
"They believe that the Jews made it all up (or more commonly, just greatly exaggerated it) to gain sympathy points. You can probably see why an antisemite would hold that view.",
"The Holocaust creates a shield of indignation around the ethnic group, making criticism of them seem socially unacceptable. The first thing to consider is that anti-Semites have a thing for conspiracy theories in general - they see Jewish trickery and propaganda *all over the place*, and assume the opposite to what the supposed Jewish puppets (basically, everyone) tells them. Another thing to keep in mind is that the Nazis proper laid the groundwork for denial: the Holocaust was carried out in extreme secrecy and many of the records were destroyed; thus, a modern neo-Nazi is merely keeping up the masquerade. It's a repetition of history, of course: the hypothesis of a Jewish conspiracy became popular in Germany because the tight control of the information caused the population to be *very* surprised when the Reich lost WWI, so it was easier to blame it on a conspiracy than accept having been lied to. A more prominent element is that the anti-Semites typically believe it was *Germany* who is being persecuted by the International Jewry. Before and during the war, there were actually a few authors suggesting that all Germans need to be forcibly sterilized or exterminated because they are a nation of warlike mongrels. The Nazis seized upon it, and projected their race warfare mentality onto the Jews; thus, the Holocaust becomes a Communist-Jewish plot (a lot of the ugly reports from the Eastern Front, where massacres were much more clumsy and overt, were overlooked as Stalinist propaganda) to cow the entire Aryan-Christian culture into tip-toeing around the Jewish Problem and not resorting to the obvious (to them) Final Solution without actually militarily dominating them, and then being able to found the \"criminal\" state of Israel. A final thing to consider is the largest group of Holocaust deniers: Muslims. It's partially driven by Nazi outreach during WWII, partially by the mere existence of Israel - aside from the mess in Palestine, several of its neighbors have the annihilation of Israel proscribed in their constitution - and partially at the very roots, all the way back to Muhammad himself. It has already been getting nasty in France, and is likely to get worse in the future.",
"Becuase the numbers dont match what (((they))) say happened. Apparently 6 million jews died when in fact it was about 5.93 million, trust the jews to exaggerate.",
"Like any conspiracy nuts, they just deny hard evidence and facts. I think it's them being fed bad info too. For example, notice how right now, if you on YouTube you can see videos explaining who Rey is related to in the Star Wars franchise. Damn near every video is convincing, but they can't possibly all be right. If you have a bias however, I bet you'll cling to those facts more than others."
],
"score": [
29,
17,
4,
4
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5ockf6 | What is the difference betweeen China devaluing its currency and plain old inflation? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dciao56",
"dciaefi"
],
"text": [
"You're right in thinking that they are roughly the same. The difference is generally timing and intent. So contrary to popular reddit thought, inflation is a good thing. National banks/treasuries want to maintain about 3% to 5% inflation to spur 'present consumption' (i.e. to induce spending today, as opposed to holding off spending to a later period). In fact, controlled inflation is a necessity for a modern economy to work. Rampant or runaway inflation occurs when the monetary base expands beyond the ability of the economy (or better put, the national asset and production base, which is different from GDP) to absorb. So TLDR, controlled (3% to 5% per year) inflation is a structural and ongoing part of a functioning global economy. Devaluation is same concept, but it is generally a one-time thing (or a specific policy that may take years to evolve) that is usually in response to a specific event, goal or target. The mechanisms differ, but the result is the same - when you are devaluing your currency, you are intentionally expanding the monetary base well beyond the ability for the economy to absorb. Why would you do this? Usually its 'relative devaluation' or an 'absolute devaluation'. Relative devaluation is generally done to weaker your currency compared to another currency to improve trade attractiveness - this is what China, and to a lesser extent Japan, have been doing, and it has resulted in lots of (largely true) accusations of currency manipulation from western economies. But the point for your question is: relative devaluation is done with respect to another currency (or currencies) with the end objective usually being a trade advantage. An important side note is that you don't care about your currency fluctuations/valuation with respect to non-trading partners (eg China doesn't care about the Yuan to South African Rand exchange rate, for example). Absolute devaluation is generally done without regard to global considerations, and instead is (usually) done to pay down debt (or other fixed obligations) denominated in your own currency. If you have so much debt, you can't pay it, just turn on the presses and print away. This is a lot less common b/c 1) it has massive negative effects (obviously), 2) you are usually screwing your own citizens (eg paying down gov't pensions), b/c 3) serially irresponsible countries (think Africa and S America) are usually forced to borrow in a 'global' currency like Euros or Dollars. TLDR - devaluation and inflation are roughly the same thing, but the difference is duration and intent.",
"Inflation means it would take more money to buy a \"basket of goods\" because the money is worth less in terms of goods. It does not depend on foreign currencies. Devaluing means it would take more money to \"buy\" a basket of currencies because the money is worth less in terms of foreign currencies. If I recall correctly, it doesn't directly affect prices domestically, but it can indirectly through foreign trade. Devaluing is also good for boosting exports, since Chinese goods become cheaper to foreign buyers (though not to Chinese buyers)."
],
"score": [
8,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5ocmm9 | Why is the U.S. against high taxes and more social programs if this model seems to work so well elsewhere in the world? (e.g in Canada and in many European countries) | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dci9urm"
],
"text": [
"There's some debate about that. Canada's healthcare system is... well. We're very proud of it. But it has a LOT of problems. I mean a lot. It might actually be collapsing, partly through mismanagement and partly through unsupportable expansion of the user base - older people, 'lifestyle diseases' running rampant, all that good stuff. We're actually inching closer and closer to a 'public private partnership' in some provinces. Notably in Quebec, you can already pay out of pocket for a lot of services; and medical testing is often done in private facilities across the county. Ad to that the fact that 'rich' Canadians already travel to the Sates for medical care and you see it's not so great here. Wait times are astronomical. Generally, urgent cases are dealt with first, which is good. However, for everyone else, it can take months to see a specialist and elective (necessary but not emergent) surgeries can be put off for a year or more, leading to some serious quality of life issues. In short, we won't be able to pay the bills for much longer, unless serious changes (or a large influx of working-age people - where ever will we find them?) occur."
],
"score": [
3
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5od7c0 | Why can we sing a song when we listen to it but don't have any recollection of the lyrics when the tune is off? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dcieyi0"
],
"text": [
"While the lyrics may be stored in your long term memory, it may be difficult to remember them without the accompanying tune. It serves as an auditory cue; when you hear the tune, your brain thinks \"These are the words that go with it!\""
],
"score": [
7
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5odh4t | What is the common consensus in the USA, why the media is permitted to post 'mug shots' of people accused of criminal activity, before even being prosecuted. | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dcigxnk",
"dcigut2"
],
"text": [
"It's a bit of a double edged sword. On one hand, it can be used to notify the public that the government has seized a citizen. It would be very bad if the government could make people vanish without a trace. Publishing mugshots also helps law enforcement gather evidence of other crimes. A victim of an unsolved crime may recognize the face of an unknown criminal and contact authorities with additional testimony. On the other hand, publication of arrest records can be unfair to those who are arrested. While on the other hand, the mugshots can become widespread and defame innocent individuals. Some photos have even been used in internet ads. Fortunately, there are some states that have laws that can have some sort of effect. Georgia, Oregon, and Texas have laws give the website operators 30 days to remove the mug shots if the charges were dropped or dismissed. Georgia also requires that the website operators remove the mug shots of individuals such as those who have never been prosecuted, or who have pled guilty or found guilty on drug-related charges and have completed probation. Oregon also requires that the website operators remove the mug shots of individuals who had their charges reduced to violations, or had their record expunged.",
"The first amendment guarantees freedom of the press. It's been part of the US for as long as the US has existed."
],
"score": [
10,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5oeizw | Why do we still use the word 'girlfriend' for both SO's and female friends? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dcipj3b"
],
"text": [
"Dont know if this is going to be removed, but at least in Spanish we have 2 different words: \"novia\" for SO and \"amiga\" for female friend"
],
"score": [
11
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5of55f | Females vs. Women | I've noticed on Reddit people tend to think of the word females as having a negative connotation when referring to women. They often tell other redditors to use the word women instead. Could someone explain to me the proper usage for each? And also why the word female has such a bad rap? I'm just a bit curious. If I think about it, I always use the word men when referring to men. Males sounds.....odd. | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dciw0dj"
],
"text": [
"\"Females\" is generally thought of as being cold, clinical language. It'd be like using the word \"Humans\" in place of \"People\". Like, don't you think it'd be weird if your friend said to you, \"Hey, look at those humans over there\" instead of \"Hey, look at those people over there.\" \"Females\" isn't grammatically incorrect and it's not \"wrong\", it just sounds weird and awkward. It's also strangely broad, like, a group of female cows can also be called \"females\" and so can a group of female snakes, or female insects. Calling a group of female humans \"females\" isn't wrong, but like... We HAVE a word for \"female humans\". The word is \"women.\""
],
"score": [
10
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
5ofx5f | what stops people from starting religions with ritualistic drug ceremonies (like the Ayahuasca ceremonies of native Americans) where the government must let them have an illegal substance due to religious rights? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dcj19dz",
"dcj11aj",
"dcj864s"
],
"text": [
"> the government must let them have an illegal substance due to religious rights That is not true. Claiming that something is a religious ritual does not mean the government automatically has to let you do it. Those laws that make otherwise-illegal substances legal for religious use are carefully and specifically crafted for each individual drug/practice. In fact the Supreme Court had ruled that peyote use was not protected under the American Indian Religious Freedom Act, which prompted Congress to pass amendments to the Act which specifically addressed peyote.",
"The concept of religious freedom isn't absolute. People are subject to largely the same laws regardless of religion and using your religion as a justification for doing something illegal doesn't give you a pass. There are examples that contradict this to an extent, but on a basic level starting a religion doesn't get you excused from the vast majority of federal laws. Religious freedom is more about your freedom to have belief without being prosecuted for simply having those beliefs. But if those beliefs involve illegal practices and you move from believing in it to putting it into practice, then you are still usually breaking the law. Edit: Also, I'm not a law expert so I might be very wrong, but I believe that Native Americans living on a reservation have a greater amount of autonomy than you'll see anywhere else, so those are special circumstances.",
"I have friends who use Ayahuasca in the USA as part of their affiliation with a South American religion. They had to present to the Supreme court to prove their case, basically to prove they were a real religion and not just some folks wanting to trip out on drugs. They met for years in their ceremonies drinking only water, until their beloved Aya was given a green card."
],
"score": [
16,
5,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5ofy02 | Why are races usually measured in distance rather than time? E.g., 5k instead of furthest distance achieved in 15minutes. | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dcj1gho",
"dcj2b99",
"dcj1f3l"
],
"text": [
"Because being able to keep accurate time over short time periods is a relatively recent invention. FWIW, the 24 Hours of Lemans is run for distance, but I'm not sure about other endurance races?",
"Because to judge it you only need one person standing at the known finish point, instead of one judge per competitor who needs to be standing exactly where the competitor is after 15min (which itself is quite hard to know before accurate watches were invented), presumably the judge gets there by being an athlete who is as fast or faster than the olympic athletes you're measuring (in which case, why aren't the judges competing?)",
"The finish ribbon keeps tearing as the two motorcycles keeping it stretched across the route try to remain 5m in front of the leader."
],
"score": [
8,
6,
5
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5oh1mq | How did Holland (or more specifically Amsterdam) become such a liberal place when surrounded by religion? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dcj9mbo",
"dcjg2mk"
],
"text": [
"Holland were too wet to do efficient agriculture so the land were very cheap. This were ideal for capitalists merchants who wanted cheap land with good harbors. The more extreme case is Venice but a lot of other cities are built on march lands close to the ocean and rivers. The new cities were mostly run by capitalists who did not care about the religion of the people they traded with. To get the most gains they would loan money from the Jews, buy tea from the Muslims, use Catholic transports and sell it to Protestants. Religion were a more personal thing and did not fit in with modern capitalist ideas. Anyone who made trade decisions based on religion would get out competed by his peers. This is also where Martin Luthers ideas fitted right in. Holland were also on the boarder between protestant in what is now Germany and catholic France. So any religious racism would lose you clients quite fast.",
"Historically Holland was an open trading country, which meant a large scale exchange of goods and services, and also people - hence new ideas and approaches to things."
],
"score": [
7,
4
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5oho4v | My extended family is from the southern U.S., while I grew up in the North, but after visiting them for a week or so I begin to speak with a southern accent. What exactly is going on there? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dcjddgz",
"dcjf6j8"
],
"text": [
"You're trying to fit in - you're subconsciously adopting the local vernacular to be part of your family.",
"People absorb. I bet if you went to another country for a month you would start picking up small lingual differences as well."
],
"score": [
6,
6
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5oism1 | Is there a reason why so many tech companies, game developers, and startups are based in California, compared to other regions? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dcjl965",
"dcjqm99"
],
"text": [
"Many of the companies (going back to 60's) were founded by Stanford professors and students, who hired other Stanford students. The concentration of technology skills fueled new ideas, some of which became new companies. Other companies sought out the area because of the concentration of skilled workers to hire. So it became a virtuous cycle of like-minded engineers, programmers, etc. flocking to the area to work for the tech companies, some of those people starting more tech companies, hiring more people, etc. Along side this, the financial community developed, too, with numerous venture capital firms popping up to finance these new tech companies.",
"California has some of the best technology schools in the country, and they have the talent pool and the infrastructure to support technology well. They also have a lot of space. If you are a small company looking for a location with both quality employees and potential business partners and investors nearby, California is your spot. If you are a big company wanting to set up a huge tech campus within driving distance of a lot of qualified engineers, there are just not a lot of places on the East Coast you can do that."
],
"score": [
20,
6
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5oix57 | In high school, why do teachers make you do projects but give you the determiner "Only 2 of the x resources you use can be from the internet?" | Small backstory, I had to help my niece do a science project for high school. She had to quote sources for a specific physics problem and her solution and how she got there. I found all of the sources online in 5 minutes and she got her project done in around an hour. However we then had to spend 4 hours driving to various libraries to "prove" she did not get the sources from the internet. TL:DR I got sources for my niece's project from the internet and spent 4 hours driving to various libraries for library reference cards for the books I found online. | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dcjm19c",
"dcjm3jl",
"dcjo5v1",
"dcjxa58",
"dcjm5s5",
"dcjx82s"
],
"text": [
"Because the teacher wants some way to ensure that students know how to get information from books or other printed materials. The internet is a phenomenal resource, but it's important to maintain some small ability to locate information without the internet, like at a library.",
"Because they want to teach your niece how to use sources *other* than the Internet. Internet sources vary wildly in reliability and attribution, and learning to use other sources is important.",
"For younger learners, the internet can be a tricky place to navigate for accurate sources. Pretend you're going to write a paper about 9/11 and see how easy it can be to find legitimate looking sources \"proving\" that it was orchestrated by both Bush, Obama, and a super-secret hit squad. By forcing you to cite actual publications, they're setting a standard that you actually use sources with a basic level of editorial oversight. Literally anyone can make a legitimate looking website, but a publishing company has a reputation to protect, as well as the school district stocking the library. Ideally, this requirement will encourage students to learn how to spot good verifiable sources against clickbait propaganda.",
"Perhaps the reason is because your niece's adult uncle already has research skills (sorting through all the crap), but she does not, and thus needs print sources to confirm. LPT: don't do people's homework for them...",
"Old fart posting here, old enough that the internet did not exist when I was at school, so this is purely speculation on my part, but here we go: I would hazard a guess that you can't have all of your resources from the internet because of how simple it makes the whole process. Not only could you simply copy and paste straight from the website and not even bother typing / writing anything but also the information you give is essentially someone else's. Right now for example you wanted to know something and asked the internet to get an answer for you. At least when researching from a book you had to (no pun intended) do your homework so you knew what book to look for. The simplicity of finding information on the internet can be seen to trivialize the learning process. Just my 2 cents.",
"To teach them how to use a library, or other resources. Yes, *most* things are online. Not everything is. For example, i had to take out a book (in a STEM field) on a certain technique just the other day. It also helps teach them how to distinguish what is a good source. You're probably about my age, I'm guessing (20s-30s), so we had it blended naturally. The reason a lot of teachers don't allow wikipedia etc is that students are lazy and will quote it without verifying. > I found all of the sources online in 5 minutes You also probably shouldn't be doing her homework for her. If it were that easy, she should've done it herself :P While it seems tedious for that particular project, like most skills you learn in school, there will be times it will come in handy."
],
"score": [
57,
16,
8,
7,
7,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
5oj262 | How come cops don't just bust all the escorts advertising on sites like backpage or craigslist? | Sister-in-law is a psychologist who studies sex-related topics like FWB arrangements and sex trade workers. She showed us backpage where pros openly advertise. Seems like an easy way to bust pros...just make a bunch of appts and arrest em... | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dcjn6dg",
"dcjvgzj",
"dcjo8l3",
"dcjtyux",
"dck2szu"
],
"text": [
"To escort someone on a date is not illegal. And if the paid date is over, and the couple \"happens\" to have sex, no crime has been committed. Semantics matters because lawyers.",
"90% of all prostitution arrests are for street walkers, despite them only making up 10% of prostitutes. When cops do arrest prostitutes and Johns, they target street walkers because they tend to have sex in public, leave condoms and drug paraphernalia around, irritate the neighbors, etc. Escorts do not cause people to drive by, get disgusting and call the police. That is part of the issue. As long as people are discreet it isn't a high priority the same way that someone smoking weed at home is not the same as someone smoking crack in public and bothering people. Both are. Illegal drug use but one disrupts the peace more. Also I've had trouble getting police help when I was a victim of a felony. So cops probably care even less about misdemeanors like prostitution. Also escorts, if done right, are harder to prove in court. Can you prove that two people exchanged money for sex? They intentionally try to be vague about it, making law enforcements job harder. Paying someone money isn't illegal. Having sex isn't illegal. But paying for sex is illegal. There is a gray area, as patton Oswalt said 'AP English for the win' So in conclusion reasons include 1. Escorts and their customers are not really disturbing the peace or annoying the public. 2. Cops are overworked and barely follow up felonies. 3. Escorts and Johns use legal tactics to make arrests and prosecution harder.",
"I used to represent victims of human trafficking and pretty much everywhere who is in that world knows about Backpage. Craigslist is a thing too, but not to the same extent. There would be two ways the government could go about addressing the issue - shutting down Backpage or arresting individuals who post on Backpage/use services advertised on Backpage. The government has attempted to shut down Backpage (or at least limit the prostitution posts), but hasn't been very successful. Backpage usually prevails under the theory that it's not responsible fro what it's users publish. It also fights pretty hard to resist political pressure, like when it got in trouble for ignoring Congressional subpoenas. There's also a split in anti-sex trafficking movements about whether Backpage even should be shut down. Some say it should because it allows pimps to advertise prostitutes, but others say it shouldn't because it allows women a safe way to advertise themselves (assuming they're doing it of their own free will) and because it helps police catch sex traffickers who post on the site. The method of arresting individuals isn't too popular because it's inefficient and usually not a priority. Prostitution is illegal, but like marijuana, not too many people care about it if it's not out in the open and no one is getting hurt. That means that police would almost rather have people making arrangements online rather than in the street since that keeps it more hidden and safer. Also, sending an officer to arrest a single prostitute and then fighting the case in court only to get her locked up for a month or two doesn't seem like a great trade off to police. If police think women are being sex trafficked, that's a different issue, but it's not always easy to tell from the ads (or at least it wouldn't be easy to catch the pimp based on the ad). Police also do set up stings on Backpage sometimes, but there are pretty much always Johns to catch - you can set up a sting without Backpage if that's what you want to do. tl;dr - Backpage as a site can't be taken down because it's not responsible for what users post and some anti-sex trafficking groups don't even think it should be taken down. Police occasionally go after individual prostitutes, but they don't do it often because it's not a high priority and it's inefficient.",
"1.) Legality & technicality. It is not illegal to pay someone to spend an hour of their time with you. And whatever you do during that hour is purely consensual, and there is no requirement or obligation, and the payee is allowed to refuse any request. So you have to get an explicit \"Sex for money\" statement. And any escort not already in jail will immediately end the conversation, and leave at the very first hint of this. 2.) There are more important things to deal with. Usually prostitution stings are done so a police chief, or politician can go around waving the flag of morality. Not because there is an actual issue. Unless there are reports of human trafficking, drug trafficking, violence, etc. There are better uses of the police's time & tax payers money.",
"Why don't we just legalize it and be done with the nonsense? The world's oldest profession isn't going away and the nature of the black market puts both sides of the economic transaction at unnecessary and far more damaging risk than simple sex. You've likely never heard of a registered massage therapist being hurt by client. That's how it should be for woman who choose to engage in prostitution. It also would work to prevent exploitation from pimps and drug dealers. Not to mention the public safety boost. Now the question was why don't they just bust them all. And one response is that it's not so easy, but the other end is that it's just not that important and most real police agencies have better shit to do."
],
"score": [
57,
12,
9,
5,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
5oj38i | What is the proper way to read comic book bubble conversation? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dcjnhvx"
],
"text": [
"Generally comics try to conform to the normal process (for the English language at least) of reading from left to right and top to bottom. The problem is that depending on what images are in each comic book panel, where the available space for the speech bubbles is will vary. This can lead to all sorts of problems where your brain automatically assumes you will read the top-left speech bubble first, then whatever bubble is \"next in line\" either to the right or below and so on, when in fact due to space limitations you might really need to read from top-left, then bottom-left, then middle right and so on. I don't think there can be a fixed rule for this."
],
"score": [
6
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5ojjox | why are we typically less attracted to fat people? | Genuinely curious why people generally are less attracted to a fat body as opposed to a fit one. What sociological, anthropological and developmental angles can explain it? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dcjtpon",
"dcjv8up",
"dcjyvdx",
"dcjyyfp",
"dcjv05o",
"dckjcbp",
"dcjxxui",
"dck8vk0",
"dck19cg"
],
"text": [
"In a really reduced nutshell: At a base, genetic level, humans are concerned with the survival of the species. So, in turn, we are hardwired to find those qualities attractive that will aid in that endeavor (wide birthing hips, supple breasts, fit frame, etc). And those qualities unattractive that will hinder that endeavor (obesity, deformities, abnormalities, etc).",
"In cultures where only the rich are able to get fat, obesity is considered a positive trait. So part of it is sociological. In modern culture obesity is looked down upon however. The cultural reasons obesity is deemed a positive vs negative trait are usually proxies for class, character and income though. In some cultures obesity is a sign of income and status (a sign you have good food and do not work backbreaking labor), in others (most nowadays) obesity is viewed as a sign of lack of character and status. However we are also attracted to healthy bodies. That means people who are too thin, too fat or who have deformities are less attractive. Basically cultural and biological reasons.",
"No matter if it is a disorder via hereditary illness or a disorder via psychological problem, we recognize it to be unhealthy and unfit either way. We want to make babies with healthy people to give the child the best chance. I would argue this root cause without even looking at the secondary effects such as physiological damage to joints, inability to run from danger, elevated risk of heart disease, diabetes, etc. And if you think obesity is somehow *not* a problem, doesn't that add evidence to the likelihood of a psychological problem causing you to be in denial?",
"To add to the other replies, I would imagine a large part of it is that we have had consistent body types for tens of thousands of years until very recently. People simply weren't able to be overweight until very recently in human history. We have evolved to be sexually attracted to a very specific 'human' shape. When people put on excessive weight this shape changes and has less of a resemblance to our historic shape and therefore differs from what we have evolved to find attractive.",
"I would second the idea that it's partly related to fertility. Females are supposed to be most fertile (all hormones working together appropriately and in correct amounts) with a body fat % between 20-25. Fertility decreases with extreme obesity or weight loss. I don't have a scientific source for you right now; I'm just digging up some numbers from the back of my head. And yes, Internet, I am aware a million other things do affect fertility and a million other social, physical, and personal experiences also affect attractiveness-perceived.",
"Attraction is based around health. We are attracted to healthy people. When someone is too fat, it is unhealthy. Your body knows that and subconsciously tells you not to breed with that person.",
"Humans don't have sensitive noses like other animals so we use our good vision and pattern recognition to determine fertility at a distance. When a human becomes sexually mature certain physical changes occur. Wider hips and enlarged breasts indicate a mature female for instance. The male brain is looking to match the wide hips big bust pattern. Excessive body fat obscures the shape of a woman's body and so she doesn't look like a sexually mature potential mate.",
"In addition, I think people understand that under an obese person's [skeleton]( URL_0 ) lies the same size skeleton as the average person's. This appears, to the average person, as an extreme condition caused by hoarding and/or overeating and gluttony.",
"Because they will smell oily and the rolls of fat collect a lot of secretions that get nasty very quickly."
],
"score": [
166,
39,
37,
28,
13,
9,
6,
5,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/9a/cd/ca/9acdcae560766e51afad4808bada4fc0.jpg"
],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
5ojk4n | Once a President is in office and installs his government, how does the federal government (continue to)investigate him? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dcjr5rd",
"dcjuczh",
"dcjuq05"
],
"text": [
"The Congress does the investigations, just like they did with Bill Clinton for over six years. This is the check on Executive power.",
"Essentially because the President is NOT above the law! There are in many areas DIFFERENT laws that apply to the President but that does not make him ABOVE the law. The FBI is independent as are some other federal agencies",
"Congressional oversight can investigate through subpoena power to produce testimony, documents, other evidence. It is limited in prosecutorial power and dependent on the DoJ to issue legal charges. They do have the power of the purse and contempt citation to force compliance."
],
"score": [
40,
5,
5
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5ok4rc | Why, in English, do we use the letter "Q" without a "U" following it in so many foreign names, when those languages don't even have a "Q" in their alphabet? Ex: Iraq, Qatar. | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dcjvxjn"
],
"text": [
"In general because we don't have a letter in English that approximates the sounds that those languages use, and thus \"Q\" by itself is the closest we can get to mimicking those foreign names. Irac or Irak wouldn't work as well in English."
],
"score": [
3
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5olgn6 | Why do so many people have such a hard time being corrected or admitting they didn't know something in real time during an argument or debate? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dck8mk1"
],
"text": [
"Because they are trying to win, not trying to be right. It is normal human behavior. If there is one piece of pizza left, and we are both hungry, we are not going to have a principled discussion about who needs it more. We are going to try to persuade each other to back off, and any logic we apply to that discussion is going to be a facade. It is the same way salesman and lawyers operate. Their job is to persuade, not to enlighten. They are not interested in reaching a consensus, they want what they want, and any \"discussion\" is merely a tool to that end."
],
"score": [
11
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5oll5k | Why aren't there any motorcycle commercials on television? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dck8glp",
"dck87ab",
"dcka08e"
],
"text": [
"There are plenty of motorcycle commercials. You're just watching the wrong shows. For whatever reason they're not advertising to your target demographic.",
"Progressive plays motorcycle commercials (well insurance). I think motorcycles are one of those things people buy without needing advertising, they just do or don't. Yes, I'm a motorcycle rider and I've never needed a commercial to want another motorcycle (they advertise themselves in public) :-P. I do recall nonsensical sport bike commercials in the 90s and I do see local motorcycle dealerships advertise here in San Antonio (usually Harley or dirt bikes).",
"Compared to cars, motorcycles are much more rare. It is not something every family must have. While it can be form of transportation for one, alot of times it is more of a \"hobby item\" - and a expensive one at that. TV adds can be expensive and if you are not already heavily interested in motorcycles you won't be swayed by commercials. So you won't see them in constant circulation, but there will be some targeted adds during and after relevant motorcycle shows."
],
"score": [
6,
3,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5olpnb | Why did Teachers in the past focused so much on Cursive? | Even in the 2000s I was being taught cursive, even though it seemed generally obsolete at that point. Why teach cursive when print is fundamentally better in every way, and we live in on age of computers? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dckb81j",
"dck973d",
"dckcw0s",
"dck96jl",
"dck97m7",
"dckfg5m",
"dckka4g",
"dck9e75",
"dckdkoq"
],
"text": [
"People don't really understand how deeply cursive was ingrained in the culture. Writing cursive was a fundamental part of basic literacy. It wasn't a weird fancy form of writing, it *was* writing. Print was only used in books, newspapers, and some signs (and sometimes for headers on handwritten documents), which is why it is called \"print\". When you had a pen and were told to \"write\" something, it meant to write it in cursive. To tell someone to not write cursive, you had to specify that they should \"print\" the words, as in they should imitate printed words, which was not the usual way to use a pen. TL;DR: Cursive *was* writing, not a fancy form of it. Print came from printing presses, pens were used for cursive.",
"Correct me if I'm wrong but a majority of ( USA ) historical documents are written in cursive. If you can't read cursive, you can't read historical documents. Also, it looks super fancy.",
"Cursive is a lot faster than print... Regardless handwriting and fine motor coordination skills go hand in hand (no pun intended). Handwriting skill development is important for kids to develop musculature in their hands for basically everything. It would be interesting to see how computer involvement impacts the future generation's dexterity.",
"Print is not better in every way. It is worse for writing. Plus, now we have a secret language most kids struggle to read.",
"Cursive is faster to write, and was considered a more prestigious form of writing. Of course, nowadays typing matters much more than writing faster.",
"> fundamentally better in every way It's faster and more ergonomic than normal writing. Printing is slow and puts more strain on the hand. It requires more finesse sot here is an element of motor development. You're able to read cursive if you learnt to write it. Where I live, in the very old days printing wasn't even taught, only cursive so if you want to read what my grandparents wrote you needed to know cursive. > we live in on age of computers We didn't back then. It's only in hindsight that we can see how pervasive computers were going to be. At that point in time very few had computers and the internet so writing was still the default means of written communication.",
"Ink in quill pens and other similar pens was quite a bit runnier than in a felt tip or other 'modern' pen. The most consistent/clear/pleasing/etc line could be produced by creating as long of a continuous stroke as possible, which is what cursive does. Ballpoint pens vary a bit, though by in large cursive is still fairly simple with them. Most modern inks do away with the underlying need for cursive in a practical sense, and as a form of writing it has largely gone away. I definitely learned cursive in grade school and still use a hybrid cursive/print handwriting and I'm \"old\" (30odd). A word processor (sort of an electric typewriter with limited processing/memory power--about on par with a scientific calculator) was the go-to for preparing documents in that same time frame. Do I feel bad either are going away? Not really. Are they useful skills to have a basic knowledge of? Yep. Day to day? Eh, not really, just useful for occasional and/or academic purposes or if you're feeling nostalgic and/or are emotionally tied to them. Edit: you jogged a memory, so I looked around and found [an opinion piece]( URL_0 ) on the matter that was rattling around in my brain somewhere. Hope that helps! (And remember it's speculative with minimal solid sources). Edited*",
"It's easy in hindsight to say we were becoming this fully computerized society. I got my first computer when I was 5. That's not too cray for kids these days, except for me, 5 was 1980. So few people had a computer at home back then. Watch 80's movies that involve computers, and they're basically magic. No one knew what they were really about. I was initially anti-GUI back when I got windows 3.0 in 1990 (it wasn't an OS at that point, you still booted to DOS and then manually started Windows). I didn't like using a mouse, I was all keyboard all the time. Move up to 1995. Windows 95 was the OS release that got people into computers, and the internet was pretty much going strong at that point (prior to that, my exposure to the internet was via unix shell accounts at my university). I don't know when the switch was made to stop teaching cursive, but I think it's forgivable to give 10 years past Windows 95 just in case it was a fad.",
"Hmm. Well, I'm not sure I agree print is \"fundamentally better in every way\"....Sometimes printing is better, like when you're filling out a form, and you need to fill out everything clearly. But when I'm writing fast, it automatically becomes cursive, so it's helpful to know it. I can't print and still write as fast. I always wondered what's wrong with cursive, and why did they stop teaching it. Some people still love writing with pen and paper, despite it being the digital age."
],
"score": [
49,
19,
19,
10,
8,
8,
5,
4,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2015/08/ballpoint-pens-object-lesson-history-handwriting/402205/"
],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
5om0eh | Many people believe that NSA spying is a clear violation of the Constitution and the right to privacy. How does the government get away with secret programs that potentially violate the constitution, and why has no one taken them to court over the issue? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dckds8h",
"dckc728",
"dckkrdv",
"dckj8m6",
"dckl5oi",
"dckchv0"
],
"text": [
"There have been 4th amendment issues raised with various spying programs, but several times various federal courts have declined to rule, citing a lack of evidence the plaintiffs were damaged by the programs in question. The following cases are examples, [ACLU v. NSA]( URL_2 ), [ACLU v. Clapper]( URL_1 ), and [Wikimedia Fdn v. NSA]( URL_0 ) This question of standing is fundamental. Because the programs are secret, it is impossible to know what information of yours may have been intercepted. By the way, it is case law that someone has no expectation of privacy over information that was shared with a third party. e.g. when you dial your phone to reach your aunt, you shared the fact that you dialed that number with the phone company, therefore it cannot be information exclusive to you and your aunt, and therefore no private information is taken when the government read your call records. ***TL;DR***: Simply saying \"three-letter-agency probably knows what web sites I've visited\" isn't a lawsuit you can file, because (a) you don't know whether they know, and (b) even if they did know, you had to ask a third party (your ISP) for the websites, so that wasn't harm anyway.",
"GW had an attorney write the legal justification for the NSA spying that Snowden revealed. As far as I know that legal document was (and still is) classified. A few people have seen it. Attorney General Ashcroft would not accept it and several of his staff resigned in protest over it. To get the issue heard in court there will have to be a specific victim who is damaged directly by the spying done by that specific program. You can't argue principles in court without tangible victims. This is why you want to trust the people who are in office. Psychopaths can manipulate anything and make it look appropriate (i.e. Richard Nixon.)",
"Not easily done like you're five, but I'll give it a shot.... Under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, the Patriot Act, and other statutes and amendments, Congress has created a special court, known as the FISA court, to review the sufficiency and constitutionality of highly sensitive requests by the federal government agencies and agency components involved in gathering intelligence information on individuals within the US involving the national security of the US. The FISA court is staffed by certain constitutionally appointed federal judges (see Article III of the Constitution) who serve for set terms in that capacity. The Article III federal judicial branch long has been understood to exercise final interpretive authority over what is permissible government action under the Constitution (see Marbury v. Madison). The executive branch of the federal government cannot act through its intelligence gathering and law enforcement capacity to obtain information in certain ways, including the real-time surveillance of electronic transmissions (i.e. \"wiretaps\") and similar invasive techniques, unless the request or program is first submitted with adequate evidence for its necessity through the FISA court process for review. This usually includes periodic returns to the court for it to monitor both the progress and the continued need for this exceptional kind of surveillance. To submit a FISA warrant or request, the Department of Justice imposes serious internal review requirements, including approval by the AG or, sometimes, her delegate. For these reasons, the obligation that the executive branch obtain Art III judicial review under a process authorized by congressional statutory action, coupled with the necessity of proving a national security justification and submitting the activity to continued judicial monitoring, have so far been determined adequate to satisfy the constitutional concerns they raise. And if there is a program involving electronic surveillance by federal law enforcement based on national security concerns (that is, not justified under ordinary criminal warrant requirements) that involves US citizens on US soil which hasn't been approved in secret by the FISA court according to the requirements of that system, then the action is illegal and unconstitutional.",
"Think about it this way. They own the game, they set the rules, they own the players and the court where they play. How can you win?",
"We no longer follow the constitution so it doesn't matter that it is unconstitutional. We are far from what the founders attended.",
"They do take them to court. Because of the sensitive national security issues, it is a secret court with little accountability. For some strange reason, it almost never rules against the government."
],
"score": [
118,
18,
13,
7,
4,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_v._NSA",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ACLU_v._Clapper",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_Liberties_Union_v._National_Security_Agency"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5om74m | What is ethnicity? Is it related to ancestry at all? Or is it only referring to cultural aspects? | For example, can the people from Mainland China and the people from HK be said to be of the same ethnicity? Both the British and the Americans speak English. Are they of the same ethnicity? And also, can ethnicity be chosen? Some are saying it is what you identify with and so it can be chosen, as you choose what you identify with. As you can see, I'm very confused. lol | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dckfgjh",
"dckgapc"
],
"text": [
"Ethnicity is basically a combination of culture and ancestry. A group of people sharing ancestry and common traits like religion, language, cultural norms, etc. Though everyone in the ethnic group doesn't always share these same things, it's common. You can't choose your ethnicity, it's about where your family is from.",
"It's a very fuzzy concept and there are no strict definitions on what it is or is not. In general it is collection of people that at least some of the following a) consider themselves part of that group b) have a shared history c) have a similar or shared culture d) similar or shared language e) similar or shared religious beliefs d) similar appearance Can people choose what ethnicity? Kind of; a key part of ethnicity is the individual self identifying as belonging to that group. There are also cases where people may be incorporated into a new ethnicity if they are able to blend in well enough ( similar to gay people passing as straight), though it is debatable whether this constitutes being part of the ethnicity they pass for."
],
"score": [
7,
4
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
5omat2 | How do laws prohibiting people from taking pictures of farms not violate the 1st amendment? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dckfl8o",
"dckfv5r"
],
"text": [
"First, according to the wiki, at least one state, Idaho, had their law invalidated on first amendment grounds in 2015. Second, often the criminalization of actually taking the pictures is a secondary part of the law, which is often nominally aimed at something like helping law enforcement or preventing \"employment fraud.\" So, the law may say that it is illegal to lie on a resume submitted to a farm and also require that any footage of animal cruelty be submitted to the police within 24 hours. Both of these make it very difficult to conduct any sort of effective \"sting\" operation without directly running afoul of freedom of the press. Last and likely most important, is that the First Amendment is relatively clear, but the tests are still fact based. Even though these laws are likely to fail the required constitutional tests---as Idaho's did---but those tests are about balancing state interests and the nature of the law in the context in which it was passed. Absent some often challenging legal jiujitsu, before the courts could invalidate those laws someone would need to be charged under the statute and take a gamble on fighting it in court. EDIT: Also, as /u/Phage0070 courts do recognize that certain invasions of privacy can be legally punished. Drawing the line between a legally punishable invasion of privacy and a constitutionally invalid interference in free speech leads to the same kinds of tests described above.",
"> seem to explicitly prohibit people from reporting on the conditions found in factory farms. How does that not violate the freedom of the press and freedom of speech? Because they had no right to obtain those photos in the first place. You can't sneak into someone's home bathroom and take photos of them showering, and if you do you still can't publish those photos. You don't get to call \"freedom of the press\" like \"no tag-backs!\" They don't own the rights to those photos. Another example: If you steal an unpublished movie script that is a crime. And preventing you from putting it on the evening news isn't censoring the press, it is following reasonable law."
],
"score": [
5,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5omjxz | Why did insurance companies from the 1800s and early 1900s often have the word "society" in the name or call themselves a society? | Did they function or were organized differently than they are now? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dckgsk8",
"dckiqad"
],
"text": [
"They were not corporations but we're owned by their policyholders. More commonly known these days as mutual companies.",
"There are still rules and regulations for mutuals and friendly societies to operate (at least there are in Australia). At some point in history administration and running of life insurers became more complex and most mutuals and friendly societies had to become corporations with appropriate staffing and structures to allow them to continue to be viable"
],
"score": [
11,
4
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
5on2y8 | How many words are there in the world (in all languages combined)? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dckkj3c"
],
"text": [
"The world has about 6900 languages. [source]( URL_0 ) A typical language has 3000 to 100,000 words. So, between 20 million and 590 million words."
],
"score": [
7
],
"text_urls": [
[
"http://www.linguisticsociety.org/content/how-many-languages-are-there-world"
]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5on4xt | Why do anti-Semites deny the Holocaust happened instead of being like, "Yeah the Holocaust happened but it was awesome." | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dcklyq7",
"dcko1q0",
"dckmczx",
"dcknkty",
"dcko1tl"
],
"text": [
"Admitting that the holocaust happened would undermine a lot of their conspiracy theories. If jewish people secretly control the world why would they let the holocaust happen?",
"You have to recognize why people argue. It's not to have an open debate, it is posturing. By posturing as the voice of reason, fascists will claim that x source shows that the Holocaust didn't happen (first they'll claim that it wasnt as bad, usually). By debating you on this subject, a line is drawn. On the one side, the Holocaust happened, on the other side, the Holocaust was a lie invented by the ebul Jews. The debate creates a dichotomy which inherently legitimizes the claim. Similar to how politicians will debate that global warming isn't real or whatever. Just having the debate in a culture that worships hearing both sides of the story is a huge boost of legitimacy. We'll fetishize debating the fascists and therefore allow them to spread their message to people who have fundamentally different interests from the average person. The best way to prevent this is to give no platform to fascists.",
"Modern antisemitism, especially from the far-left side of the political spectrum is often tied closely to- or masks itself as anti-Zionism. Since the holocaust is seen as one of the justifications for an independent Jewish state capable of defending world jewry, arguing that the holocaust didn't happen or wasn't significant weakens the need for such a state to exist. This has political impact: It turns the narrative from \"Israel being a place where the remaining Jews escaped to\" to \"a place that Jews chose to occupy instead of staying in Europe. With that argument it's legitimate to have a two-state solution of a Palestinian state with no jews at all (since Palestinians are recognized as a national entity), and a mixed democratic state in the current Israel that is not a Jewish state (since the Jews are fine being a minority in many countries without needing their own state). Anecdotally, Mahmoud Abbas (leader of the palestinian authority) did his doctoral thesis on demonstrating that the holocaust was a lie. URL_0 Many antisemites from the far right side do openly say that the holocaust happened and take pride in it. It's enough to look at some of the flak that Jewish journalists on social media have been receiving.",
"Most \"holocaust hoaxers\" or \"holocaust deniers\" that people label actually believe the holocaust happened. Most just believe that the death count is highly exaggerated, and that the whole idea of a \"final solution\" is bullshit. There's other things they believe but you're going to find a lot more holocaust revisionist than deniers. They're not the same. Don't confuse em! Source: been boolin around on enough conspiracy sights Also holocaust denying is less about anti-semitism and more about anti-illuminati esque, behind the scenes, establishment. Holocaust denier =\\= hating Jews. In fact you could love Jews (im wording this terribly) and still be a holocaust denier. It just means you think there's some Ulterior motive created by Zionist/ world government/ whatever, to push a specific agenda.",
"I am NOT an anti-semite and I'm NOT racist in any way. One day, a couple of years ago, I was bored and decided to check a documentary on Holocaust denial and to my amazement they presented some interesting facts that I had never heard of. I even found there are Jewish people who don't believe the Holocaust happened which surprised me. It's an interesting subject actually, but I already know it's best to not talk about it. And no, I haven't become a Holocaust denier, but I do understand now why some people think we're not being told the entire story. I'm actually glad I took the time to watch this Holocaust denial documentary, since I now better understand why people deny the Holocaust and I'm now less shocked when I hear someone deny it. So to answer the question: Holocaust deniers actually have some reasons to doubt the official narrative. These people aren't necessarily people that hate Jews and want Jews to suffer."
],
"score": [
160,
30,
27,
11,
6
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Other_Side:_The_Secret_Relationship_Between_Nazism_and_Zionism"
],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5on5jk | do all americans have the same health care? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dckl6is"
],
"text": [
"No we don't. There are programs like Medicaid and Medicare for certain groups (seniors over 65 are eligible for Medicare, and Medicaid is usually used by Americans who are medically unable to work), and children are covered under their parents' insurance until age 26, but Americans not in one of those groups have to get insurance from an employer, or through the Affordable Care Act, commonly called “Obamacare.” Otherwise they pay a tax penalty depending on income. Not to get political, but if you saw any of the US Presidential debates between the Democratic candidates over the spring and summer in 2016, you likely heard Bernie Sanders mention “Medicaid for All.” That would cover all Americans regardless of health or income status, probably a lot like what y'all have up there."
],
"score": [
6
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5on6xv | When we have nightmares and try to scream, why can't we do so? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dcknq3i"
],
"text": [
"Your mind relies a lot on the feedback from physical cues you generate while moving. This is why, sometimes, when you try and punch something in a dream, you feel like a weakling loser. Your arm isn't really moving, so your brain has a lot of difficulty parsing the lack of motion of your arm with the memory of what it is like to punch something. Basically, your mind isn't great at simulating the actions of your body, especially compared to generation of images. So, screaming requires some of the same biomechanical feedback as punching. I.e. your mouth opening, throat contracting, lungs and diaphragm working hard, etc. This is different than speaking, because it is more visceral. Speaking can be words, and your brain can parse them out as thoughts. Screaming, though, is almost more of a bodily function than a thought. Like a punch. For a real mind-trip, try and figure out if, when you are dreaming, you are actually talking to people (physically using your lungs and vocal cords) or if you are just thinking at them, and they are reading your thoughts ;)"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5onhm1 | Why is Judaism considered as a race of people AND a religion while hundreds of other regions do not have a race of people associated with them? | Jewish people have distinguishable physical features, stereotypes, etc to them but many other regions have no such thing. For example there's not really a 'race' of catholic people. This question may also apply to other religions such as Islam. | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dckpgis",
"dckxtty",
"dckqi4v",
"dckyj0a",
"dcl596d",
"dckz8en",
"dckuo3d",
"dckw5r0",
"dcknvtv",
"dcksnbg",
"dclaiys",
"dckqrn0",
"dckxiep",
"dcl4x04",
"dcl0ouz",
"dcl20mw",
"dclagb0",
"dcl8s56",
"dckzzvx",
"dcl87xg",
"dcl3493",
"dcl0mbh",
"dcl57z4",
"dckxpt8",
"dcl1q2m",
"dckyc34",
"dclgv3n",
"dclcv82",
"dckzxi3",
"dckwpa1",
"dcljdc2",
"dcky9ha",
"dcl1ll3",
"dcl5hwv",
"dcljvpn",
"dclg8o5",
"dcl6i2z",
"dcl4u3e",
"dcl5dd8",
"dclh169"
],
"text": [
"Judaism is what's called an \"ethno-religious group\". Thousands of years ago, that was pretty common. If you were Egyptian, you almost certainly also followed the Ancient Egyptian religion. If you were Jewish, you almost certainly also followed the Jewish religion. This was to the point that it was almost \"by definition\". The Egyptians didn't expect non-Egyptians to follow the Egyptian religion, and the Jews didn't expect the non-Jews to follow the Jewish religion. There are writings from antiquity talking about how whenever someone traveled to a different place or married into a different tribe/nation, they'd sacrifice to the local gods of the area, not worrying about the ones back home until they got home. During times of war, there would be attempts to lure the other side's god(s) to your side with offers of better sacrifices or whatever. Again, this was the common state of humanity and its various groups for thousands of years. It was generally assumed that there were many gods of many nations, each set of god(s) looking out for their respective nations. Pantheons were fluid, with gods in different pantheons being identified with each other (oh, you have a thunder god too? It's probably the same guy, you just call him Bob instead of Spencer, next time I sacrifice I'll call out to Bob too...). Where the Jews and Judaism differed from most others is that they became strict monotheists (there's evidence that at the beginning of the Jewish religion they were more accurately \"henotheists\", meaning they recognized that other gods existed, but only theirs was the best/most powerful/chief). (EDIT: Above I originally said that henotheism meant that they felt it was only right to worship one, not that one was the most powerful/chief/best. The correct term for thinking it's right to worship only one is \"monolatry\", which is a difference that I swear I knew before. Props to u/Zorro_Darksauce for the correction.) This monotheism gave rise to the idea that non-Jewish gods didn't exist. While they shed polytheism, they didn't shed the nation-god association, meaning that God was *their* God and while He was also everyone else's God, everyone else had a lesser role in His plan and weren't required to do as much and/or were denied His special favor. The other way in which Judaism differed from many others is that this dynamic continued until today. The other major examples that I can think of would be Shinto and Hinduism, but there are countless religions of equal pedigree and age around the world that are often lump under the generic \"folk religion\" tag. This is contrasted with religions like Christianity and Islam, which were founded as religions not for a particular people, but for *all* people. As a result, they had an imperative to go out and convert others to their religion that was lacking in the earlier dynamic (and would even have been viewed as kind of silly...\"they're not Japanese, why would they practice Shinto?\")",
"Before I answer your question, I have to note that most of the answers here, even those with hundreds of upvotes, are in part or even wholly wrong. I don't know why there is so much ignorance about Judaism - it is not exactly a secret religion and there is plenty of fairly authoritative information about who we are and what we believe on the Internet (well, I guess a lot of BS written by non-Jews and even anti-Semites, too, so maybe it is difficult separating truth from reality here). To dispel some of the myths I've read so far: - Judaism does accept converts and has so since ancient times. It is only frowned upon because Jews see the obligations incumbent on Jewish people alone (613 commandments) is an unnecessary burden for Gentiles to take on (who are obligated to follow 7 commandments). Jews believe that Gentiles who follow that tiny subset of obligations to be just as righteous as Jews who follow the full set. - While Judaism doesn't stress the afterlife like Christianity and Islam do, what's clear from our tradition is that it is not reserved for Jews. Everyone (everyone) ends up in the same place: \"the world to come\" (which is ambiguously defined since, well, no one has ever come back to tell us about it...). - Sincerity is important for conversion, so the idea that converts are only allowed to take in spouses is diametrically wrong. Prospective converts are routinely denied if they are found to be doing so just to appease future in-laws. - Not only are converts considered as Jewish as someone born Jewish, there is actually a commandment that Jews can not treat converts differently, and can not even draw attention to the fact that a convert wasn't born Jewish. A convert is as Jewish as Moses. - The \"God's chosen people\" is completely misinterpreted. Among Jews familiar with our religious tradition, it has always meant the obligations of Torah and the fact that the Jewish nation chose to accept them. It has never meant we believe God loves us more than Gentiles; this is a strawman invented by Catholic authorities ages ago in order to demonize us. - In Judaism, there is no concept of race. It is meaningless. There are and have been Jews of all sorts of national origin since ancient times, not least due to the fact that conversion has always existed (the book of Ruth is literally about Judaism's first convert). As for how we feel about treating people who are different based on their looks/national origin: in the Bible, Moses's sister Miriam is struck with a sort of disease when she makes fun of Moses's (African) wife, and God doesn't release her from the disease until she repents for days. - There is no concept of a \"racial Jew\" or \"partial Jew.\" You're either Jewish or you're not; you were either born to a Jewish mother or a convert, or you're not Jewish. Period. Someone with a Jewish father but a Gentile mother is not Jewish (unless s/he converts). And since both mother & father contribute the same amount of DNA to a child, the idea that Judaism cares about how much \"Jewish DNA\" you have is simply not true. So, to answer your question: Judaism is only a religion. The reason that, in certain locations in the world, Jews look broadly similar to one another is that those groups historically didn't intermarry (they followed the religious commandment to marry another Jew) and conversion was either frowned upon or outright forbidden (sometimes under penalty of death or punishment of the Jewish community) by the surrounding population, or there was so little contact between Jews and their Gentile neighbors that each population evolved separately. It might be helpful, though, to think of the Jewish people as a nation. You can either be born to a nation automatically and have all the obligations incumbent on you automatically by virtue of your birth, or you can join the nation (\"naturalize\") by agreeing to follow rules and being accepted by a designated authority.",
"As other people have mentioned, Judaism doesn't focus on conversion and often people marry within the faith. Because of that it's actually possible to tell genetically if you have racially (not religiously) Jewish ancestors. My mother's family is Jewish and my father's family is Christian. I did 23andme a couple years ago and it accurately identified me as 49.9% Ashkenazi (a subgroup of Jewish people who originated in Eastern Europe). So to answer your question, it's because Judaism *is* both racial and religious and that can even be proven with DNA. I am not religious, but I consider myself Jewish by culture.",
"There's an increasing trend (especially in Reform Judaism) to accept patrilineal Jews as part of the fold, and Kaifeng Jews are different in that, like most Chinese people, inheritance comes through the father. And there are plenty of people whose fathers were the Jewish ones but they were still raised (or at least partially) Jewish, like Carrie Fisher. Thing is, it's basically in the realm of ethnicity and community. And converts ARE accepted, there's just a prohibition on proselytism and a conversion process is long to make sure that people really want to go through it. There are also many types of Jews (Kaifeng, Ashkenazi, Mountain, Beta, Mizrahim, etc) but we're united by the faith (even if many aren't religious), common family ties and the fact that we're around 1% of the world's population. Source: am Jewish. PS it's so typical to see the racists and antisemities crawl out of the woodwork to scream about Israel and Pharisees and whatever nonsense they like to think Jews cause even though this thread only asked about ethnoreligion.",
"Also, there are several different ethnic groups of Jewish people that wouldn't have similar features. Your average Ashkenazi Jewish person isn't going to look exactly like your average Sephardic Jewish person isn't going to look your average Bukharan Jewish person isn't going to look like your average Cochin Jewish person, because during the several Jewish diaspora, the Jewish peoples moved into other nations, fell in love with and had children with local ethnic groups, but also had a significant degree of intermarriage and unique customs that each of these groups became distinct ethnically. With regard to Catholicism/early Christianity/orthodox faiths, remember that during its spread, the Roman Empire, Byzantine Empire, etc., spread them by force and conquest, and sent missionaries out to every land under the sun. \"Catholic,\" as an adjective, literally means \"universal.\" The idea was that everyone was obligated to convert to Christianity. Some iterations of the faith took this to mean \"... or die!\" while others did not. So the reason why there is no strong ethnic association with Catholicism (there are weak associations; the Irish, Italians, Latin Americans, etc.) is because Catholicism never envisioned itself as the faith of any particular ethnic group. It was always practiced by multi-ethnic groups of early Christians. Judaism, on the other hand, was the ethnic religion of the Hebrews, much like all of the Indo-European groups had some version of the PIE religion. Catholicism, for the most part, wiped out folk religions of Indo-Europeans, to the point today where all attempts at reconstructing those folk religions for worship are at best copies of copies of what we think someone eight hundred years dead thought about those religions. But there are always movements within ethnic groups to practice that group's traditional religion. It's just that the Jewish peoples, like a few others (Zoroastrians, for example), have managed to maintain and preserve their ethnic folk religion in a way few others have.",
"I really want to challenge the proposition that Jewish people have distinguishable physical features. There is sufficient genetic diversity within the Jewish population, if nothing else, across the Ashkenazi/Sephardi divide. There's a Jewish diaspora all over the world. Eastern European Jews have had a long time to have different genetics than Iberian Jews. I grew up next to [Mexican Jews]( URL_1 ) such as [Diego Rivera]( URL_0 ). There are also [black Ethiopian Jews]( URL_2 ). Natalie Portman looks nothing like Sammy Davids Junior who looks nothing like Mila Kunis or Daniel Radcliffe. Furthermore, be very wary of the concept of \"[race]( URL_3 )\" itself, as there is a widespread suspicion amongst modern scientists that the idea that people can be classified into races is untenable.",
"You say Jewish people have distinguishable physical features, but I am not sure I agree with that. Jewish people have a wide range of appearances, which are more closely tied to where they originated than their religion. If you walk around Beirut, for example, the local people (mainly Christian and Muslim) don't look significantly different to those in Tel Aviv (mainly Jewish), less than 150 miles along the coast. And you say that hundreds of other regions don't have a race associated with them; they very much do. Almost all regions have a local or native ethnic group, so I am not sure what you mean. With regards to other religions, there is not a race of Christian people, but you do get local Christian ethnic groups, such as the Assyrians, Goan Catholics, Antiochian Greek Christians, Armenian Christians, Chuvash, etc. and that applies to all of the major religions, and many of the minor ones too. With Islam, for example, you have Hausas, Uyghers, Somalis, Bosniaks, etc. who all have their own distinctive physical features, culture, language, and so on.",
"Because it was an ethnic group first that developed a religion for its people. This was common during the era of humanity that the religion was created and most religions in human history were like this. The concept of converting other people to your religion is a \"new\" thing in human history so having religions not associated with your ethnicity are new. Judaism is simply one of the few religions of the older form that has survived into modernity. Edit: And for Islam, it started with Arabs but does not actually have any ties to an ethnic group. That is a common mistake made by people ignorant of it as a religion. Most Muslims live is Southeast Asia and are not even near the Middle East.",
"Judaism is a non-proselytizing religion that only accepts converts reluctantly and frowns on intermarriage. Unlike the other Abrahamic faiths, most Jews claim descent to the people who lived in the middle east during biblical times, rather than convert populations. There are some convert populations, of course, but not a huge percentage. As a result, Jews are less like catholics, and more like Italians, if Italians were 90% of catholics and you could basically only become Catholic by birth.",
"To add to what others have said it's also worth pointing out that many Jews are not typically Semitic looking- despite centuries of discrimination and the like you cannot tell either religion of ethnicity by looks.",
"It should be noted that there is an entire \"tribe\" of Jews known as Beta Israel, or Ethiopian Jews. As the name may suggest, they have very different features than, say, Polish Jews. And yet they are still considered fully Jewish and many have immigrated to Israel.",
"Idea is that Abraham's faith was passed down to his son Isaac then to his son Jacob a.k.a Israel. He had 12 sons whose progeny's progeny became a clan or 12 tribes of Israel. Abraham had made a covenant with God to ~~upload~~ uphold certain rules of God in order for his children to remain guided and prosper. Jews practiced these laws of God until they received a law bearing Prophet of God named Moses. Jews renewed the covenant and were blessed with more guidance and laws. With the renewal of the covenant they because the chosen people. Jews come from the same ethnicity, although Europeans have mixed into Jews and have become Jews now as well. The Jews are understood to be a separate ethnicity and because of interbreeding with other Jews, there are specific illness and diseases that are more common in Jews then they are in other ethnicity. Edit: I forgot to language.",
"It is actually an ethnicity and religion, not race and religion. There are many types of religions and they are different in many ways. One way in which they differ is how they expand. Judaism is not the sort of religion that recruits followers, but rather breeds only with Jews to increase numbers (used to, anyway, times have changed). While anyone born to a Jewish mother is considered Jewish, they will also share the religion of Judaism. An ethnicity is a group of people who share common blood and cultural heritage, often also associated with certain locations in which they reside.",
"u/goldiespapa provided an excellent response. I wanted to contribute some additional personal insight as a Jew born and raised in the US. (Side note PSA: \"Jew\" is only a slur if you use it as a slur, so don't.) Judaism is a religion first and foremost, but it can also be seen as a nation without a physical state. In addition, it carries a cultural element. Jewish culture is distinct from non-Jewish culture. There may be Jews who disagree with my insight below or the way that I present it, but hey, that's Judaism for ya, we love discourse. I belong to a caucasian ethnic group called the Ashkenazi, which evolved in central and eastern Europe around the time of the Holy Roman Empire. Ashkenazim make up the majority of the Jewish population according to Wikipedia. We're the ones that are stereotyped as having large noses, etc. Because Jews don't push conversions on other people, the set of all Jewish people has largely remained the same in the last 1500 or so years. There was a long time period in which Jews were straight-up isolated from the general European population, which contributed to the phenotypical distinctions between us and other European groups.",
"thousands of years as a segregated minority group (segregated both by choice and not) led to an overlap between the religion and genetics.",
"As a Jew I i was told by my father at an early age that we are not a race, we are members of a faith, and throughout history people have only categorized us as a race to persecute us.",
"If you look at me IRL you would call me black and keep it moving. However, I'm Jewish because my great grandmother was a French Jew and married a Nigerian. She had my grandma who also married a Nigerian. Thus making my mother Jewish. She also married a Nigerian and had me. My children will also be Jewish too.",
"Not a *race* OP, but more appropriately, an ethno-religious group, i.e. an ethnicity and a religion. You don't have to be genetically Jewish (to put it bluntly, you don't have to be related to the tribe of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob) to be a Jew, but most Jews are, because it's a relatively small and ancient religion. Because the community is so small, the chances of ethnic identity being shared is much higher. However, there are African Jews and Chinese Jews, Arab world Jews and Scottish Jews, German Jews, Russian Jews, South American Jews, etc. It's not confined to a race. A white skinned Jew is still a white person. The difference is that ethnically, we can trace most Jews back to the same heritage and bloodlines, because it's such a small community. The big difference is that with Catholicism and Christianity, even though it started with Jesus, and with a particular group of people in a particular region, Christians make it part of their mission to convert others, and thus create Christian communities among ethnically diverse cultures more often than Jews do. So while there are Jews who aren't white or middle eastern, there are a lot more cases like that with Christianity. Technically, no, Judaism isn't a race, or even an ethnicity. But because the community is so small, and shares so much history, most Jews happen to be of the same ethnic background. But they don't have to be. I don't look particularly Jewish or act in any certain way. My ancestors are white Germans or possibly Lithuanians (it gets hazy because I lost almost all my family on one side in the Holocaust). White supremacists like to assert that Jews are NOT white, that we are racially different. That is historically and scientifically flawed. Especially as time goes on, the differences between people are much harder to define. It's very likely that many proud white nationalists had some or even fully Jewish blood hundreds of years ago, until their families converted and emigrated to safety. Likewise, many Jews might have more \"aryan\" features that Hitler was so found of, because centuries ago there was plenty of cultural interaction and fucking and converting.",
"Judaism is highly wrapped up in ethnicity, you can convert and be welcomed but historically most people didn't and they weren't actively encouraging conversion because it's their religion, so you end up with kind of a base population that most Jews trace their origin from. Actually several base populations, e.g. Ashkenazi, Sephardic, Ethiopian, but those are widely separated populations and mostly didn't bump into each other. Thus the similarities in appearance. The key difference from Christianity and Islam is that the other two are universalistic religions. They think they're appropriate for all people in all places in all circumstances at all times. They actively seek converts, so there can't be an ethnicity thing.",
"This has been informative to read, thanks for asking the question. The only thing I can contribute is that part of why they may be seen as a distinct \"race\" is because we keep talking about different ethno- cultural groups using that word. I know its sort of standard operating proceedure to refer to \"race\", a sort of short hand, but it really does carry a lot of baggage as a term that distracts from ~~the~~ actually coming to grips with the subject of human difference. Its a relic from the Victorian age that pervaded 20th century thinking, we should let it be history.",
"As an ethnic Jew who practices Christianity, I can answer this easily. Judaism is considered a race/ethnicity as it is conferred by birth, regardless of what you look like. If your mother is a Jew, then you are a Jew. As Jews, there is a religion that our group has followed for thousands of years (it's made some changes, but the broad strokes are the same). Since the religion is only followed by Jews, it's called Judaism. You can convert to being a Jew, but it involves not just changing your religious beliefs, but the honest desire to become a part of the Jewish people as well. It's similar to becoming a citizen of another nation.",
"This subject is limited by our vocabulary. For example, when someone asks \"are you mexican?\", without proper context you won't know if they are talking about mexican nationality, mexican ethnicity or race, or mexican culture. Judaism is like this except it has religion as well. It's worse in the US where anyone not caucasian gets asked \"where are you from? (ethnicity)\". Things get even more messy when you ask the question to someone that wasn't born in the US. Like a white person from South Africa or a black person from the UK. In short: nationality, ethnicity, religion and culture are things that may have the same answer and thus talking about it can get confusing very easily.",
"Just want to add to these comments here, because it doesn't seem like anyone mentioned this: There are still many other ethno-religious groups, but they're subsets of larger groups. You see this a lot in post-Ottoman Eastern/Orthodox Christianity. Easiest example is Greek Orthodox -- it's a specific ethno-religious group and (in the modern day) is tied to the Greek identity to some extent. Back during Byzantine times, I'm sure these two weren't tied as heavily, but can still imagine that Latin foreigners were assumed as Catholic (and vice versa with Greeks in the West, at the time). With the Ottoman conquest of the Byzantine empire and subsequent conversion of Anatolia to Islam, the Greek Orthodox church (as well as many other Christian churches) switched from a state religion to that of a smaller minority group. Couple that with the fact that the Ottomans practiced 'Suzerainty' which tied people (to some extent) to the jurisdiction of their native religion, and you can see how post-Ottoman cultures have this in them. Same if not more for Armenian Orthodoxy. Many Armenians (like my own mother) correspond the Armenian identity with that of Armenian Orthodoxy. In fact, if you're baptized in the Armenian Orthodox church, you can easily gain Armenian citizenship regardless of the nation of your birth and/or residence. Up to a generation ago, if an Armenian wanted to marry a non-Armenian it was insistent that the non-Armenian was baptized into the Church first for a formal inclusion in the Armenian community. TL;DR - Jews aren't the only ones, but it requires a specific cocktail of characteristics to replicate this effect in an ethnicity, usually including a history of living in a group as an isolated religious and ethnic minority.",
"Considering that the question of whether Jewish is a race has been debated for ages, I'd say your premise is too questionable to ELI5.",
"While there is some concept of ethnicity, the simple fact that most jews are either ashkenaz (east european) or sefarad (north african) shows how much ethnic diversity you can find in the religion. A Moroccan jew looks like a Moroccan, not like a ashkenaz jew.",
"Something to add on is that Jewish people appear to be more of a unified \"race\" because of hundreds of years of discrimination. In Spain late 15th century, the inquisition. In Germany middle 20th century, the holocaust. And just continuous discrimination throughout history since the founding of the religion. EDIT: Forgot that the Jews were never enslaved in Egypt, thanks people's. 15th not 14th century.",
"They aren't a race of people. It's social construct and Shlomo Sand provides a comprehensive exegesis of this in his book the Invention of the Jewish People. Most Jews living today are converts and while they may be able to find a lineage into those who would fit the general definition of Jewishness through lineage, most will probably have no knowledge of this. A marketing triumph of incredible proportions and implications though.",
"What is missing here is the DNA. There are people who do not practice the religion of Judaism but have the DNA marker for the Jewish race, whether it be Sephardic, Ashkenazi, etc. Many people in this thread keep talking about the religion. Anyone can be jewish (religious) but not everyone is Jewish (genetically). And while there is a bunch of loving stuff, be warned what a singular person believes is different than what the jewish/Israeli government thinks. An example: URL_0 A large majority of the Christian Palestinians are genetically Jewish, but they are not equal (or even people) in the eyes of the Israeli government.",
"It's because their religion was also their government and social and political system. The religion was a 'tribe' and the tribe was the religion. It's true outsiders could convert and mix into Judaism but overall they kept fairly exclusive and so did their blood, genetics, their physical family features and ancestry. It does seem confusing today because Judaism is no longer one single unified tribe of people in one single place. They were dispersed around the world. And they have even become less and less of a 'genetic family' that way too as they mixed with people around the world. Hence 'blond blue-eyed Jews' or dark Arabic Jews or Slavic Jews etc. But the original idea was that the race and religion were the same thing. They were one in the same.",
"Except you'll notice it doesn't appear as a race on standard and official documentation and forms.",
"because race isnt real on a genetic level so it really can defined in any way that people want to use it.",
"The difference is actually a lot simpler than a lot of these posters are making it seem. Hebrew= the Jewish ethnicity, Judaism= the religion of Hebrews",
"Jewishness is not a race. People of any race can be Jewish- either by birth or by conversion. Jewishness can be considered an ethnicity (e.g. Ashkenazi, Sephardic, Mizrahi, Ethiopian Jews are ethnic groups).",
"Jewish people have \"distinguishable physical features, stereotypes\"? I suppose you're referring to hook noses and cheapness? Are you serious? Do you think you can tell someone is a Jew just by their features?",
"To a five year old I would say: Judaism is not a missionary religion, that means that unlike the other two popular religions with only one God they do not try to get people to join their religion. In fact they make it hard to join on purpose.",
"Ok so I have a question (and yes I've read most of the top answers). My mother and father are Jewish. We're not part of any specific group of Jews i.e. Ashkenazi, we're just \"simple\" Jews. However, I do not understand why I am categorized as being Jewish. I am not religious, I know nothing about Jewish culture, and my family has been intermixing with Slavics and other European groups for centuries. So how, considering all of these facts, can someone call me Jewish?",
"Not sure what everyone else has said, but it's worth pointing out that the only folks who've ever argued that Judaism was a race were European racists of the Chamberlain/Hitler variety. That is to say, Jews does not consider Judaism to be a race, but only a religion, regardless of race. Race, by and large, is a socially constructed concept. Many people who believe Judaism is a race are taking their cues - consciously or not - from racialist thinkers supported by groups like the Nazi Party. Of course, that doesn't mean that lots of people don't hold that view, just that most (all) aren't aware of it's really quite racist foundation.",
"Why are Jew's considered a race (to some small extent)? In my mostly unlearned opinion, because of the diaspora. Every couple generations Jews would be either forcibly removed from an area or the conditions would be otherwise be made so bad that they would leave. The holocaust was just one of many events over the last thousand years that specifically targeted Jews (yes i know the holocaust had other specific targets as well). As such, Jews were not (the following are not necessarily representative of countries that contributed to the diaspora) Polish, or Romanian, German, Egyptian, Russian, or Turkish........They were Jews who happened to live within that border. Add to this the low rate of intermarriage and the genetics that this will create, and you have a set of people who ascribe to a particular religion as being seen, in part, as a race. in my opinion.",
"To be ethnically Jewish your mother has to be Jewish. This concept was first of its kind. Usually throughout mankind we connect lineage towards fathers. Jewish culture cannot do that because they will concede that Arabs were the first born to their \"dad\" Abraham. For those a little rusty with their biblical stories- Abraham had Ishmael first (the father of Arabs) with Hagar and whom he favored and taught how to hunt. He then finally, years later, had Isaac (father of the Jews) with Sarah and her jealously of Abraham's relationship with Ishmael (and Ishmael being Abraham's first born) made Abraham cast them away to the desert- the whole story with the zam zam well at Mecca. Why did I bring this up? For Jewish history, to get the first born blessing (birthright) the lineage would have to exclude the dad- only the mom. For the most part throughout history lineage is always passed by through the dad. Jews can't go down that road so they switched it to be through the mom. So official answer- your mom has to be Jewish in order for you to be Jewish.",
"Hopefully, this comment will be noticed because I haven't really been satisfied with many of the answer although a few were close. The answer boils down to country as a form of Identity. Most people can identify themselves on both a religious and ethnic level. For example: \"I'm German and Protestant\" \"I'm Italian and Catholic\" etc. In most cases, these are 2 very different sets of identities. Jews didn't really have this because of the Diaspora. When the temple was the destroyed a 2nd time, the Jews scattered to various places. They also had to constantly move because of persecution/pograms, etc So how do you preserve your culture? How do you keep the Hebrews from assimilating and starting to identify as Persians, Italians, Germans, etc? The answer was to tie your identity completely to the facet of being \"Jewish\". So for example, the Torach is read in the exact same order everywhere in the world. On any given Saturday, if you walk into ANY synagogue, you should in theory hear the same passages and prayers being read. Jewish community became insular. If everyone started marrying the pretty/handsome locals, assimilation would quickly ensue. On the flip side, many communities didn't want the Jews mingling with them either, hence you had the rise of ghettos. Due to this, the insular communities started to develop distinct cultures on top of established religious obligations as well. Over time, these things merged and for many Non-Jews I'm sure it's hard to distinguish one from the other although I assure they are quite different"
],
"score": [
7422,
3126,
235,
135,
110,
69,
66,
51,
48,
15,
14,
14,
10,
10,
7,
7,
7,
7,
6,
5,
5,
5,
5,
4,
4,
4,
4,
4,
4,
3,
3,
3,
3,
3,
3,
3,
3,
3,
3,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diego_Rivera",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judaism_in_Mexico",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beta_Israel",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_%28human_categorization%29"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/israel-admits-ethiopian-women-were-given-birth-control-shots.premium-1.496519"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
5onj9m | How is a new chinese language character created? | For example, if a new word is created, like Internet, who decides how this word will be represented? And how is this decided? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dcko8sy",
"dckskdw"
],
"text": [
"NO new character is created, but new words using already-existing characters. There are basically 3 methods of doing that : 1) using the MEANING of the characters. Like \"computer\" is spelled \"electric brain\" (电脑) 2) using the SOUND of the characters, to get something resembling the original pronunciation, like \"brownie\" (布朗尼, \"bu lang ni\") or \"Mc Donald's\" (麦当劳 \"mai dang lao\"). 3) using a MIX of the two, this is a method usually used for proper names. For instance, France is \"Faguo\" (法国), using the character \"Fa\" for law (\"Country of the law\"). So you get a bit of meaning and a bit of sound.",
"There are two ways to create new words in Chinese. First, you can combine existing characters to form a new word like /u/MisterGoo has already explained. Creating a new character is also possible of course. Chinese characters consist of specific components called radicals or actually *are* radicals. For instance, this is the radical for people亻 and this one is for water ⺡. The vast majority of Chinese characters are phono-semantic compounds, meaning that the character consist of two parts, one hinting the actual meaning while the other one hints its pronunciation. If you have to create a new character, you combine existing radicals, maybe adding a few strokes to distinguish this new character from existing ones. For example this is the character for horse 馬. As a semantic compound it could imply that the new character has to do with movement. The other part then hints the pronunciation. If you used the water compound from above, it might indicate that this new character is pronounced similarly to water."
],
"score": [
9,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
5oovgp | what is the difference between race and ethnicity? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dckwjxe"
],
"text": [
"In common English usage? Nothing. Technically the term race is a broad category of commonly shared phenotypes. This was actual science at one time and during that time they determined that there are 3 races. These are Caucasoid (European, Middle Eastern, Western Asia), Mongoloid (Asia, Polynesia and the Americas), Negroid (Africa, some Polynesia, and Australia). Later some broke things up further making the Americas their own racial group and making polynesia their own racial group. But this is considered bad science now. Most people use the older linguistic usage of race which can be a synonym for ethnicity, tribe, and clan. For all practical purposes it is interchangeable with ethnicity save that race tends to focus on genetic heritage only and ethnicity acknowledges cultural traditions and inheritances."
],
"score": [
12
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5op5d5 | Why is it considered inappropriate to say "I've got black friends, hence I'm not racist"? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dcky1w8",
"dckyjes"
],
"text": [
"The people who say that tend to use it to counter (or preempt) accusations that they've just said or done something racist, so it generally comes across as a weak attempt to save face rather than a genuine sentiment.",
"One can take a racist action without being a racist. When the \"black friends\" trope comes out, it means that the offender isn't really recognizing their action, and mustering their defenses against a personal attack. This mentality, in the long run, and spread among many people, does damage to folks' ability to actually identify and acknowledge systemic racism due to constant fear of being attacked personally. I have many black friends, and I still inadvertently say or do racist things. I acknowledge the mistake, learn, and do better. It's a little like dental hygiene. If I tell you you have something stuck in your teeth, I'm not accusing you of having gross brushing habits and you wouldn't immediately tell me about how many times you visit the dentist. You'd just pick it out and move on. Same here. You're not being called a racist, you just have something racist in your teeth. (Credit to J Smooth for that analogy; on mobile so can't link, but available on YouTube.)"
],
"score": [
10,
6
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5opa3j | Why does the u.s. army have commercials during a cartoon whose audience is mostly pre-teens? [CULTURE] | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dckzbpu",
"dckz4oh"
],
"text": [
"Because the audience is pre-teens. Recruitment commercials work by connecting with a sense of duty and honor within a person that has been built upon and fostered for their entire life, particularly in the influential years between 8 and 15.",
"I'm not sure which cartoon got are talking about specifically, but the US Military recruits primarily among teenagers for their enlisted ranks so they begin advertising early."
],
"score": [
11,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5opr7l | Who decides what is fake news? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dcl2iws"
],
"text": [
"You got exactly the right question. In the original meaning of the term, nobody decides. There is objective truth and there is untruth. If the latter is reported as if it were truth, that is fake news. Problem: everyone and their mother is adopting the term \"fake news\" to mean \"anything that goes against my personal belief\"."
],
"score": [
3
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5opuh6 | When exactly can a business refuse to serve someone? | Like, what reasoning could they have that would avoid lawsuits/rights violations? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dcl3hrh",
"dcl3dhs",
"dcl39vv"
],
"text": [
"You can refuse to serve someone as long as they can't prove it was discrimination. The list of factor that can be view as discriminatory depend where you live. Different company can then add their own rules that can be more or less strict to try to limit the chance that they might be taken to court.",
"> Like, what reasoning could they have that would avoid lawsuits/rights violations? Anything that is not a protected class: Race, color, religion, national origin, or disability. Additionally in some states it includes sexual orientation. The refusal to provide service cannot be arbitrary and cannot be applied just to one group of people. For the arbitrary point there needs to be a reason and consistency; you could for example maintain a strict dress code of sequined jumpsuits in order to retain a certain style for your establishment, but you need to apply this equally for customers regardless of race. You also can't have a policy which is obviously only going to apply to one racial group, such as a policy against head scarves.",
"I worked in retail for a number of years, and got mixed messages about this. Any customer who is visibly intoxicated or being abusive to customers or staff can be refused service, however most of my employers would try not to do this unless absolutely necessary to avoid potential lawsuits. Businesses typically have the right to refuse service to a DEGREE, but never on the basis of race, religion, etc, because then you're in civil rights territory. On the flip side, I had this woman who would come into my store once a week, drunk, and try to steal. She was also black. Corporate would not let me kick her out because they feared a discrimination lawsuit. Eventually I just called the cops, she ran out, and they told me I was well within my rights to refuse to let her enter the store. TLDR; it's shady and convoluted, but you can essentially refuse service to whoever you want as long as you have non-racial/sexual/religious reasons for doing so."
],
"score": [
3,
3,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
5opva5 | What exactly is proficiency vs. growth and what are some of the arguments from each side? | I just watched Betsy DeVos get grilled on this and realized that I have no idea what any of this means either. Granted, I'm not nominated for Education Secretary | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dcl3swm",
"dcl6beh"
],
"text": [
"In an incredibly small nutshell, proficiency is how good you are at something. If you're labeled proficient, that's usually a label of \"Okay. Good enough. You can do the thing.\" Growth is how much better you got at something. Someone might demonstrate excellent growth, but not have reached proficiency yet. We also use it to measure gifted or talented students who start off classes as proficient already. Also, Betsy DeVos needs to crawl back into whatever hole she came from. If she gets confirmed, her policies will make idiocracy look like a world of geniuses.",
"Proficiency is a static measure decided by an outside party. People like it because it makes it easy to compare students across the country and world. So for example, if you hear that 90% of students are proficient in math at XYZ school or country, someone decided that on this specific test given to everyone you need to score this specific score in order to be deemed proficient. Growth is a measure of where a student entered a specific class or system and how much they learned, regardless of whether or not they could score \"proficient\" on the test described above. For example: you're a teacher and you have a 5th grader who is years behind and can only read on a kindergarten level. You spend all year working with them and at the end of the year, they can read at a 2nd grade level. When they take a proficiency test for 5th graders, they're not going to pass. People like growth measures because they show what learning is actually happening, especially for populations that are not on grade level for whatever reason. In the education community, proficiency is considered important. Obviously, we all want all of our 5th graders to be able to pass a test on a 5th grade level. However, we also feel like proficiency misses the point a lot of the time and in a lot of situations. For example, I work in a school that serves mostly low-income and homeless youth. Many of our students are YEARS behind. No matter how amazing a teacher you have, in one year of instruction you can't magically move a student to read on a 5th grade level if they enter on a kindergarten level. We tend to get into trouble when test scores come out and say \"Only 20% of students at this school are proficient! They're a failing school! Students aren't learning anything here!\" In reality, our students are learning (growth model) but are so far behind that we'll need more time and supports to be proficient. Long winded but hopefully make sense."
],
"score": [
6,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
5oq4yo | Why is everyone suddenly obsessed with tax records? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dcl5fi1",
"dcl5n5s",
"dcl6wnk"
],
"text": [
"The law permits many things that can be quite terrible. The very fact that you call them a scandal seems to show that you recognize this. 'Permitted by law' is a fairly lax standard when it comes to moral high ground, or wise government leadership. The president is permitted by law to declassify documents, but it's not always in our best interest that he do so. Obviously being involved in scandals or otherwise intertwined, even legally, in certain dealings presents at least the risk of other powers having leverage on an individual. When that individual is the President, such leverage can be quite important in both how he and his countrymen fair.",
"People are obsessed with tax records right now because Donald Trump has broken with a tradition of the President (and Presidential Candidates) to release their tax records, so that members of the public can see what things they own (property, stocks, etc.). Right now there are many people concerned about what ties Trump might have with Russia. Since he hasn't provided much information for public scrutiny people are guessing and assuming the worst.",
"Nobody is obsessed with tax records in general, only the tax records of Donald Trump and his cabinet. The government requires that significant information regarding a person's business dealings be disclosed on their taxes. Concern over conflicts of interest have prompted Trump not to release his tax records, and that raises significant concerns in some people's minds. It's not normally a problem, because normally the folks involved are employees - and their tax records only say that their boss pays them. All these business-people, with no prior government service and Huge personal wealth are far from typical candidates."
],
"score": [
8,
4,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5os851 | Why do so many Hispanic people, like in Lawrence MA, refuse to learn English while virtually all other immigrant groups master at least the basics shortly after arriving in the USA, and how do they even function in society like that? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dclnxv9",
"dclnl4x"
],
"text": [
"You're dealing with a confirmation bias. The first generation of immigrants to a country, be they from Italy, Germany, China, Korea, Mexico, etc, always struggles to learn the language. Their children and grandchildren, the second and third generation immigrants, grow up learning English easily, and almost never have such issues. I can't think of a second generation Mexican that I know that doesn't speak English flawlessly, and I live in Texas, there's more than a few around here. We're currently in the 4th wave of immigration into the US. Go back a hundred years or so, and you'll find the exact same complaints being made about Irish or Italian immigrants. Then the problem goes away as their children grow up emersed in English. Before long, you'll find that there won't be very many Mexican immigrants that don't speak English, excepting of course fresh, first generation immigrants.",
"My father has worked as a translator for Ukrainian and Russian immigrants (but not for about 15 years) and it's not as cut and dried as you might think. It's very difficult for older immigrants (even late 20's early 30's) to learn a new language so what you see is the children translating for the parents. That's happened with just about every wave of immigrants so while you believe that virtually every immigrant group has mastered English quickly, the data just don't support that conclusion. Immigrants (whether German, Polish, Italian, Greek, Mexican or whatever) tend to congregate in communities that contain other immigrants because it's natural to congregate in groups of similar individuals. That's why there are China towns and Little Italy's around the nation. By congregating in communities, they insulate themselves somewhat so the pressure to master a new language is reduced, especially for older people."
],
"score": [
10,
5
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5osxs6 | Why Oscar Lopez Rivera was imprisoned and why people still support him. | According to my limited research, Oscar Lopez Rivera was a terrorist who helped plant and set off bombs. He has just been freed. URL_0 The writer, composer, and star of Hamilton has come forth as a passionate supporter of Rivera. Uh.. am I missing something? Did the bombs only go off in unpopulated areas and not kill anyone? Was his link to the bombs never actually proven? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dcltdu6"
],
"text": [
"> Uh.. am I missing something? Did the bombs only go off in unpopulated areas and not kill anyone? Was his link to the bombs never actually proven? Nope, he definitely murdered a bunch of people with bombs. Lin-Manuel Miranda just doesn't give a crap about that and figures the cause was worth the terrorism."
],
"score": [
4
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
5otso0 | How do porn studios film "public" videos? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dcm2ukp",
"dcm1xcf",
"dcm3f93",
"dcm6lb9",
"dcm6in9",
"dcm1y3q",
"dcm4fji",
"dcm2gmg",
"dcm2qa6",
"dcm7dp6",
"dcm5z9w",
"dcm8ltl",
"dcm920d",
"dcm8rxc",
"dcm6cgy"
],
"text": [
"The answer is a combination of what /u/ajent123 and what /u/Mininni have said. Ultimately it depends on the size of the studio. A lot of porn studios are extremely legitimate and professional. In that case, they pull permits for their scenes the same way any film studio would, and have a highly controlled environment, where extras have given consent, camera crews are standing by, as well as a full set of professionals for hair, makeup, etc. A smaller studio will most likely *not* do this, because it is difficult and costly, but also because they have less to lose. A large studio is a legit operation, with insurance, payroll, probably investors and parent companies. They need to be \"by the book\", but they also have the money and legal teams to figure out the logistics and make sure everything is above board. A smaller studio or freelance film crew can take the risk, film the scene quickly, and get out before they're caught. If they are caught, they may face fines, and may either just pay them or get out of dodge, depending on what they get served for.",
"Usually they rent out the public space as a private staging area, and then fill the \"public space\" with extras that have consented to being there. Movies do this a lot to with scenes filmed in public places. They create a controlled environment and give it the appearance of a public location.",
"Asked some of my friends who have shot public stuff in Budapest a while ago (I think it was for digital playground or mofos, can't remember) So they scout out a location that's not too busy, but also not completely dead. You get the performers and the camera man and maybe a lighting guy do the video part, and the director/producer in the location. Then there are a bunch of people that walk the perimeter and are on look out and they have walkie talkies. They also said a lot of stuff is staged, on in areas that are dead. But yeah, normally just lots of planning.",
"Actual porn star here who shot Mofos Public Pickups -- I was very much at an actual Bank of America during the day when we shot the intro and later the BJ was shot behind an actual apartment building in an alley with a production assistant standing guard because it was DEFINITELY not OK'd by anyone.. Porn budgets are notoriously low, especially for gonzo sites that shoot primarily in Miami, corporate tries to make the product as cheap but effective as possible. The third party directors who take more risks get better results and thus they get more jobs, encouraging them to break the law more. I know of one company who literally shot a full porn scene (not just intro) in the back of a car at the Las Vegas airport. Extremely risky shit.",
"Oh I have a small story about this. I went to a large public university (UCLA) and one time I saw these two blonds walking around in skimpy clothing (not much skimpier than normal since it was a sunny day in Southern California) but they were particularly standing out. They were on Bruinwalk which was the main walkway towards and from the dorms. As I was walking towards them/back to my dorm I recognized one of them.......vaguely....They also had one guy in front of them shooting something on his large camera. No cones set up, no tape, just two girls walking and a guy filming them. Didn't think much of it since there are lots of famous people that visit the campus so I couldn't pinpoint who it was anyway. Fast forward a year or two (can't remember how long) and I was watching this adult video and whaddaya know, the \"setting\" was on a university campus and it was the same scene that those two actresses were shooting that day! I tried to locate myself in the video and I could faintly make out my backpack in the background, it wasn't particularly crowded that time since it was during classtime. This was a large famous studio too, I can't remember the name of the video/studio though but it was easily recognizable, they didn't shoot the actual sex acts in public, it was just used as a setting. Also I've walked into many, many, many filming scenes of \"Lifetime Channel\" movies walking around campus, like literally into the front of the camera while it's rolling cuz they don't rope anything off. They give no fucks at all and it looks like they shoot without a permit or telling the school's administration.",
"They have sex in public. Seriously, a lot of them is unauthorized and very illegal. Some places are private properties and use background actors and crew as the public. I could be off base but I don't think they prosecute people for sex in public after the fact.",
"Worked at a porn studio. On the Tech side, but I do have some inside info, in this case. It really depends. If it's in a shop, or something along those lines, usually there is an agreement to pay for the businesses' time and compensate them for the use of their business. If it's outdoors, there are many countries where nudity outside is not against the law, they'll film there. This way, they can do an interior shot for less money at home, and an exterior shot with a limited crew overseas.",
"Are they filmed in the USA? European countries are much more lax about public nudity (if perhaps not public *sex*).",
"Both Mininni and ajent123 are correct I think... Some are consented and legal as it probably should be but it's porn of course so they probably have an exit of sorts through a back alleyway or whatever. You know how in some scenes there's kidnappers taking a naked girl \"away from the scene\" for (obvious) sex purposes, or maybe after public lewd shaming? They're probably the ones helping the escape.",
"I saw one video of a woman doing some solo stuff and nude posing in a busy european tourist area. A cop comes up after about 20 minutes and asks them what they're doing. After a minute of talking to the attractive naked woman he decides he's okay with it and sits at the side for the rest of the video. Im pretty sure it was a real cop.",
"I saw a pornography film being shot in a park right by the Brandenburg Tor in Berlin back in 2005. It was barely dusk and she had fake breasts, bouncing up and down on the park bench. So that's how I guess.",
"I stumbled upon a shoot in Buena Vista park in SF one day. MMF so three actors, camera and a dude with an improvised reflective screen. Lighting dude saw us, and nonchalantly gave the open hand-palm down \"Stay cool, stay back, stay quiet\" gesture then turned back to his duties as the spitroast turned into a conga line. Fairly certain this was a very guerrilla shoot. Years later. Folsom street fair, it's not supposed to happen, but it does and the crowd slows down police response.",
"I have a funny story here : In Japan, they used to film in public, like, in trains. They would just enter the train, having sex in front of people then leave at the next station. What could people do ? You can't do anything between stations, right ? Now, they CAN'T do that any longer because people have cellphones and can take pictures/videos and identify you, so they do have studios that are the size and the aspect of a train wagon and they shoot there.",
"A porn film was shot in my university library by Angela White. It's online, I'm sure you can find it around. The university did not give consent to the filming and I believe took legal action. Link: URL_0",
"I do urban exploration and can tell you a LOT of photographers just go and break into abandoned places to do photoshoots/videos. One of my friends once walked in on one while at a section of a closed section of a state park with abandoned buildings in it lol"
],
"score": [
1880,
1152,
439,
358,
356,
66,
61,
26,
16,
15,
11,
6,
5,
4,
4
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/victoria/porn-star-angela-white-opens-up-about-la-trobe-university-sex-romp/news-story/9ebc1524ab90fb1d1cdc2af828cbdcab"
],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5oubin | Does time really exist or is it just our way of interpreting how things move around in the eternal present "now"? | What even is time? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dcm640a",
"dcm4z5c",
"dcm4x4f"
],
"text": [
"As far as we can tell, time is essentially entropy. [Here]( URL_0 ) is a great youtube series from Minute Physics explaining this idea. The gist of it is that every observed law of nature that we can see doesn't really have a time preference. The math for gravity, electronagnetism, etc work just as well forward and backward in time. The thing that changes with time is ebtropy, that is, things get more disordered going from past to future. It is entirely possible that time as we perceive it is simply an after effect of the general level of disorder increasing.",
"Time exists, how we measure it is what is irrelevant/relative...no different than calling something 3 feet long, we could have made a completely different unit like what if that distance was 0.9 meters!? or 810841 boinkz, it doesn't really matter as long as how we track it is consistent.",
"Time is one of the 4 dimensions of the Universe. We have interpretations for the other dimensions as well, North is not a direction anywhere but here on Earth. Our system of time is just the measuring system for that dimension, like latitude is our system for measuring \"North-ness\"."
],
"score": [
8,
7,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[
"https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLoaVOjvkzQtyZF-2VpJrxPz7bxK_p1Dd2"
],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
5ovyrh | Blackwater. | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dcmgvkm"
],
"text": [
"Which is it? > **Companies** > > Blackwater (company), a private American military company and security consulting firm formerly called Blackwater Worldwide, renamed \"Xe Services\" in 2009, and \"Academi\" in 2011 > > **Ecology and technology** > > Blackwater (coal), liquid waste from coal preparation > > Blackwater (waste), wastewater containing feces, urine and flushwater from flush toilets > > Blackwater river, a classification of river with dark-colored waters"
],
"score": [
6
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5owbs4 | - why are racoons so bad? As an Australian they look like awesome animals | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dcmj3cy",
"dcmksra"
],
"text": [
"They are wild animals that can survive in suburban or even some urban settings. They are scavengers and can be destructive to property in their scavenging. They look cute and cuddly but have sharp teeth and claws and can wreak a lot of damage if they attack They often carry diseases like rabies, so a bite from a raccoon can be dangerous and even deadly (though less so with modern treatments).",
"For me kangaroos look like awesome animals,but every australian I know told me they are asholes....so I think it's just a matter of your point of view !"
],
"score": [
10,
6
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5owxqb | Why smart people think they are stupid (and vice versa)? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dcmng89",
"dcmq70q"
],
"text": [
"This is known as the [Dunning-Kruger effect]( URL_0 ) and it basically runs on the idea that stupid people don't know information to realize how much they don't still know, while smart people know enough information to see there is so much more to still learn. The same effect applies to almost anything, including things like sports, video games, cooking, driving, etc.",
"The more you know, the more you realize you don't know, and the less confident you become that your uninformed opinions are 100% correct because you know that you don't know a lot of things, and you suspect that this may be one of them. The less you know, the less you don't know you don't know, and the more you don't know you don't know, the more confident you become that what you know is all their is *to* know. And since you know you know all there is to know, then your opinion is always informed and correct, as far as you know. tl;dr [The Dunning-Krueger Effect]( URL_0 )"
],
"score": [
14,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect"
],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect"
]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5ox6fw | Why is Russia so threatened by the idea of states on its borders (such as Ukraine) joining the EU? Is Russia actually afraid of a EU invasion? | I can see the resistance to states joining NATO, which is a different kettle of fish, but the idea of the EU itself as a military threat to Russia is laughable to me. | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dcmpnnc",
"dcmpya1",
"dcmprmv",
"dcmpjrg",
"dcn53lf"
],
"text": [
"I think \"threatened\" is the wrong way to put it. Russia is militarily threatened by NATO, but they have other reasons for desiring the destabilization of the EU. This is why Russia supported Brexit. The enmity against the EU is more offensive than defensive, imo. Russia has (openly) moved beyond conventional warfare and become very, very good at warfare oriented around spreading disinformation and inciting civil unrest. Taking a page out of America's book, to be honest.",
"> Is Russia actually afraid of a EU invasion? Sorta. It's more like they're afraid an EU aligned Ukraine won't act as a buffer against invasion. Recent Russian history is a string of wars that involve people invaiding it from the west. Napoleon, The Crimean War, WWI, Russian Civil War, WWII. After the last one was particularly awful (about 1/8th of the Soviet population died) so the Soviets basically said \"We're not allowing this shit to happen anymore\" which lead to the establishment of a series of protective puppet states on its western boarders. Ukraine joining the EU would effectively mean that there would be very difficult to incorporate it into a similar protective scheme.",
"The chief problem is that, from Russia's perspective, the EU and NATO are basically the same entity. In addition, Russia doesn't want NATO to start expanding around it's southern borders (which was partially the reason why they invaded Georgia a few years back); it undermines their defenses against nuclear attacks.",
"The States on Russia's border including Ukraine, are former Republics of the Soviet Union that Russia effectively was in charge of, although it was technically an equal Union. Russia doesn't like to see the West coming into what they see as their sphere of influence. That sphere used to extend halfway into Germany, having it pushed all the way back to the Russian-Ukrainian border was a bridge too far for them.",
"No, it is not fear of any actual military invasion. Russia's government still believes in the \"spheres of interest\" theory of international relations. Basically this means as a large, powerful country, they should get to determine the policies of smaller countries around them, and other large countries should not attempt to interfere. In their view, the US dominates the Americas and China dominates East Asia, so Russia \"deserves\" Eastern Europe and Central Asia. What Russia does not seem to realize is that nobody smart thinks this is a good or justifiable way to run the world anymore. It's an idea out of the 18th/19th centuries when Europe was dividing the world into empires. Today we generally believe that small countries should have the right to be independent and design their own policies free from threats of invasion and that invading a country just because you want more land is wrong. If there's a deeper reason behind it, I would say that Russia is trying to make up for economic weakness by military strength. Russia's economy is absolutely pathetic for a \"developed\" country, essentially all they have are fossil fuels and weapons; they wouldn't even be able to compete with California in an economic contest, much less the whole US or China. But they still have an insanely powerful military and they use it as much as possible to bully and steal from their neighbors. We all know somebody who picks on the weak to make themselves look/feel tough but would get wiped in a fight with somebody their own size, well, Russia is that guy."
],
"score": [
9,
5,
4,
4,
4
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
5oxodv | Why are people typing & & ' ? | I keep seeing & & ' typed in a couple peoples post since this morning. Urban dictionary says & & is something from myspace that people type to be random. Since I only started seeing this today and with the ' after it seems to be something much more current than myspace. It just seemed odd to me, thought maybe reddit might know. Here's 2 examples I saw on my feed. URL_0 | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dcmu2p4"
],
"text": [
"That's used in several computer programming languages to identify a logic argument, in this case “AND.” It shows that both statements are true."
],
"score": [
18
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
5oyc6o | Why are most cars sold in muted colors as opposed to bright ones? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dcmzbft"
],
"text": [
"Bright colors (except red) typically do not sell very well as compared to greyscale or muted colors. Not that many people want bright colors like green/cyan/yellow, and cars used for commercial purposes are almost exclusively greyscale. New Car dealerships, especially smaller lots, do not want to stock something they believe won't sell at a profit. Manufactures will still make many color varieties by request for those who want them, so there is not much incentive to stock them at dealerships."
],
"score": [
3
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5oylcc | What is the objective of the cabinet confirmation hearings? | Will any of these appointments actually be dismissed, or is the hearing process just a formality? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dcn1j3g",
"dcn33w3"
],
"text": [
"It depends on what they say. People can be asked difficult questions, and if they say \"Sure, I think it would be OK to ignore the Constitutional rules.\" they could get tossed out. There are 52 Republicans and it takes 51 votes. The opposition only needs to find 2 people who will vote \"This person is too far off the mark\" to block a candidate. It used to take a compromise, but when Obama was elected he said \"elections have consequences\" and the Democrats eliminated the need for compromise to approve his appointments. It seems that Obama was right and elections have consequences.",
"WRSauders is correct, but it is also a way to ask questions ON THE RECORD so people can see who to support or block next time. Its also fodder for the media, just like our entire government."
],
"score": [
6,
5
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
5oyo3a | Senate Confirmation hearings. Whats the timeline for confirmation / rejection? What's the likelihood of rejection and what happens if/when a nominee is rejected? | As the title states....with as little political bias, left/right/whatever involved, ELI5 the process of Senate Confirmation Hearings. | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dcn2a3s"
],
"text": [
"What you're seeing on TV now are the Senate confirmation hearings: a smaller sub committee made up of senators interview the candidate for the position. Once they are completed the committee reports to the Senate as a while whether they recommend the individual. Then the Senate as a whole votes, 51 votes are needed to approve the person. Usually the subcommittee hearings determine the final outcome. If the subcommittee does not recommend the nominee usually withdraws. The purpose behind the sub committee is to find out if the person is qualified, has the ability to do the job, has the intelligence and interest in doing the job and agrees politically with what congress wants done. (So Yes the whole thing is a facade and even if the candidate is a bumbling corrupt incompetent he will still be approved.)"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
5ozep6 | Why did the ancestors of arctic peoples like the Inuit and Yupiks settle in such hostile places? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dcnbb4k",
"dcn851f",
"dcnbb02",
"dcnsmzp"
],
"text": [
"I learned just the other day that the native population of North America was over 150 million not long before Columbus landed. A super plague wiped out most of them. When European settlers came, the native population was still recovering. So, at one point there was a lot of population pressure to spread out across the entire continent.",
"Climate changes over time, and it is possible that these places had milder climates when settled. But sometimes people are forced out from their existing locations by overpopulation or other disputes, and will go anywhere their boat can carry them.",
"People have always lived in and intentionally moved into extreme environments, it often just seems like something we do. The reality is though that they developed a very good life up there and were happy to stick with it. Also, the sea and caribou provide a great bounty, much better than the boreal forests south of them.",
"I took a university course in Prehistoric Art last year and we had a section on the Inuit peoples, so I'll be pulling information from that. The ancestors of the Yupik peoples moved from the South and SW around 12,000 years ago, while the Inuit peoples did not cross over from Siberia until roughly 4,000 years ago. Accordingly the boreal forest and taiga areas proposed too short of a growing season to adequately sustain agriculture/farming, therefore migration into unoccupied arctic regions allotted for the development of sophisticated hunting and fishing technologies which focused on Arctic sea mammals instead. As M-elephant has already said caribou herds were attractive food sources and since the animals tended to live and migrate along coastal lines, the Inuit peoples would follow them in seasonal rounds."
],
"score": [
5,
3,
3,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5ozrvm | Why do so many asian demonyms end with "ese"? (Chinese, Vietnamese, Japanese, Burmese) | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dcnb1fb",
"dcnasg5",
"dcndp8k"
],
"text": [
"From [this source]( URL_0 ): > The -an, -ian, and -ese suffixes all stem from the Latin adjectival naming system: > -ian or -an, from Latin, –ianus, meaning \"native of\", \"relating to\", or \"belonging to\" > -ese, from the Latin, -ensis, meaning \"originating in\" They all save similar meanings, and the assignments seem to be arbitrary, maybe based on what sounds \"better.\" For example, a citizen of Vienna is both Viennese and Austrian.",
"This is a good question, specifically why we say \"Chinese\" instead of \"Chinan\" (or why we say \"Korean\" instead of \"Korese\")",
"I think this has to do with word endings, more than regions. Place names ending in 'm' or 'n' get the 'ese' suffix. Another user posted \"Viennese\" for someone who lives in the city of Vienna. However, that person is Austrian. Korea ends in a vowel, thus \"Korean\", not \"Koreaese\". Laos is the same. A good example: one is Thai, yet Siamese."
],
"score": [
12,
4,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[
"http://www.antimoon.com/forum/t456.htm"
],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5ozvyx | How is the cast system of India affecting Indian's lifestyle? (Job opportunities, education,money, etc) What does it do exactly? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dcnlaox"
],
"text": [
"This is a rather complex issue with a lot of nuances and it'll be hard to keep this brief but I shall try. Coming from a so-called high caste family, I was told that being a Brahmin (high-caste) was historically more about your educational attainment and not much to do with your genetics. My grandparents tell me that the problem of casteism was actually exacerbated by the British, who used it as a tool to divide and conquer, however I cannot comment on the legitimacy of this statement. There is some basis for the very existence of caste, I don't believe that the concept is based on nothing. A Brahmin can only marry and procreate with a Brahmin hence after years of this practice, there is subtle difference in castes on a genetic level. If you can imagine, a group of clever people reproducing, the offspring is highly likely to also be clever. So very generally speaking, even today a higher caste student will achieve higher grades. As for how it affects the Indian lifestyle, it can vary depending on your location. In medium sized towns to cities, people are well aware of the fact that it is morally and legally wrong to hold someone's caste against them (although even in cities, bigotry can creep up from time to time). From a legal standpoint, the Indian society strictly prohibits oppression of lower castes. That said, the law may not be rigorously enforced in the most remote parts of the country where caste based discrimination may still be rampant. On the other hand, the education system gives quite an edge to lower caste students. A percentage of seats in many colleges are reserved for students from lower castes. My brother who got 90% in his year 10 exams was rejected by a tier 1 college, but his BC (Backwards Class) friend, who got 65% was accepted in the same college. Many argue that this is unfair and was causing the top universities and colleges to produce sub-par graduates. Objectively, it is unfair. You cannot punish the innocent people of today just because their ancestors might have been casteists. It would be like blaming an innocent German today for the crimes of his/her Nazi ancestors. Many people argue that the very idea of a caste, should be completely removed. But this won't ever happen because politicians use caste to appease these groups, they can earn a ton of votes by targeting these groups and promising entitlements, reservations being one of them. Hope this answers at least some of your queries. There is a lot more to this issue that what I am describing, but it would take forever to write that essay"
],
"score": [
12
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5p05tv | How reliable actually is Wikipedia? | Wondering since a lot of teachers ban it as a source and technically anyone can edit articles | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dcndtx8",
"dcni5ma",
"dcne18o",
"dcneamj",
"dcnel71",
"dcnhkb7"
],
"text": [
"You should never use any encyclopedia as a source, as it's not a direct source, it's a secondary. Regardless, it is reliable 99% of the time, I've only encountered small details of innacuracy, and the occasional person who thinks they are funny and edits an entry (which usually gets corrected < 6hr). Wikipedia lists all the references they use (and annotate what in their entry has a source), and those are what you are supposed to use and cite.",
"I edit Wikipedia with some frequency, love it a lot, and am quite familiar with its best and worst parts. Most Wikipedia articles are good (if a bit lacking in completeness or style), some are excellent, and some are bad. A good general rule is that more popular articles will be good, while less popular articles may not be because they don't get enough attention. The main way to tell whether an article is accurate or not is to look for inline citations, which look like this^[3][4]. Clicking on them will show you the source for the statement the citations follow. If you think the statement seems dubious, check the source yourself - I have seen citations that don't support their statements at all. Be cautious with uncited statements. A primary indicator of problems with articles are tags at the top of the article or section with a problem. These tags can note lots of issues, including that the sources cited are insufficient ([example]( URL_5 )), that the article may be biased ([example]( URL_2 )), or several issues all at once ([example 1]( URL_0 ), [example 2]( URL_1 )). Of course, there is also the classic inline ^[*citation* ^*needed*] and the lesser-known but even more worrisome ^[*dubious* ^*-* ^*discuss*] . Also, definitely look out for ^[*original* ^*research?*] . It sounds benign, but the issue it documents is serious - that the editor that wrote the statement may have synthesized or deduced it from several sources themselves, which is something Wikipedia editors generally do not have the expertise to do properly. An indicator that articles are good is that they have a little [plus]( URL_3 ) or [star]( URL_4 ) in the upper right corner. To get the plus, the article has to be certified by an editor who didn't work on it as meeting certain criteria. To get the star, it has to undergo a very rigorous review at a central forum (only about 5000 articles currently have a star). Keep in mind, however, that articles change a lot, and the quality of articles can degrade after they are awarded the plus or star to the point where they don't deserve it anymore. Let me know if you have any more questions about any of this!",
"People like to correct incorrect information, so it is fairly reliable. On the other hand, vandalism is fun. A good way to figure out if a piece of information on Wikipedia is valid is to look at the source of the information. If no source is cited, proceed with caution. If the information is sourced from a peer reviewed journal, textbook or reputable news outlet, it's more likely to be correct. The little ^superscripts will direct you to information in the reference section. You can just cite the same source that Wikipedia cites instead of directly citing Wikipedia.",
"The reliability of information on Wikipedia is pretty good for well-trafficked, objective articles. The desire of many to correct small details is pretty great. But reliability goes down if the article doesn't have many people that actually look at it and even fewer who actually can verify if the information is correct (say, random folklore passed on as fact about a small, barely known town). As for banning it as a source, encyclopedias in general shouldn't be used as a primary source as they are aggregations of information from various other sources. It's those other sources that should be looked up, reviewed, and potentially cited, following the trail if they in turn took their information from yet another source. You ultimately want your source to be a knowledgeable person about the topic in question, not some random internet user or news website that just passed (and potentially changed) the information along.",
"It's relatively reliable but it should never be used as a scholarly source. The same is true for virtually any source that does not undergo peer review or does not otherwise have the backing of a scholarly publisher. Wikipedia is a reference source, just like a paper-bound encyclopedia. And just like a paper-bound encyclopedia, the information is normally accurate but it is not appropriate to use as a source. The fact that Wikipedia can be edited without any kind of review or qualification check makes it an especially poor choice to cite.",
"The reliability of any source is usually the inverse of the value someone could have by spreading misinformation on the subject at hand. Therefore Wikipedia is in general a fantastic source of information for non-controversial yet widely available middle-ground information. For obscure subjects on one hand the articles can tend to be opinionated, or even wildly incorrect, simply for lack of professional reviewers knowledgeable on the subject, or just noone caring about it correcting at all. For controversial information on the other hand, from Presidents to vaccination and from chem trails to slavery, vandalism by article subjects or their supporters is a very serious issue. Wikipedia actively locks most really controversial subjects but in practice that's nearly impossible for all hundreds or thousands semi-related subjects. That's only your first question though. The reliability itself is not at all why Wikipedia is banned as a source by any professional teacher. A good source for research should be *constant, credible and verified*. - The information is not *constant*, so the information you used may even have been honestly corrected or improved after you cited - The author is *anonymous*, and usually even many people, so you cannot verify their credibility - Wikipedia has no *peer reviews*. Articles may just be wildly wrong because nobody really in the know ever read it or gave a damn. So that's why Wikipedia fails all the main criteria for being used as a proper source. You can definitely still *use* Wikipedia, as all good and reliable articles actually have their own list of sources at the bottom, usually including those that do fulfill the criteria. If nothing else, Wikipedia is a good way to get introduced to a subject and find the more reputable sources."
],
"score": [
19,
13,
5,
4,
3,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Denmark",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christine_Lavin",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Hungary",
"https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/94/Symbol_support_vote.svg",
"https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cf/Cscr-featured.png",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Football_Conference"
],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
5p0xxm | If adoption is proven to formulate a family without contributing to overpopulation, why do governments worldwide make their adoption processes so difficult? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dcnkfpx",
"dcnnbhf",
"dcnvo1y",
"dcnvmfx"
],
"text": [
"You can't really pass laws about who can have children, it's just not very popular from a human rights perspective. You can, however make sure that children are adopted by families that have proper resources to raise them and won't be neglectful or abusive. It looks really bad when the government gives a kid to a child molester.",
"Because they don't want any old jackass wandering in off the street and taking a *child.* Children are not goldfish and they are not easy to take care of. Adoptees are wards of the state, and the state wants to know that they're going to be better off in the care of someone else. They want to be sure the adopting family isn't going to treat them like dirt (or worse)? Even with all the restrictions in place lots of adoptees end up in terrible homes. I don't even know what \"formulate a family without contributing to overpopulation\" means.",
"There are a few reasons: -Too many potential parents, not enough children put up for adoption. The number of children put up for adoption has gone down significantly over the past few decades as the stigma against single-motherhood has decreased, so there aren't as many children available for adoption as there are potential parents. Often, the adoption process isn't *difficult* so much as it is *protracted*; potential parents are found capable, but have to wait a long time before a child is \"available.\" -The above problem is compounded because many potential parents are only looking for infants. There simply aren't enough newborns to go around, and thousands of older children never get adopted. -Cultural stigmas often lead to discrimination against potential parents of color or who aren't hetero. Placements are really subjective and are decided holistically, rather than by a checklist, and a social worker's inherent biases can make a big difference. -As others have mentioned, the government has a vested interest in making sure children are placed with parents who do a *very* good job. (More and more people are suggesting that the standards are too high - that a child is better off in a \"less good\" family than stuck in foster care. Debate is ongoing, but governments tend to err on the side of caution.) Deciding if parents are qualified tends to be a very, very extensive process.",
"I would think one reason is to prevent human trafficking. I mean do we really want to make it easy for some piece of crap to adopt 5 kids all around the world to whore out?"
],
"score": [
35,
13,
7,
6
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5p0yas | I'm a 53 year-old male and I don't understand why anyone would be upset, offended, angry or enraged when a women breast feeds in public. Why do people find this objectionable? Why is this even an issue? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dcnk9n8",
"dcnka3l"
],
"text": [
"Some people were raised thinking breasts are primarily used for sexual purposes. Further, some were taught that sex is bad, despite it not being so. There are other reasons, but being prudish is unfortunately the most commonplace reason.",
"Most people who find this objectionable don't want to explain to their 6-year old child that women have breasts to feed their young. It opens the whole \"where do babies come from\" taboo topic. It makes humans seem like any other mammal = animals. This breaks the \"you are special, made by God\" narrative they have been teaching their child."
],
"score": [
17,
7
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5p1orj | Why is the Nanking massacre so controversial among the Chinese and Japanese? Which is correct? | For example... URL_0 There seem to be Japanese that deny the incident ever happened (see above), and there seem to be Chinese that seem to exaggerate the number of rapes/murders. Which is correct? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dcnsysv",
"dcntrh9"
],
"text": [
"considering there are living witnesses to some of the atrocities, it's hard to deny atrocities happened. the Japanese story says there was no high level orders. and whatever stories of individual soldiers committing actions must have been fabrications because honorable soldiers always follow orders. just like flat earthers, no amount of evidence will ever convince them that their opinion is wrong. and once you're in deep, you're committed to go all the way.",
"Unlike Germany, which took the high road of apologizing for all of their wartime behavior, the Japanese have never fully taken responsibility for their war crimes. Comfort women (sex slaves) are the other well-established atrocity that comes to mind. To be fair, Iris Chang's The Rape of Nanking (where many many people learn about the details of the massacre) presents itself as a scholarly book but is not. Japanese scholars have seized on that. Still, the amount of evidence (including photographs) not to mention Japanese behavior all over the Pacific Theater make for a very solid case that something dark and grizzly happened there. One particularly touchy issue is a Japanese report sent home describing a Japanese prince having a contest to see how many people he can decapitate how quickly. This is pointedly controversial because it involves Japanese royalty. Nevertheless, it fits with the rest of the scummy behavior and I'm not sure anybody outside of Japan contests this happening. Numbers are always a difficult thing when it comes to war crimes, but it is laughable to say that nothing happened there. I award the point to the Chinese."
],
"score": [
3,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
5p1phc | Why do people in desert cover themselves? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dcnqecf",
"dcnqffx",
"dcnsgmr"
],
"text": [
"Protects from the sun and the layer of air between the clothes and body is cooler than the outside temperature in really hot places. Atleast that's what I've always been told.",
"Covering yourself traps in the sweat that keeps you cool and hydrated. Being uncovered dries your skin out more.",
"In my military days I was unfortunate enough to spend about a year living in the Arabian Desert. With the flat terrain it's quite common for sustained wind to sweep across the desert and kick a lot of sand in the air. This gets all over you, and it's very uncomfortable, and potentially even deadly if it turns into a full scale sandstorm, and you can't breath. Having clothing to protect yourself helps. Also if you're white like me, not getting a raging sunburn is nice too. Editors for spelling."
],
"score": [
8,
3,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5p1seg | Why are militaries so often in support of conservatism in so many countries, carrying out pro-right wing coups and such? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dcntapz"
],
"text": [
"Because of the massive ontological inertia inherently present in massive bureaucratic organizations like militaries, they naturally tend to be on the more conservative side of things."
],
"score": [
3
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5p2aha | How did Cantonese and Mandarin end up with the same characters, but completely different spoken languages? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dcnxbmd"
],
"text": [
"Short answer: The Beijing Mandarin way of writing was forced on all of China. There's actually a form of written Cantonese that's basically incomprehensible to a Mandarin speaker. Long answer: A long time ago, there was a single Chinese language, now called Classical Chinese. Think of it like Latin. Written languages tend to diverge more slowly than spoken languages. Latin spawned French, Spanish, Portuguese, Italian, and Romanian. These languages use largely the same alphabets, and speakers of one language can often stumble through written texts in the other languages: Lait, Leche, Laite, Latte, Lapte are the respective words for \"milk,\" for instance. However, a speaker of French will have a much harder time understanding spoken Spanish. With regards to Chinese, the same thing happened. Classical Chinese changed in both written and verbal forms, but the verbal forms changed more. Linguists identify around 10 major varieties of Chinese, with hundreds of mutually unintelligible dialects. (By the way, Mandarin is the largest variety, while Cantonese is a dialect of the fourth largest variety. Cantonese is familiar to Americans because they speak it in and around Hong Kong, where many early Chinese immigrants were from). The written varieties changed, but because they (as a whole) changed less than the spoken language, it was achievable to force a single written language on the entire population. This happened within the last century or so: The Beijing Mandarin way of writing was forced on all of China. Beijing Mandarin is the basis of Standard Chinese, which is the official and common language of the PRC. But among fellow Shanghai residents, they will still speak Shanghainese, a dialect of the third largest Chinese variety. Since the characters are not based on sounds like our language, it's entirely possible for speakers of different varieties to speak the same character multiple ways. For instance, 好 roughly sounds like \"how\" in Mandarin, \"ho\" in Cantonese, etc.; It's also used in Japanese as a kanji character, and is pronounced \"ko\". Of course, this character gives no clue to its pronunciation. But if you're curious, it's constructed from a combination of 女 and 子, roughly pronounced in Mandarin as \"nü\" and \"dzih,\" which respectively mean \"woman\" and \"child.\" But in one character? It means \"good.\""
],
"score": [
10
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5p39f6 | How does Putin stay in power and how come he keeps being re-elected? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dco2q45",
"dco2v8y",
"dco2q3j",
"dco3i8l",
"dco3t0c",
"dco2mir",
"dcozdi7",
"dcq9xld"
],
"text": [
"Russian ex-opposition, now work for putin's political party is here to answer. Here are pillars on which he stands: 1 Voters on the payroll. A lot of people in Russia work for government in one way or another: mail service, police, schools etc. All these men and women are obligated to vote for him. Their job depends on their vote. 2 Media controll. Opposition news sites are forced from the country and from russian internet(that means they must operate from other countries like Latvia etc.). Every major tv channel is in gov. control and broadcasting propaganda pretty much 24/7 3 Old people, raised in USSR vote for him. They find powerfull-looking person as a great leader by default. They were raised during cold war and do not know any better. Democratic revolution of 90s made them think that democracy equals hunger. They live in phantasy, thinking that this capitalistic period will end and USSR 2 will be erected. 4 Heavy phisical opression of opposition A lot of people today are in jail because of whst they wrote in facebook about crimea. Stating thst crimea is not russian is a crime and punished by jail Could list more if you are interested, but these are most important. Also, as it is obvious, english is not my first language, so sorry for mistakes and criticism is welcome.",
"Whilst it is true that the Russian political system is very corrupt, it is also worth making the point that even with all that put aside Putin is very popular in Russia. In the last year or two he's been able to preserve the elite (oligarch) support whilst at least preserving, if not growing, his popular support. There is very little in the way of credible opposition in Russia, the vast majority either support Putin or acquiesce without so much as a murmur. The votes might be rigged, but it appears likely that he would win a 'free and fair' election if it were held now.",
"Well, actually, everything is clear legaly (on the surfase). He was elected as the president for 4 years, then got reelected (you can be reelected once), then another person (Medvedev from same EDRO party - substitute) came in, increased the length of the presedency to 6 years each. Then Putin got elected again, and still serving his first 6 years. He still can go with the second reelection legaly. The corruption and \"random\" deaths and threats is the other side of the coin.",
"1. Not everything you hear on the news is true 2. Many Russians love Putin 3. Putin is a very talented state-craftsman 4. Politics are complicated, the world is complicated, and simple distinctions like good & bad are not useful for trying to understand why things turn out the way they do",
"Putin's been doing for years what trump did this election: appeal to the uneducated masses by saying what they want to hear, scare them with gays/ liberals/ muslims/ immigrants and ...PROFIT. Controlling media, buying votes and oppressing opposition also helps. And nobody keeps track of his words, like ever.",
"Sham elections, rigged elections, threats of violence, and self-preservation. Sure, you might *go into a polling place to vote*, but there's nothing to say your vote will get counted. That, or it gets counted **and** someone slips in a few hundred pro-Putin votes. Or hell, you vote *against* Putin, somebody notices your ballot specifically, and then suddenly your family ends up dead. It's much like how North Korea keeps re-electing Kim Jong-un - it pretty much is 'vote for us, or die'.",
"Why are people in here so unwilling to accept that he wins elections because people like him? People are saying a lot of the votes he gets are not legitimate or are due to manipulating the populace. What if the people just like him and his values? Very often people will vote in an authoritative leader.",
"I am from Russia and me, and practically everybody I know voted for Putin. Let me tell you why, please :) sorry for my english 1. There is no really good candidates for president at all in Russia. There are 4-5 people in opposition, that tries to become a president from 1991, I think :) but their political view is blurry or outdated. There is no another really strong leader, only Putin. I think USA have the same problem - no good candidates at all. Or I am wrong? 2. Putin have a higher legal education and 40 years of working experience in government. I think it matters. Very seriously. I don't want oligarch, doctor or football player to rule my country. 3. He never said anything I am not supporting (as I can remember), I share his vision on solving country problems. 4. Maybe it's strange, but for me and for many other people he is a part of every family. Why? Because we know him for many years :) 5. My life is good, really good. Though, I am invalid (Haemophilia A). I receive all needed medicines for free every month (in pharmacy they costs 8000 dollars every month). I have my own apartments, small business and lovely family. In February I will become a father :) Why I should want to change my president? Government supports me, not preventing. Yes, we have problems, but every country has them and I don't know anybody better, who can solve it. Only Putin Vladimir Vladimirovich :) Maybe it is hard to understand, until you become living here in Russia, but it is so. No authoritarianism, real support of president. TY for you attention"
],
"score": [
161,
33,
15,
9,
6,
4,
3,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5p41wo | Why do you think some folks CHOOSE hate? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dco6z77"
],
"text": [
"Because all he hears is negative reports in the news but no black people in his everyday life to remind him that the vast majority are just regular folks doing their best to get by just like anybody else"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5p43nk | How is being called a snowflake supposed to be offensive? | I am having a hard time wrapping my head about this one. Last time I checked snowflakes were all unique and individual. I am not sure how not being another cookie cutter molded from someone else ideas is supposed to offend. They also look really awesome under a microscope URL_0 | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dco763r",
"dco8gti",
"dcoar8g",
"dco78am",
"dcoa23r"
],
"text": [
"That's precisely the point. They're unique and individual and very, very fragile. Using \"snowflake\" as in insult is essentially saying \"you're forcing yourself to be different for the sake of being different, when in reality you're not different from any of us. You think you're an individual, a shining example of beauty that should be protected and preserved, but you're not. The only way you're actually like a snowflake is that you can't take the slightest bit of heat before having a meltdown.\"",
"I don't think it's literally supposed to be insulting to compare someone to a snowflake. Rather, calling someone a \"special snowflake\" is shorthand for saying that person is someone who *believes* him/herself to be like a snowflake, i.e. completely unique and different from everyone else. Edit: Hmm, it looks like there's actually another usage of \"snowflake\" that does mean someone who's overly sensitive. I had never heard (or at least noticed) it before, but I literally just saw a video from the Late Show that used the word in this sense. The wikipedia entry on \"Generation Snowflake\" is interesting, and it suggests that the earlier \"special snowflake\" sense is older and may have come from Fight Club, but the sense of \"snowflake\" to mean \"sensitive\" appears to be very recent. It seems that people were describing millenials as \"snowflakes\" based on the idea that they had been taught they were all special, and perhaps based on the fragility of snowflakes, the metaphor was extended to describe being overly sensitive, and finally people specifically started to recognize it as an insult: > It has been suggested that \"Generation Snowflake\" is derived from the term \"snowflake\",[3] which has been used to make reference to parents reportedly raising their children as \"special\" and \"precious\" snowflakes.[4][5] This usage of \"snowflake\" may originate from Chuck Palahniuk's 1996 novel Fight Club, which became a hit film in 1999. Both the novel and the film include the line \"You are not special. You are not a beautiful and unique snowflake.\"[4][3][6] > The term \"Generation Snowflake\", or its variant \"Snowflake Generation\" is thought to have originated in the United States.[5] It came into wider use in the United Kingdom in 2016,[3] particularly after Claire Fox, founder of the think tank the Institute of Ideas, published a book called I Find That Offensive! In it she wrote about a confrontation between Yale University students and faculty Head of College, Nicholas Christakis.[7][8] The confrontation arose after Christakis' wife, Erika Christakis, a lecturer at the university, had suggested students should \"relax a bit rather than labeling fancy dress Halloween costumes as culturally insensitive\", according to Fox.[7] Fox described the video showing the students' reaction as a \"screaming, almost hysterical mob of students\".[7] Fox said the backlash to the viral video led to the disparaging moniker \"generation snowflake\" for the students.[7] > The term \"snowflake generation\" was one of Collins Dictionary's 2016 words of the year.[9] Collins defines the term as \"the young adults of the 2010s, viewed as being less resilient and more prone to taking offence than previous generations\".[9] Similarly, in 2016 the Financial Times included \"snowflake\" in their annual Year in a Word list, defining it as \"A derogatory term for someone deemed too emotionally vulnerable to cope with views that challenge their own, particularly in universities and other forums once known for robust debate\" and noting that the insult had been aimed at an entire generation.[2]",
"Snowflakes melt if someone even just breathes on them. They can't face any amount of adversity.",
"Becaise snow flakes are delicate and in days gone by one could not get by being weak and fragile....",
"It's sarcasm. People use it for others who believe they are special while in reality they are not. No one is unique. Even if someone is 100% different from everyone he knows there will still be hunderts of thousands people exactly like him."
],
"score": [
69,
11,
3,
3,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
5p4cko | Why is money constantly being funded for the military more than anything in the entire world, rather than being funded for other important fields such as medical or scientific research or space travel? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dco9n1f",
"dcoasd5",
"dco9v2q"
],
"text": [
"Because it makes powerful people richer. URL_0 It's not just this ship, it's huge numbers of expensive pieces of military hardware that get made in various states because doing so makes jobs for constituents and puts money in the pockets of rich people--the business owners and congressmen. It's all driven by us, the ignorant who believe the fear mongering.",
"The US actually only spends about 16% of it's budget on the military; most of it goes to things like Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. As for the actual answer to your question: [this]( URL_0 ) is the Strait of Hormuz. While it is 21 miles wide at it's narrowest point, the portion that is usable for shipping is only 2 miles wide. 20% of all publicly traded crude oil passes through those 2 miles. If the Strait were to be closed, crude prices (and therefore the price of *everything*) would skyrocket overnight. Worse, the two major local powers in the region are Iran (on the North) and Saudi Arabia (off the Southern edge of that map). Those two nations detest each other, due to a mix of religious, ethnic, and geopolitical rivalries, some spanning back before the birth of Christ. A shooting war between those two powers would almost certainly close the Strait. The US generally has six fleets deployed at any one time. Any one of those six fleets, if it were it's own country, would be the 2nd or 3rd most powerful Navy on Earth, behind only the rest of the US Navy, and possibly Russia, depending on how much credit you give them for the rotting carcass of their Navy. One of those six fleets is always deployed in the vicinity of the Strait of Hormuz. By comparison, another one of six fleets is responsible for controlling the waters stretching between Iceland and Madagascar. We do this simply because no one else is willing to do so. China and India have no means to project power, Russia's Navy has decayed far past the point of usefulness, and Europe's military forces are completely powerless outside of Europe itself (as evidenced by the fact that the UK and France, two of the EU's most well-equipped and well-trained military forces, couldn't even cross the Mediterranean and project power into Libya during the Arab Spring without the US holding their hand the entire way). And it's not just the Strait of Hormuz; the entire East African Coast, the Suez and Panama Canals, the Straits of Malacca, all vital areas to control in order to keep trade flowing. You can't have a global economy without someone willing to safeguard global trade, and at the moment the US is the only nation both ready and willing to do so. But doing so costs money.",
"Well not everybody agree on what represent the right amount of money to fund the military. At a basic level, country need to protect themselves. Without an army, another country could simply invade you and take your resources. But the military can also protect the interest of a country. For exemple, maybe you have citizen that want to go in Iran and create a oil company to get oil and import it in your country. Now that company is not only bringing cheaper oil for your industry, but also paying taxes so your country is richer because of that. But what if now Iran want to nationalize the oil and your company will no longer own the oil. You won't have the taxes that the company used to send you and the oil may go to another country, which will increase the oil price in your country. Maybe it would be worth it to pay some amount of money to send the military if the money the economy of your country used to gain from that deal was higher than the amount of money you gonna spend to keep control of it. It's similar to spending money for a lock. Are the good you are protecting with that lock are worth more or less than the lock itself? The difference is that geopolitical choice like that are more complex. The economic cost is difficult to evaluate and there is other factor that can influence your decision. Because maybe the cost isn't worth it, but maybe letting this happen will push other place around the world to do the same, costing the country even more, maybe some of my allies have interest in that country, etc Maybe that without a strong military presence in a region, another country could impose it's military and political influence in the region. Take the South China sea. Without a US military presence, what are the chance that China would had invade Taiwan in the past couples of decades? What with all the island that China try to claim to get all the resources from the region? What if some of your citizen are investing in other country and there is a civil war suddenly. Does your country have the military capability to retrieve those citizen? What if you don't have that capability? Will your citizen be as happy to go invest around the world and growth the US economy if they fear that they won't have the backing of their government if things hit the fan? It's complex and that's why not everything agree on what is the right amount of money to fund the military."
],
"score": [
5,
4,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[
"http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/07/littoral-combat-ship-congress-navy-pentagon-400-million-pork-214009"
],
[
"http://www.worldatlas.com/aatlas/infopage/hormuz.gif"
],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5p4e24 | When receiving a survey in regards to a customer service interaction, why is anything less than a perfect mark considered a complete and utter failure? | On a scale from 1-5, how likely I am to recommend the company to someone? With 1 being "not very likely" and 5 being "very likely", why is a 3 or 4 considered the same as 1? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dcogq9e"
],
"text": [
"There are a number of reasons for this, including the idea that \"world class\" or \"best-in-class\" customer service is a differentiator and source of competitive advantage. To that notion, anything less that \"mind-blowingly great\" can been seen as poor. Remember that customer service surveys assume - right or wrong - a comparison with other experiences. If a consumer believes that their experience was not perfect or better than everything else, that belief is predicated on recallable examples of better experiences. There's some psychology at work here. Alternatively, and this is the big one for me, consider the Pareto Principle - AKA the 80:20 rule. Eighty percent of your criticism will come from 20 percent of your clientele; sixty-four percent of your criticism will come from four percent of your clientele. Does this mean that the large majority has different experiences? Probably not. In fact, they likely have the same experiences and do not bother to criticize the organization/experience. It is that vocal majority, offering criticism over the (seemingly) most trivial things which provides insight into actual performance, sends detailed feedback to the organization on how to drive experience improvements, and - if listened to - helps the service function avoid disruption. In this sense, it is critical to take those slightly lower ratings as incredibly serious. When the vocal majority is informing an organization that its service model leaves something to be desired, it is actually doing the organization a favor. It is providing unvarnished feedback that the organization is sensitive to disruption and derailment if it does not improve its practices. Remember, the person filling out the survey is comparing the organization to an established condition, typically offered by an organization with, at the very least, the same general function. A four-out-of-five is telling the organization that there is some company, somewhere, that is measurably better in the surveyed realm. That is a threat to the organization under consideration and must be treated as such. After all, if you don't treat your customers right, someone else will."
],
"score": [
3
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
5p50ce | Why is religion, specifically Christianity, involved in the inauguration ceremony? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dcofhln",
"dcolnyg",
"dcosk6r"
],
"text": [
"Most Presidents have been Christian so their traditions are to attend various Christian services in taking office. It is not required and is not an official part of the US swearing in process.",
"It's important for the most powerful leader in the free world to demonstrate having an imaginary friend.",
"The inauguration is essentially a big party in honor of the President, it's not required under the constitution and the President can order for the inauguration pretty much anything. Because of this the President can ask for Bible readings and/or swear on the Bible. The President normally does this because: A) Every president so far has been (normatively) Christian, and B) because it was a tradition started by President George Washington and -as we know- every President wants to emulate President Washington."
],
"score": [
10,
4,
4
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5p5grq | why Vinyl is so popular in music media | Is the quality better than digital? Or is it a "gee this is old and kool" thing? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dcokvyf",
"dcoixgc"
],
"text": [
"I like it because: * I own the media. * It forces me to get up and actually interact e.g. changing sides, putting it back, etc. I like that for some reason. * It's a commitment more or less so I feel like maybe I pay more attention to the music rather than having something on in the background. * While I can buy records online, stopping in record stores is fun. * There are records of albums that are readily available and those that aren't. Tracking down the rare ones, making trades, etc. is fun. I read a comic somewhere where this guy was talking about his record player and collection to another guy with the caption \"I mostly got into vinyl for the cost and inconvenience.\" I totally understand that point of view, but it's still a fun hobby.",
"1. Old stuff still exists, from way back in the days of Thomas Edison, who used wax cylinders to record sound. You can still buy those cylinders at flea markets! And vinyl records, which had almost a century of production as the primary means of music recording, are around in huge numbers to buy. 2. Digital sound recording can truncate high and low ends of recorded sound, usually outside the range of hearing, but still, truncated versus everything on vinyl recording. 3. Hipsters, man. They liked it after it was cool."
],
"score": [
5,
4
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
5p5r4g | What do the 5 large flags with differing star counts hanging from the White House during the inauguration represent? | I'm from the UK, so I understand that each state is a star etc, but why were there 5 different ones there- I don't understand why outdated flags would be displayed? Many thanks :) | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dcoqr49",
"dconsql"
],
"text": [
"Since 1981, when President-Elect Reagan chose to move the Inauguration Ceremony to the West Portico so that people could gather on the National Mall to watch (before that it was at the East Portico), 5 flags have been hung in the colonnade for the ceremony. First the easy one. The one in the middle is the Flag of the United States (July 4, 1960-present). It has 50-stars for the (current) 50 state union. Easy. The outermost two are the \"Betsy Ross Flag\" (Betsy probably did not create it, but whatever). In 1777 the Continental Congress designed an Naval Ensign to be used to represent the United States at sea, but they did not record how the stars should be laid out. Folk history is that Betsy Ross sewed the flag according to the text of Congress's act and chose to put them in a circle. This probably did not happen, but the \"Betsy Ross Flag\" is considered the first civil flag and a pre-cursor to the Flag of the United States. The 2nd and 4th ones are the most confusing, even to Americans. They are the Admission Flag of the President-Elect's home state. In 1981 it was the 31-star flag (the Flag of the United States July 4, 1851-July 3, 1858) reflecting the admission of California, President-Elect Reagan's home state. There was no outdoor ceremony in 1985 due to the 1985 Arctic Outbreak. In 1989, 2001, and 2005 the 2nd and 4th flags were the 28-star flag (the Flag of the United States July 4, 1846-July 3, 1847) representing the admission of Texas, the home state of Presidents Bush. In 1993 and 1997, they were the 25-star flag (the Flag of the United States July 4, 1836-July 3, 1837) representing the admission of Arkansas, the home state of President Clinton. In 2009 and 2013, they were the ~~19~~ 21-star flag (the Flag of the United States July 4, 1819-July 3, 1820) representing the admission of Illinois, the home state of President Obama. This is the first inauguration since this tradition began where the President-Elect's home state is one of the original 13 colonies. It appears they used the Francis Hopkinson Flag (National Ensign of the United States June 14, 1777-April 30, 1795). On May 1, 1795 the 15-star, 15-stripe flag was adopted as the first National Flag of the United States, so strictly speaking the flag of admission for the State of New York takes some creative thinking.",
"The American Flag gets redesigned every time a new state is added. The [flags displayed in this image]( URL_0 ) on each side are the original 13-star flag (we started with 13 states), the middle is the current 50-star flag, and the other two are the 21 star flag used from 1819-1820. I have no idea why the 21 star flag is special. Also, just so you are aware, that is the United States Capitol building, not the White House."
],
"score": [
8,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[
"http://www.homesweetcity.com/custimages/Inauguration/USCapitol_-_Presidential_Inauguration.jpg"
]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
5p61au | What rights do protesters have in the United States? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dconbya",
"dcormgh",
"dcon9fk"
],
"text": [
"From the Library of Congress \"The First Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits the United States Congress from enacting legislation that would abridge the right of the people to assemble peaceably.[1] The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution makes this prohibition applicable to state governments.[2] The Supreme Court of the United States has held that the First Amendment protects the right to conduct a peaceful public assembly.[3] The right to assemble is not, however, absolute. Government officials cannot simply prohibit a public assembly in their own discretion,[4] but the government can impose restrictions on the time, place, and manner of peaceful assembly, provided that constitutional safeguards are met.[5] Time, place, and manner restrictions are permissible so long as they “are justified without reference to the content of the regulated speech, . . . are narrowly tailored to serve a significant governmental interest, and . . . leave open ample alternative channels for communication of the information.”[6] Such time, place, and manner restrictions can take the form of requirements to obtain a permit for an assembly.[7] The Supreme Court has held that it is constitutionally permissible for the government to require that a permit for an assembly be obtained in advance.[8] The government can also make special regulations that impose additional requirements for assemblies that take place near major public events.[9] In the United States, the organizer of a public assembly must typically apply for and obtain a permit in advance from the local police department or other local governmental body.[10] Applications for permits usually require, at a minimum, information about the specific date, time, and location of the proposed assembly, and may require a great deal more information.[11] Localities can, within the boundaries established by Supreme Court decisions interpreting the First Amendment right to assemble peaceably, impose additional requirements for permit applications, such as information about the organizer of the assembly and specific details about how the assembly is to be conducted.[12] The First Amendment does not provide the right to conduct an assembly at which there is a clear and present danger of riot, disorder, or interference with traffic on public streets, or other immediate threat to public safety or order.[13] Statutes that prohibit people from assembling and using force or violence to accomplish unlawful purposes are permissible under the First Amendment.\" URL_0 How it says government can impose restrictions, you'd have to find your local state/county/city laws to see if there's more information on that.",
"ELI5: Public property, don't interfere with anyone else, don't break any laws, and you can protest all day. If you want to do it in a large group, schedule it with local law enforcement first and get a permit, because they *can* stop you if it looks like you're organizing for violent purposes.",
"Well they have the right to peaceful protest, as long as they are not destroying property or are engaging in violence they can do as they please. Also, they have to be sure they are not on private property. Some protestors seem to forget that \"freedom of speech\" does not mean that everyone has to actually listen to their speech, if they are on private property the owner of that property has the right to kick them off."
],
"score": [
6,
5,
5
],
"text_urls": [
[
"https://www.loc.gov/law/help/peaceful-assembly/us.php"
],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5p6gyl | Why do so many people believe conspiracy theories ? | So, I love conspiracy theories, but I know they are (well, who knows ?) completely fake. But so many people trusts them.. Why ? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dcovlv0",
"dcork43",
"dcotsx3",
"dcpc22z",
"dcp16kp",
"dcpl3x5"
],
"text": [
"Conspiracy theories appeal to many people for a number of reasons: Probably most importantly, the human mind likes to make meaning. People don't like events to be random, chaotic, or inexplicable; it makes them feel insecure and out of control. Conspiracy theories provide explanations for events that are chaotic or inexplicable, and, paradoxically, that can make people feel more secure. Another driver is confirmation bias. Confirmation bias is the tendency of people to give more credence to beliefs, ideas, evidence, or theories that align with their existing beliefs (and, concurrently, to dismiss or give less weight to beliefs, ideas, evidence, or theories that disagree with their existing beliefs or present alternatives). In short, if you already believe the government or a corporation or an individual is inherently corrupt, you are more like to believe a story that re-affirms that corruption (or disbelieve a story that presents evidence to the contrary). Also, conspiracy theories have a built-in defense mechanism to contradiction: it becomes easy to dismiss any evidence to the contrary as part of the conspiracy. Any evidence that contradicts the conspiracy is perceived as evidence _of the extent_ of the conspiracy. This is a vicious circle, because to explain away evidence that contradicts the conspiracy theory, the conspiracy theorist _expands_ the scope of the theory. And really this last point is the most telling, because this is frequently where someone who may just be partisan or opinionated or skeptical of an event/idea/person steps over the line into conspiracy theory-style thinking. When someone stops looking at all the evidence on both sides with equally weighted skepticism or critical analysis, begins to dismiss contradictory evidence as part of the conspiracy, and (most importantly) explains the contradictory evidence by expanding the scope of the conspiracy those are all good signs that they moved from healthy skepticism and fallen into conspiracy theory.",
"A shocking number of them turn out to be true. Not long ago you would be a nutter if you said that the US government had giant facilities that were secretly recording everyone's phone calls.",
"It's a state of mind. Fox Mulder's \"I want to believe\" is their rallying cry; the desire to find a background force that is responsible for all the bad in the world, rather than just random chance. It's called \"hyperactive agency detection\", and is evolutionary beneficial: it's better to mistakenly imagine that the bush is plotting to have you for dinner, than not to, and then risk becoming dinner for the tiger hiding in the bush. It's also *very* gratifying to consider yourself smarter than all the sheeple around you. Conspiracy theorists have basically built themselves an elite circle to which there is no entry bar, and which allows you to feel superior. And that's besides the political positions that have a conspiracy theory as part of their base assumptions.",
"Something that hasn't been mentioned: a good conspiracy theory almost always sounds cooler and more interesting than the so-called cover story.",
"We have a desire for order in the world out of chaos. Conspiracy theories always revolve around someone or something controlling something else, or making meaning, providing context and restoring order to a confusing and anxious event.",
"Conspiracy theories that turned out to be true: * The Gulf of Tonkin Incident * CIA Drug Trafficking * COINTELPRO * The Iran Contra Affair * The US government tapping your phone lines * Secret Global Economic Policies like the TTP * Operation Paperclip that involved smuggling in the Nazi rocket and chemical weapons industry * Asbestos and tobacco were dangerous"
],
"score": [
20,
8,
5,
3,
3,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
5p6kcl | Why does the letter 'a' look different, in default computer fonts, from the one we write? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dcos3qs"
],
"text": [
"[15th-century Italy saw the formation of the two main variants that are known today. These variants, the Italic and Roman forms, were derived from the Caroline Script version. The Italic form, also called script a, is used in most current handwriting and consists of a circle and vertical stroke. This slowly developed from the fifth-century form resembling the Greek letter tau in the hands of medieval Irish and English writers.[3] The Roman form is used in most printed material; it consists of a small loop with an arc over it (\"a\").[5] Both derive from the majuscule (capital) form. In Greek handwriting, it was common to join the left leg and horizontal stroke into a single loop, as demonstrated by the uncial version shown. Many fonts then made the right leg vertical. In some of these, the serif that began the right leg stroke developed into an arc, resulting in the printed form, while in others it was dropped, resulting in the modern handwritten form.]( URL_0 )"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text_urls": [
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A"
]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5p7d8h | What is anarcho-communism? | The concept simply makes no sense to me. How can a government seize the means of production (i.e communism) if there is no government (i.e anarchy)? The two concepts on opposite ends of the political spectrum, so how could they work together? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dcp1dz4"
],
"text": [
"Communism isn't the government seizing the means of production, it's the workers seizing the means of production. In actual communist states this has always evolved into the government ruling on behalf of the workers (at least in name) and using a command economy to enforce the communist principles of \"from each according to his ability, to each according to his need.\" Anarchist communism takes that in a different direction, where the state is abolished entirely and all government is run at the very lowest level possible. Marx and Lenin wrote about this as the utopian \"end of history\" after the stages of capitalism and socialism, but anarchist communists would seek to skip over those stages and abolish the state before the worldwide demise of capitalism."
],
"score": [
12
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
5p7u9z | What happens if the President and Vice President are both assassinated, and the current Speaker of the House is not a natural born citizen? Does the presidency skip SOH, or do we get a president who is an immigrant? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dcp39a1"
],
"text": [
"It would just move down the line of succession. The line is ordered by position, but it skips those who are ineligible. If the Speaker of the House is ineligible, then the job goes to the President Pro Tempore of the Senate. Currently, it is Orrin Hatch."
],
"score": [
13
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5p8zf5 | Did the majority of white collar employees in the 50s and 60s really stay at their first employer for their entire career? Or is it just a perception due to how often employees switch companies nowadays. | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dcpdsrr",
"dcpfb3m",
"dcpnl9e",
"dcpcyb4",
"dcpib8u",
"dcppzws",
"dcpmjd5",
"dcpqjsk",
"dcpdund",
"dcpt1e1",
"dcpogb6"
],
"text": [
"It depends. The perception is that tenure among jobs is much lower these days tends to come because people are comparing different age groups. If you compare the same age group (say 25-34) from the 50's to now, it's basically flat. Basically, younger workers switch jobs more often than older workers, which is easy to misinterpret. * One big disclaimer, however, is that the BLS (the agency that collects this data), did change how they asked the question in 1983, and again in URL_0 you do need to be a bit careful about comparing them directly. However it's basically the only source that goes back that far. There may be other issues as well. For example, women entering the workforce, and people being much less likely to move around than in the past, likely influence things. sources: URL_1 URL_2 As the 538 article mentions, there have been a lot of publications that make the mistake of comparing different age groups, which tends to create the impression. It's also common wisdom that less pensions give more incentive for workers to switch jobs (and it's known that switching jobs more often correlates to higher salary) Also, LinkedIn did a survey and found that millenials are changing jobs more often than older workers did when younger, but I would consider the older survey data far more trustworthy than the recollection of people interviewed by LinkedIn so much later. **tldr: It doesn't look like it, although there aren't buckets of old data.**",
"Not just white collar, but blue collar employees as well. My perception may be (ok probably is) skewed due my personal anecdotal observations. I dunno if it's fair to say \"the majority\" stayed at their \"first employer\" but there was definitely by my observation a time when many workers tended to settle down with one employer and expect to work there for life. My father, as one example, was a WWII vet, who retired from the Navy after 20 years in 1962. He then had 3-4 different jobs in as many years before landing solid work in a steel mill. He expected to work there for the rest of his life. In reality, not quite -- around 1981 the mill shut down, which was the only thing that forced him to move to another employer. My best friend's father as a kid worked at a local stone quarry. I can remember how proud he was ~ 1985 when he showed us his 25 year gift from his employer -- a gold Rolex President watch. He was not a white collar worker, he was a stone cutter. And they gave him a solid gold Rolex after 25 years. As another example, an uncle of mine worked for Boeing -- I guess you'd say he was white collar, he was an engineer there. Like my father, he had served in WWII and Korea, but left the military in the 50s to get a college education (thank you GI Bill!) and find work in the private sector. He also had a few jobs before settling in at Boeing, but once there, he was basically a \"lifer.\" So much so that both of his sons went to work for Boeing and both also expected to be lifers there. Although they were not -- both of them had less than 10 years at Boeing before they were (separately) laid off in the 90s. It seems to me that today neither employees nor employers see one another as long-term commitments. *Edit: typos",
"When I started at my current employer of 12 years everybody who arrived there basically never left due to the good conditions and pension. Not long after they changed the policy for new hires and since then people come in and get trained then start looking for something else pretty quick. There is nothing keeping them at the job and the career path forward is clogged with people clinging on to their pension but not really pushing to advance their career. I ended up having to transfer abroad to move up.",
"I remember reading that the average white collar employee had 4 jobs in his working life. Some more, some less. Many people worked at the same place for 20 30 or 40 years. Pension plans were laid out with the idea that every employee would be there for life, although of course they knew some would leave. In those days America had the strongest, richest most productive economy on earth, and the richest most powerful corporations. It did not seem far fetched that they would go on forever. Some people even feared they were too powerful and should be broken up and destroyed. Brings to mind the old saying, be careful what you wish for. You might get it.",
"My dad was a white collar worker and stayed with the same insurance company for 40 years. He is only enjoying an \"early retirement \" because he was retrenched.",
"I'm not sure if it was a majority, but it was far, far more common than it is now. It wasn't just limited to white collar workers. My dad recently retired after over 50 years doing waterproofing and restoration work. He started working there at 16, and was employed by them for all except 1 weekend. (He got pissed at his boss's son, quit, and the company almost lost a lot of restoration work on historic buildings, because they wanted my dad's work specifically, not just that company... Boss brought him back on Monday, with a raise, and a promise not to let the son be a micromanager.)",
"Anectdotal, but my mother retired last year at 57. She worked the same job for 33 years, right out of pharmacy school. I don't think she ever even considered switching employers because it came with a pension.",
"Something to consider is - back then, a lot of companies had pensions if you worked there for 20 or more years, so there was a big incentive to stick around. Nowadays, not so much.",
"Majority? No. But do younger people switch jobs a lot more than in the post-WW2 era? You bet. One thing that was a lot more common in the old days among large employers was pensions, which essentially is a retirement benefit that pays workers an income after they retire. In order to enjoy the full benefits of a pension, you had to stay at your employer for a long time. In the latter half of the 20th century, people started living a lot longer than expected and many employers found pensions to be unsustainable and eliminated them. Some companies (and notably the government) still offer pensions, but they are becoming more and more rare. Furthermore, today's fast-paced business environment requires companies to restructure their workforces more quickly to survive, leading to more layoffs and less loyalty to employees. Because of that, people don't really have an incentive to stay long term at companies anymore, especially when job hopping is an easy way to get a bump in pay.",
"Lol. I've been working for 4 years and I'm on my 7th job. Companies don't treat their employees well, it's as simple as that. I've had jobs where the workload have made people breakdown crying and jobs where I've been expected to work like an madman after one month with no/little training.",
"I have been with the same company for 28 years since I left college. I have considered leaving a few times when I felt bored or stagnant but new opportunities within the company always seemed to open up giving me a new career. These career changes that would be next to impossible applying a new company because I had no experience in that career. But certain people in the company understood my strengths and could see how they could apply to vastly different roles. They knew me well enough that they were really to take a risk. Could have I earned more bouncing company to company? Most likely. But money isn't the sole factor in enjoying your job."
],
"score": [
94,
13,
9,
8,
7,
6,
5,
4,
4,
3,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[
"1996.So",
"https://www.ebri.org/pdf/notespdf/ebri_notes_12-dec10.tenure-cehcs.pdf",
"https://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/enough-already-about-the-job-hopping-millennials/"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5p9ztj | why didn't English develop as a Romance language but French, Italian, Spanish etc did? | I'm often told that because of the Germanic influence of the Anglo-Saxons, English is at its core a Germanic language. But I don't understand this, since France was settled by the Franks, a Germanic tribe. Italy was settled by the Lombards and Goths, more Germanic peoples. Spain was settled by the Visigoths, yet another Germanic tribe. However, French, Spanish and Italian aren't referred to as having Germanic influence, whereas English is. Did Latin not take a firm hold in Roman Britain, meaning there was little Latin for the Anglo-Saxon language to influence? Did the subsequent reconquest of Italy and parts of Spain by Justinian have an effect? Regards | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dcpkixx",
"dcpmrbk"
],
"text": [
"Britain was occupied by Rome from 43 AD to 410 AD, which is shorter than most other areas. During that time, the island was never fully occupied, and they always lived besides the Anglo-Saxons in Scotland. The geographic isolation also plays an important role. On the main land, Spain, France and Italy may have been conquered by Germanic tribes after the year 500, they still had a strong common ground in Latin. Whereas in England, it was much easier to \"relieve\" the people from their Roman history.",
"It's a very good question. Latin took hold in Roman Britain but in terms of weight of population there were simply far far far more Saxons than there were Romano-British. And of course the Romano-Britons didn't just speak Latin but also P and Q Celtic wheras the saxons just spoke saxon. Saxon won out In contrast Italy was speaking a Romance language for many centuries before the Goths arrived, and they didn't stay long (and it's worth pointing out that many places where the Lombards settled do speak German today: Tyrol, parts of Lombardy). It's a good point about Spain and France but as I understand it the Roman occupation was deeper in those areas and the Gothic occupation shallower. As to why the Franks adopted a latinate language, that's a very good question. My guess is it would have something to do with the primacy of the Catholic church in the early middle ages? Or maybe it was to do with Charlemagne? I know he spoke German but he set himself up as \"holy Roman emperor\" and used a latin system of writing and laws to emphasise the point."
],
"score": [
7,
4
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
5pagl7 | What happens if a president is elected and they do not have a SO to take the first lady/gentleman position? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dcpn5df",
"dcpn593",
"dcpqri4",
"dcpmyyd"
],
"text": [
"Well, in the case of President James Buchanan (who was a bachelor), he had his niece be the official White House hostess, therefore making her acting First Lady.",
"In Thomas Jefferson's case, for example, Dolly Madison (his SecState's wife) did First Lady stuff. A bachelor or female President would probably find a relative or close friend to do the job.",
"Nothing has to \"happen.\" First Lady is not a position. He would just be a single President.",
"There's only one or two cases of a president not having an SO. It's a campaigning thing. People will vote for the family man over the lecherous man. Presidents are also usually quite old."
],
"score": [
23,
13,
6,
5
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5paq0m | Why does laugh sound the same around the world if we speak different languages with different phonemes? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dcpxnua",
"dcptfgr",
"dcpu858",
"dcpuls8"
],
"text": [
"Probably because laughter evolved before language (or even the radiation of the species). Other apes (and even rats) also laugh[^1]( URL_0 ). And I don't mean a sound which resembles human laughter but is actually a warning of some sort. Genuine animal laughter is generally unrecognizable to humans, but the same signs are there: rapid diaphragm movement, inhalation, and exhalation in times of joy or also shock (like when we laugh when we get scared). One of the theories of the origin of laughter is a mechanism to reduce adrenaline levels when we get unnecessarily startled, which then continued to evolve in mammals as a way to provide positive emotions to coming across something unexpected and new, like when babies laugh (when they don't cry) at practically anything new they come across, or like when you hear the punchline of a new joke. There also grew to become a social component since invoking laughter in someone else would give them this good-feeling hormone rush and increase your bond with them. Any differences in laughter across different cultures, like those discussed by /u/Urkchaloi, are basically just local dialects of laughter that evolved over thousands of years. However there is still no scientific explanation for Jimmy Carr's laugh.",
"It is a basic human expression along with screaming and crying. It is not a learned ability like language, we are born with it built in as a form of basic communication. Some animals are born with the ability to walk quickly after birth, we have this.",
"Laughter does sound different in different cultures, but it's not that stark of a contrast or a hard and fast rule. Iranians laugh differently than Japanese.",
"Other than saying the laugh being a reflex, I don't know how can you think laughter of people sound the same at all? My shitty comment will probably be deleted because it is anecdotal, but right here, my clique has every one person with completely different sounding laughter. I can definitely differentiate who is laughing while blindfolded by listening to their laughters through an old and hoarse speaker. Some of them sound completely ridiculous and comedic, but it *is* their actual genuine laughter."
],
"score": [
41,
22,
13,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laughter_in_animals"
],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5pawtp | Why is the U.S. so divided as a country? Where did the middle go? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dcpr0kt",
"dcpqin2",
"dcps56s",
"dcpt1hi",
"dcptkca",
"dcptekg",
"dcpuplu",
"dcpuiih",
"dcpt4zq"
],
"text": [
"You're really only hearing the loudest voices, the ones who scream and yell and protest get all the attention. You can't really hear those of us in the middle who are reading, thinking, and talking quietly with our families and friends. There are LOTS of people in the middle, but they are drowned out by all the screaming on both sides. I'd recommend The Rubin Report and Sam Harris as pretty down to earth voices in the middle. Go listen to/read what they have to say...Sam in particular gets a lot of bad press, but only from reactionaries who don't really LISTEN to what he is actually saying.",
"Well, the internet hasn't helped in this case, but this divide has existed for a long time. Look at the civil rights act of 1965. That flipped the entire south to being republican just because the government wanted to give equal rights to black people. We had a civil war 150 years ago and there are still confederate flags everywhere. The differences have always been there but now you get to tell people exactly what is on your mind.",
"There have always been divisions, but most of us have coworkers, relatives and friends with differing opinions, which makes it pretty hard to demonize the other side without doing the same to people we actually know. And it's more difficult to take a hard line on an entrenched belief when a reasonable friend or relative explains why they think the opposite. I see basically two kinds of people who get caught up in this though on both sides of virtually any spectrum. And they're kind of the same. 1. People who don't work or socialize in a diverse environment. And by diverse I mean diversity of thought. I know there are people who self select that environment out of closed mindedness. But there are also some who were legit raised without being exposed to or encouraged to listen to other opinions. Who were \"protected\" from reasonable voices in the middle. 2. People who virtue signal by saying \"I won't listen to someone who says. . . \" or \"I would never socialize with someone who voted . . .\" or my personal favorite \"I don't even want to understand why people think . . . \" These are the people who want to live a narrow and segregated life. TL;DR There is a real lack of diversity of thought and belief in some segments of society. Not hearing or refusing to hear from people who aren't in lockstep with you is very polarizing.",
"The United States isn't really that divided. In fact, it's one of the most tranquil-least contentious times in U.S. history. We aren't battling the British for Independence, we aren't at war with the Native Americans for land, there aren't Colonial Empires battling for resources, major political and economical powers aren't spreading their ideologies through the World with force, and we are no longer getting drawn into military conflicts for contemporary needs (like lithium and oil). We are not lost at all. The best way to come back together as a people is to turn off the news and focus on self.",
"Funny, but I was talking to a friend about this yesterday. We are both in the middle, but were wondering why you don't hear about people like us anymore. I think the media is too busy trying to get ratings. Moderates don't make interesting stories. There's not enough drama for today's infotainment news channels.",
"I feel that the press has a LOT to do with this. They seem to be promoting a divisiveness. Listen closely to what and how they say it. It's like they want to see us divided as it will cause us to fall. They literally want the US to fall and fail.",
"The middle exists but nobody accepts them being there, too easy to shove them to the farthest edges of the other side to hate them more. It's one reason I hate talking about these things on Reddit. If I have an issue with a semi far left or right idea and respond with a middle ground tone I am immediately called out for being far in the other direction with some stereo types that don't apply to me. To some liberal friends we have I am basically a conservative to them. To my conservative friends I am a bleeding heart liberal.",
"When it comes to Congress being so divided or elections in general you have to look at primary voters. People want gov. to compromise but not on anything they care about. Most of our state and congressional districts are so heavily dominated by one party's voters that elected officials are so much more afraid of losing to someone in their own party than from the other party. 2 ways this gets you if you are a legislator. 1. There is always some super pack from your own political philosophy that can drop a couple million dollars in your race a few days before the election to blow you out of the water. Only way to avoid this is to raise so much money it is harder for them to do or become more politically extreme. 2. People only like compromise on paper. Everything but the most mundane fiscal policy has become emotionally and morally charged. Voters won't accept compromise on these and if an elected official want to win even 1 race they must say they will never compromise on these black and white moral choices. This affirms voters belief that they need not compromise on them. Source: Have worked campaigns tl;dr politicians need to be more extreme to appease extreme voters and donors. Those voters therefore feel more mainstream and demand more extreme behavior",
"Anecdotal assessment. I think one of the largest factors that has effected divisiveness in the most recent years is the internet. I'd say there is no doubt that the internet is the largest cultural change in recent history; the way we are all connected and can find our own '*mobs*'. And there is no doubt in my mind that we are mobs on here, or at least can be defined within mob/herd mentality. Never in history has a mob/herd been this large and connected, but at the same time disconnected. And the tactics of the mobs on the internet only help create rifts(dismiss all with different opinions, and avoid them in \"safe spaces\"). There is also a huge secular movement going on, as more and more people lean towards secular beliefs they need to find other ways to *belong*. Because belongingness is human nature, and for century upon century, religion is where the people found belongingness. It may be an exaggeration, but I often say that politics(especially social politics) has became the new religion of the West. After ditching most social media I felt that I was able to distance myself from a lot of this, and I do my best to look at multiple perspectives and see how I can empathize with each. In doing so I notice lack of empathy for opposing groups is off the charts."
],
"score": [
127,
27,
13,
10,
9,
4,
3,
3,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5pazgd | If NYC was able to crack down on crime and become safe, what is preventing Chicago from doing the same thing? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dcpsugb",
"dcptjzs",
"dcpuhhy"
],
"text": [
"Did NYC actually 'crack down on crime' or did all the criminals in NYC just get gentrified out? And does the same thing not happen in Chicago because Chicago has so much more semi-suburban area than NYC which is a much more vertical city?",
"[Here is an article from New York Magazine on the topic.]( URL_0 )",
"A number of factors worked against Chicago in terms of why the crime has increased while other major cities have seen a decline: - Chicago arrested and convicted most of the major gang leaders in the past 2 decades, but what happened instead of killing off the gangs is that it caused the few, large gangs to fracture into dozens of smaller gangs, and sometimes factions formerly part of the same gang or even still identifying as part of that umbrella gang may have beefs that lead to people getting shot. - Chicago tore down it's giant public housing projects in the '90's-00's... the infamous Cabrini Green, Stateway Gardens, Robert Taylor Homes. Probably 100 high rise, gang-infested public housing war zones gone. Only gangs had their turf within those developments. Now, you scatter tens of thousands of people into new parts of town, mixing up gang ties, etc. and it again creates situations where rivals cross paths, fight to establish new territory... - Each of those first two factors lead to a snowball effect... somebody gets shot, then retaliation, and more retaliation, and it keeps flaring up more and more. - Just as Chicago is a major transportation hub for air and rail traffic, cargo, etc. it's also a major hub for the drug trade. With so much product available in Chicago, drugs are cheap compared to other major cities -- all that supply also depresses prices, meaning the dealers on the streets are fighting over territory/profits harder because there are less of them to be had. - Police force is way down from where it was only a few years ago in terms of size, and the morale sucks. There were something like 15k officers a decade ago, and only 12k now as they can't replace retiring or otherwise departing officers. It's an issue of training and budget. Then there are the police tactics being questioned after a number of unarmed black men were shot by police, and short contact cards were replaced by 2-page forms to comply with ACLU policies and the burden of paperwork resulted in 80% drop in police stop/contacts."
],
"score": [
12,
10,
4
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[
"http://nymag.com/scienceofus/2016/07/why-is-new-york-so-much-safer-than-chicago.html"
],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5pb7n9 | Why hasn't USA adopted Nordic countries education and health care system? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dcpteq2",
"dcptdzb"
],
"text": [
"*Sigh*. Some of us have, it just doesn't go anywhere for a variety of reasons. The \"core\" reason is that when the European democracies rebuilt after WWII, they developed universal healthcare systems to ensure everyone had care. This was largely an expansion of the systems Germany used to strikebreak or otherwise help industrial workers even before WWI, and it spread relatively easily in the wake of WWII - it was also seen as a comfortable political compromise with socialism, which had arrived rather dramatically on the political scene with the influence of an emboldened and expanded USSR. Giving people free healthcare and high taxes but keeping most of a capitalist economy while rebuilding from a grueling war was where people would up. In the US, things were a little different. We have a very long history of wealthy people and their corporations having a lot of say in how things are run through several mechanisms. During WWII, it was really hard to get anyone to work for a company - most young men were at war, and there were only so many women who could or wanted to work in the factories or other businesses. This caused some problems, and part of that solution was the government stating outright that nobody could be paid more than a certain amount - but healthcare insurance policies were not considered \"pay\" by this rule. So companies started competing about health insurance instead of just wages. This eventually led to a system where the government, insurance companies, and the medical industry all have roughly-equal say in how things are run - and the medical industry and insurers both have a lot of say in how the government is run, since they're fairly wealthy and we still defer to the wealthy in a lot of things. It's not necessarily smart, but it's where we wound up.",
"cause it ain't 'murrican! But seriously, our House of Rep's and Senate have totally failed the USA. They are only concerned with increasing the wealth of the already wealthy and maintaining their power."
],
"score": [
12,
4
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5pcowj | Kant: If you measure the length of a book not by how many pages it has but by how difficult it is to read then many a book wouldnt have been so long if it hadnt been so short. | The quote comes from Critique of Pure Reason. It appeared at the beginning of this [video]( URL_0 ) on Being No One by Thomas Metzinger. I think I roughly get the gist of what Kant is getting at in this quote, but I dont feel like I completely understand it. If I encountered the quote in the context of Kant's book then it would probably be easier to grasp, so if anyone who has read it could help me understand that would be really appreciated. Thanks! | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dcq4z49"
],
"text": [
"My understanding of the quote is that he is saying that some books are made too short, and therefore are difficult to read/confusing. To rephrase the quote, he's saying something like, If you measure how difficult a book is to read, and call that \"length,\" then you'd find that many books that have a small number of pages are actually greater in \"length\" than books with more pages that allow the points in them to be made more thoroughly. Or, put another way, he's saying that the book he wrote is long because if it was short it would be even harder to understand."
],
"score": [
3
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
5pe61h | Why do media companies still allow Nielsens ratings system to determine actual ratings when it doesn't include anything seen online? | It seems very anachronistic and stupid today that advertising revenue and TV shows live or die based only on the Nielsens system which ignores all online viewings. How can anyone know anything about real viewership then? Are networks angry about this or is everyone ok? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dcqgvsl"
],
"text": [
"There are a variety of different media companies and analytics systems out there. Some of them include a variety of online metrics and such for viewership, even Nielsen does this. But these are not public info, you have to pay for it, and pay a lot. Media companies buy this data from vendors such as comScore (as well as doing some of the leg work and data gathering themselves). Most people are familiar with the generic Nielsen ratings that are put out that indicate TV viewership in Nielsen households because some of these ratings are publicly available. There are tons of other systems and stuff doing gather outside of that one metric. And for people in the industry who use this data, that public neilsen data is considered horrible trash data and generally that its quite wrong. Nielsen knows, everyone knows, but of course if you want better \"good\" data, you've gotta pay"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
5pef3i | What is the womens march protesting? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dcqjc2k"
],
"text": [
"\"We stand together, recognizing that defending the most marginalized among us is defending all of us.\" (That is from here: From here: URL_0 There's more at the bottom.) #justmy2cts There is a great deal of (in many cases very reasonable) fear that has been generated over the last election cycle. Voters in our country elected an individual who, by his own words and actions, think women may be treated as property, think anyone not rich, or anyone who is not white (unless they are rich enough) is less deserving of fairness and opportunity than himself, has said he is planning to discriminate against others because of their religion or the color of their skin. But \"We the people\" elected him. People we know voted for him. Whether it was what they meant to say or not, they approved of him. That can make it hard to look openly at your neighbors or the people next to you in a line, or on a train. Fear generates anger in most people. In some it also generates action. -------------------- From the Women's March mission statement - \"The rhetoric of the past election cycle has insulted, demonized, and threatened many of us - immigrants of all statuses, Muslims and those of diverse religious faiths, people who identify as LGBTQIA, Native people, Black and Brown people, people with disabilities, survivors of sexual assault - and our communities are hurting and scared. We are confronted with the question of how to move forward in the face of national and international concern and fear. In the spirit of democracy and honoring the champions of human rights, dignity, and justice who have come before us, we join in diversity to show our presence in numbers too great to ignore. The Women’s March on Washington will send a bold message to our new government on their first day in office, and to the world that women's rights are human rights. We stand together, recognizing that defending the most marginalized among us is defending all of us.\""
],
"score": [
16
],
"text_urls": [
[
"https://www.womensmarch.com/mission/"
]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5peogj | How did the Catholic Church become so powerful through the Middle Ages? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dcqrd1a",
"dcqo9hp"
],
"text": [
"By Middle Ages, you are probably talking from the Fall of the Western Roman Empire (WRE) and the beginning of the Protestant Reformation and/or Renaissance Era. So, the era you are looking at the 5th century to the 15th century. [Now, at this point, Christianity has spread, with one denomination, to great deal of land area: It stretched from Spain and North Africa (west) to Britain (North) to Egypt (Southeast) and Armenai (Northeast)]( URL_4 ). The one denomination, at this point, was the Catholic Church. The second denomination, the Eastern Orthodox, came around in 1054, in the middle of the Medieval period. So, for the Early Middle Ages, the Catholic Church was the Church. [There were heresies, but those were dealt with via councils and missionaries]( URL_0 ). Now, your question starts with an assumption: The Catholic Church was powerful through the Middle Ages. I presume, by power, you mean political power or something similar. Now, this is factually incorrect. The Church itself, while the exception of the [States of the Church (aka Papal States)]( URL_2 ), did not exercise rule over any sizable governable land (short note: the Church often received donations, including land, to build Churches and Cathedrals; however, aside from the priest, no one really resides on these lands). In fact, something that is exercised throughout the world today is [Papal Investiture]( URL_7 ), which means the Pope choose the Bishops for the Dioceses. The entire time of the Middle Ages were Popes constantly fighting for this right to Investiture. Many kings in France, Britain, Spain, and especially the Holy Roman Empire (HRE) constantly refused the Pope's wishes and declared their own Investiture. France, Britain, and Spain became more open to Papal selections over time than the HRE, but that was due to the inner politics of the HRE. Eventually, through changes (via the Popes and Emperors), bishops lost much of their secular power, and, therefore, Papal Investiture become more widely accepted. (As an aside, the issue with Investiture in the Middle Ages is that Bishops reported to the Pope, not the King. The King didn't like that. The King wanted to be numeral uno, even to a Bishop. However, this was even more problematic when the Dioceses were tied with Estates and prince-ships, like that in the HRE; if you were Bishop in the HRE, you instantly had a lot of land and a prince title, at least in essence; the Emperor only stayed Emperor if the electors were placated. If the Pope chooses some of the Electors, he chooses the Emperor) [(See here for more details)]( URL_1 ). Now, what about the Papal States? Well, they weren't much of a power house. It was a collection of two or three counties that had to constantly seek the protection of the Franks (Gaul/France) against whoever was mad at the Pope that time, since the Pope, traditionally, didn't have much of an army (and shouldn't). For example, the Pope requested aid against the [Lombards who invaded the Papal States]( URL_3 ). The Pope had to ask help from the various French kings through the Middle Ages for assistance against the HRE and the Emperor. So, where does this power come from, or the assumption the Church had power? Because, clearly, Kings constantly fought and locked up Popes. They ignored Popes. [They created their own (anti-)popes]( URL_5 ). [The Papal States was a glorified Duchy under the protection of whoever didn't hate the Pope]( URL_6 ). However, the power your speaking of is probably the power that started the Crusades, as an example (via Pope Urban II). The Pope called for a Crusade to the Holy Land, and many Kings and Dukes and Counts obliged. However, this was in no way an order - it was a call. In other words, there were plenty of examples during the Crusades in which the Pope (or the reason) was flat-out ignored; there were others in which an unheard of number of people crusaded to the Holy Land. A prime example is the 3rd Crusade (good) and 4th Crusade (bad). So what do we have? (For a great channel on Crusade history, see [Real Crusade History]( URL_8 )). Europe, during the Middle Ages, was full of people in power that were religiously zealous. They were pious. They respected the Church and the Pope. There were also plenty who saw themselves above the Church. However, when you have a King, and he's devoutly Catholic, of a Catholic kingdom, that King would take steps to ensure the Church was strong. Kings would use the Church as an excuse or reason to perform acts, sometimes rather questionable; [others, were because of his culpability for sinful acts of his people he is charged to rule]( URL_9 ). As devout Kings lost power to non-devout Kings, democracy and communism, the executive of the government was no longer necessarily enforcing rules to safeguard the Church, and therefore, the apparent loss of the Church's \"power\" (which was never by the Church, but by the executive of the country, the King). Now, this explanation is focusing on a grand scale and ignores local villages and towns. One thing to keep in mind is that there were many priests, bishops, and popes who abused what power they did have via the Church; the Church being a collection of people - people who are sinners as much as the next guy, meaning that just because they are Catholic, even a priest, during the Medieval Era, doesn't place them above criticism by any stretch of the imagination; however, unlike today, a town only had one priest, from one church, without any Internet, and very little literacy. This means that if you were a peasant in a town, you had one religious authority figure, even if he was corrupt. There was no readily easy way, without modern technology, for a peasant to report abuses by a local priest; not that the Church didn't attempt to root out and prevent these abuses - but, without today's technology of audio and video records, along with the Internet and modern messaging, discovering and rooting out abuses would be a difficult task. EDIT: Just so I'm not overlooking a perceived power - Catholics listen to the Church. Meaning, when there is a religious issue, the Church has the final say - that is why the Church has had many ecumenical councils. Of course, people in the Church have abused this power - Pope's would excommunicate a King due to a political issue, for example. Being excommunicated by a Pope when your a devout Catholic is no small matter. Of course, this didn't phase many of the Kings that found a way to a Pope's bad side to become excommunicated - but it could cause civil rife as it could cause a civil war or the likes of it. Sorry for the long answer. I hope this answers your question sufficiently.",
"There was a power vacuum after the fall of the Roman Empire and it was the Church that took over much of the functioning of society during what we used to call the dark ages. By the time the Middle Ages came about the Church had collected and enforced a lot of power and owned a lot of property."
],
"score": [
16,
10
],
"text_urls": [
[
"http://www.catholicbridge.com/catholic/list_of_heresies.php#Medieval",
"http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08084c.htm",
"http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14257a.htm",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lombards#Catholic_monarchy",
"http://www.slidego.com/res/palooza/europe/AncientRomeSummary/D7CA7C8C.jpg",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_States#The_Avignon_Papacy",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_States#Relationship_with_the_Holy_Roman_Empire",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Investiture_Controversy",
"https://www.youtube.com/user/RealCrusadeHistory",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catharism#Massacre"
],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5pf102 | What does it mean if the USA withdrawls from the TPP? | I know there are posts about TPP, but what does it mean (in this case the absence of it) in context to the Usa? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dcqsmea"
],
"text": [
"Paradoxically, nothing and a lot; it depends on the specific context of your question. Obviously businesses directly affected by, or linked to TPP will suffer, and will cause job layoffs, but this case is not universal throughout the United States. President Trump's motivation in withdrawing from TPP has been to appeal to his voters (note: not a political comment, this is widely [viewed]( URL_0 ) as the reason for his withdrawal from TPP). There was [mixed]( URL_1 ) consensus initially on the effect of TPP on jobs, so withdrawing from it will, in turn, cause mixed results, but also allow both political sides to either claim a victory or wail at a perceived injustice. It will affect the United States' [standing]( URL_2 ) and how other countries view it, especially in the Pacific, and boost the power and presence of China. This will indirectly affect the US, but it is difficult to say exactly how, because there are a lot of balls in motion, particularly with this new administration. President Trump is increasingly moving toward an isolationist stance, but again it is difficult to say for certain."
],
"score": [
3
],
"text_urls": [
[
"http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-trade-idUSKBN1542NR",
"http://www.ibtimes.com/tpp-trade-deal-does-it-threaten-american-jobs-depends-who-you-ask-2292847",
"https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/12/business/economy/donald-trump-trade-tpp-trans-pacific-partnership.html?_r=0"
]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
5pfgit | What do peaceful marches actually achieve? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dcquejf",
"dcqshu2",
"dcqt6fv",
"dcqshic"
],
"text": [
"Marches are undeniable, unavoidable evidence of the strength of a (usually) political view. There is a primal power evoked in seeing a mass of hundreds of thousands of bodies united in a location, especially a public location, for a single cause. Because it is such a rare site, it also draws a lot of media attention, and because it draws a lot of media attention, it is brought to the forefront of people's minds. For a hundred thousand people to leave their homes and stand somewhere public, uncomfortably, for hours upon hours, its an extremely powerful visual. It makes history. Words are ephemeral - they come and go. But protests, when they're big enough, make the history books. For the Women's March, marching in protest of the new administration becomes an unshakable symbolic gesture. The administration, no matter how hard they try to deny it, will never be able to outrun the sheer truth that millions of people across the world filled the streets to oppose them, to speak out against them. They can't argue that they are unifiers, because you can *see* the very manifestation of the truth that they are *not*. They can't tell you that they're on women's side, because you can *see* the millions of women who disagree. It is one thing to write essays about this; but words are ephemeral. Bodies in the streets, marching, clogging traffic, however - those pictures last, both physically and in people's minds. This is why Trump held a press conference that devolved into trying to combat the (undeniably true) sentiment floating around that he had such low attendance for his inauguration. Politics is *literally* a popularity game; since he already lost the popularity vote, it continually damages his image to see so few supporters standing by him, and *so many* people standing *against* him. Especially for someone like Trump - who has made an entire career about creating the *appearance* of wealth, to the point where the one thing he said was out of bounds on the CC roast was joking that he wasn't really as wealthy as he seemed - because he knew the *symbolism* of wealth, the *appearance* of it, was where his brand derived a large part of its value. Politicians derive a lot of their power from symbols. A flag, a suit, an inauguration. For the same reason that *those* events are important to *them*, so too are counter-symbols important for dissenters. It is also important because marches can inspire. Maybe (to continue the Trump example), you really disagree with the new administration, but you feel to frightened to speak out. Seeing millions of people standing in the street, walking through your city, it *inspires* those who may be fearful or apathetic to realize that there are *multitudes* who stand with them, rich people and celebrities and ordinary people, united in the same cause that they believe in. And that can cause that crowd and their noise to increase dramatically. A politician's job is to create order among a people. The optics of a huge march stand in blatant contradiction to their purpose. The more people march through the street, disrupting order, creating and obvious and physical manifestation of discontent, the more the politicians are *forced* to respond; and the more even their supporters begin to lose faith in them. If a government cannot maintain order, then they have failed their primary function, and removing them and unseating them, or making them cave to the will of the protesters, is that much easier. MLK and his civil rights movements were geniuses at this. If you look at a detailed accounting of the actions of MLK, they were extremely strategic in planning where to march, on what days to march, on how to create press coverage and photo ops that would maximize the reality of their message. And the result was that civil rights became an inescapable political issue, one that was impossible to ignore and wasn't going to go away until they addressed the deeper issue. Even moderate voters became swayed to the side of MLK and the protesters, and history was made. Don't ever let anyone tell you protesters are wasting their time. A look through history will prove that they are powerful symbols of the will of the people.",
"A march like the one's seen today, show people that you are not alone in your frustration, fears, and in your hopes. Remember, power almost always succeeds by devide and conquer methods. Power isolates individuals, makes them think they are alone and insignificant, marching with others counteracts this and shows tangible connections to others. But marching is only one step that should be followed by other steps, organizing and formulating achievable goals, for example.",
"The only thing that demonstrations and protests can achieve is increased public awareness, both of the topic at hand and the degree to which a portion of the public feels strongly about it. Nothing else can reasonably ever be expected. Powerful entities seldom change their course of action because enough people with signs got together. In this instance, there's not much to achieve, as everyone already well understands the feelings of a significant portion of the population towards the new president.",
"Sort of just having your voice put out there and being recognized. In a way that helps other people learn about and support the cause."
],
"score": [
13,
9,
4,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5pfr1e | What was the exact purpose of Women's March and what goals do they hope to achieve? What steps of action have they taken to achieve those goals? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dcqv44i",
"dcqw9vr",
"dcqwjw8"
],
"text": [
"You know how politics is super divisive sometimes? The point of the march was a bunch of like-minded people getting together and making themselves seen. It made them feel less alone in a starkly divided political world.",
"What was printed on the promo posters was \"Women's Rights are Human Rights.\" A lot of the sponsors said it wasn't meant to be political (take that however you want). It was meant to get people together (in a Non Violent way) to show that women's rights are important to a lot of people in the country. As far as specific issues, different people had different issues that were important to them (like equal pay, equal job opportunity, birth control availability, etc.). The March, from my understanding, wasn't supposed to be about one specific issue, but all women's rights as a whole.",
"1. Build solidarity: watching the inauguration of someone who you vehemently disagree with can make people feel like they aren't represented and make them feel alone. The knowledge that 2+million people around the country feel as passionately as you gives people more confidence. This can translate into greater numbers of people being involved in political activism, calling members of congress, voting in midterm elections, etc. 2. Influence undecided people: many people didn't feel strongly about Trump around the election. Seeing their friends and family disavow his policies so publicly could have the effect of raising awareness about the things people are finding objectionable translating into more supporters. 3. Send a message: make it international news that millions of people oppose specific aspects of Trump's policies. This message doesn't only reach Trump's administration, but intermediary levels of government like members of congress and so on who are responsible for representing the will of their constituents. 4. Undermine the \"mandate\": Trump's notion of being given a mandate by the election is famously tenuous, having lost the popular vote, having low approval ratings, and having major news stories about Russian influence in the election. This coupled with the news that literally millions of people internationally are motivated to protest directly due to his policies has the effect of undermining the view that he is supported by the majority of the populace. On top of this, one of Trump's major talking points is that he represents a \"movement\". Having this kind of counter movement, especially as the numbers overwhelm the numbers at his inauguration, weakens this particular aspect of his image."
],
"score": [
12,
12,
9
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5pfvas | Why do people who hate the West blame white people for slavery while forgetting conveniently that, while the whole world engaged therein, it was the West which ABOLISHED slavery? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dcqwbv9"
],
"text": [
"Well, an important part of it is that history, and modern understanding of it, tends to be western-centric. For example, almost everyone knows that the US once had slaves, and that they had a civil war related to it. But how many people do you think know about the Barbary States. Could you, without using wikipedia, point them out on a map? Would you, or another average person, even know when they existed? The other part is that the Atlantic Slave Trade was rather large in scale. The total amount of slaves traded by other systems may be higher, but the Atlantic Slave Trade did not last as long, so it was more intensive. The third thing is that the American enslavement was not too lethal. As a result, those slaves did not die, but instead lived on, and their offspring as well. And enslavement has become part of their cultural identity."
],
"score": [
4
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5pg69z | how jobs caught on | Who was the first person to think of paying someone for work? How did this catch on and become the standard of living now? Why did this system develop of having to earn money to get things? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dcqzbvp",
"dcr39mv"
],
"text": [
"The first and oldest \"job\" was probably prostitution. A woman wanted something, so she slept with a guy who gave her the thing. Some people argue that other positions should have the title of the oldest profession, but sex has obviously existed far longer than anything like farmers, or builders, or priests. Prostitution would have existed for millennia prior to anything remotely close to another job. The second oldest profession would have to be something simple, probably related to food, meaning it was probably hunting or gathering. In early tribes, it would have to be a barter system. You build my house; I'll give you food. There is nothing suggesting who the exact first person to start paying somebody else would be, but you can read up about the [history of money here]( URL_0 ).",
"When civilization first developed, everyone was responsible for their own food. They farmed, gathered, or hunted. When they had enough food for a consistent surplus, they were able to start specializing. For example, if one guy was a really good carpenter, it just made sense to let him be a full time carpenter. Civilizations in which people were allowed to become full time experts were more successful than those in which everyone spent all their time looking for food. Originally all trade was barter. Money was introduced because it made bartering much easier and more convenient. And that's pretty much it. You have specialist craftsmen, warriors, scribes, priests, etc. who do not labor in the field, and they get paid for their services in the form of money and food. Anyone who had a surplus of resources could just hire someone else to do the work they can't or don't want to do themselves. If you didn't want to be a farmer, you had to find some other kind of service you could offer people in exchange for their food/money."
],
"score": [
5,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_money#Non-monetary_exchange"
],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
5pgarx | Why is breast cancer, and to a lesser degree prostate cancer advertised so much? I don't think I've ever seen a kidney cancer ad | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dcqzi6k",
"dcqzlol",
"dcr0qyh"
],
"text": [
"Because they're both common and can be treated effectively if they're found quick enough. Other cancers like skin cancers are the same but it probably depends where you are in the world vs your risk. Where I live, there's lots of psa's about skin cancer, having moles checked, wearing sun screen etc",
"Breast cancer is by far the most common cancer among women, followed closely only by lung cancer. Kidney cancer on the other hand is only 3% of cancer cases in women. The statistics for prostate cancer in men are similar (it is 2nd only to lung cancer). URL_0",
"What these people said is true, but it also has to do with public activism. There were some very effective organizers and large organizations which have gotten behind the cause and given it publicity. Breast cancer is one of the most common cancers in women, but it's also one of the most survivable at this point. Colon cancer caused 10,000 more deaths last year, but because there's not as much activism behind it and it's not as easily glamorized, if you will (think of all the \"save the ta-tas\" campaigns), it just doesn't get the same attention. At this point there are huge organizations, like Susan G. Komen, which profit off of breast cancers' visibility, and they'll work hard to keep it in the spotlight."
],
"score": [
6,
3,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[
"https://www.cancer.gov/types/common-cancers"
],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5pgcwt | what is the difference between a realist and pragmatist? | I've tried to understand the difference between these two, and all I can determine is that they definitely are not the same but I'm not understanding why. | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dcr01cr"
],
"text": [
"Realist: \"Whatever IS, is. Whether that be good or bad, we accept it.\" Pragmatist: \"Whatever works is good. Focus on what gives a good, reasonable and realistic outcome and ignore the rest.\""
],
"score": [
8
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
5pgdc9 | How did the modern playground came to be? When did a swing set, a slide, a seesaw and so on become the standard? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dcr50yk",
"dcr3oxd",
"dcr8rnt",
"dcr5n2r",
"dcr4fh7",
"dcr4ice",
"dcr9zgl",
"dcr8b95",
"dcrki0g",
"dcribw5",
"dcrdbzr",
"dcriciw",
"dcrc569",
"dcrn8tx",
"dcr8v3u",
"dcr9a7x",
"dcrhptx",
"dcra64c",
"dcrqd2o",
"dcrxod9",
"dcrb8b4",
"dcrhlh5"
],
"text": [
"On mobile a a coffee shop, so forgive any formatting issues. I studied sports and recreational management at school and had a few courses specifically on playground development and history. In short, playgrounds are all developed for specific ages and the equipment is designed to help develop physical and social attributes. I'll need to go back to my old notes for the exact age breakdowns but basically: very young ages to help build balance and coordination and motor skills, toddler-child age the equipment focuses on building strength in children (monkey bars, see-saws) and social skills (fake climbing walls, swings, etc.). And parks for adults focus on a mix of physical and social (basketball courts, tennis, disc golf, etc). Slides, see saws and other playground equipment don't have stringent standards besides safety standards (although this is changing more and more as research on safety and play habits increases) but standard playground equipment all have a specific purpose depending on the age, skills, and intent of use for the target demographic. (classic park for children vs basketball & tennis courts for adults vs walking, scenic or gardens for seniors). More diverse playground equipment is being made to include multiple ages and developmental goals but it's also why in certain areas you can find out dated equipment that appears sketchy or downright dangerous but is always more fun than hyper safe new equipment.",
"Cool question, thanks for asking. I looked it up, and found [this]( URL_0 ) website that seems pretty good. \"The first playground was built in Manchester, England, but the idea of playgrounds was first developed in Germany. Playgrounds were presented as a way to teach children how to play safely and fairly with one another. The first sketched concept of a playground was produced in 1848 by Henry Barnard and featured a large, shaded area with teachers looking on as children played with wooden blocks, toy carts, and two rotary swings. However, it would be another 39 years before the first playground was built in America, and in the meantime, children needed a safe, designated place to play games. Many children, especially in urban areas, played in the streets or on curbs, and there was constant danger from being hit by passing cars. \"Play streets,\" or streets largely ignored by road traffic, were a popular option for children to seek out.\"",
"Wow - Something I can actually answer. I'm a designer at a custom playground design build firm. The typical modern playground - often called post and deck has been around for about 30 years. It was developed by a guy named Jay Beckwith in collaboration with a large European playground company. The idea was that it could be modular and include lots of different elements that could be be attached - Slide, climbing bars, sliding pole... Etc. It's only in the last year or two that post and deck has been getting subbed out for other systems. Truthfully, I'm not as sure about swings - they have been around quite a while. Generally I think they are standard in a playground because the goal of any playground design is to have a diversity of experiences - movement based play (swings, see saws, slides etc) - climbing/balancing - passive (hiding) - the list goes on. Swings are a cost efficient and relatively safe way to provide some movement based play. I don't see loads of see saws anymore. Risk of injury on them tends to be higher so the demand for them tanked. Over time trends in playground equipment are typically set by our tolerance for risk. More and more the tolerance has been on the decline - which in my perspective is a detriment to the development of kids. In such a litigious environment cities and communities don't want anything that might increase their chance of getting sued.",
"Here's a decent scholarpedia article on the matter: [Evolution of American Playgrounds]( URL_0 ) It appears that the earliest \"modern\" playground came about in the late 19th century at Hull House in Chicago, followed closely by ones in Philadelphia, Minneapolis, Pittsburg, and Denver. The playground at Hull House had swings, sand piles, hammocks, and a maypole, and the motivation for creating these spaces was to promote socialization and to keep children safe and out of the streets. As to why we see certain standardized pieces in playgrounds, it appears to have evolved into its current form with ever-growing safety concerns: > The “standardized playground” era... reflected the design and redesign of manufactured playground equipment, primarily the four S’s -swings, slides, see-saws, superstructures, and the prevalence of surrounding hard surfaces typically seen on American playgrounds throughout much of the 20th century. During the 1970’s and 1980’s standardizing playground equipment developed simultaneously with concerns about playground injuries, increasing lawsuits, and formation of task forces to prepare national standards for playground equipment safety (Kutska, 2011). Executive Director of the International Playground Safety Institute, authored the most comprehensive reference addressing current playground safety data. I would also imagine those \"Four S's\" are fairly cheap to manufacture on a large scale. TL;DR: They're relatively \"safe\" and easy to manufacture.",
"Granted, I heard this on The Dollop podcast so it might not be 900% accurate, but basically: Cars. Before cars were a thing, everyone just played in the street and stuff. As cars started gaining traction and traffic laws started becoming a thing, people started getting run over. Eventually there were too many cars and playgrounds were constructed to stop kids from getting run over because both kids in the street and people driving several tons of metal death are idiots.",
"Probably when the companies making slides and swings started selling them as a package. [Here's a few British brutalist playgrounds from when people were still experimenting]( URL_0 )",
"Hey sweet, I wrote a thesis paper relating to this question! The domain of play has seriously shrunk since the early 1900s. Kids used to have to create their own fun by playing in the streets, forests, empty lots, whatever they could find. When cars became a more popular, affordable form of transportation, play started to diminish because it was more dangerous for kids to be running around on the streets. Some early forms of playgrounds, which are still used in Europe but never gained popularity like adventure/\"junk\" playgrounds basically put a bunch of building supplies in front of kids and from there on children built their own play equipment. In North America, mass production and a growing trend in parenting styles where child safety became a top priority ensured the streamlining of equipment basically up to what you'd find in most playgrounds across America. Different organizations release reports on injuries every year, and different equipment is dropped when it's considered \"too dangerous\" for kids. What most parents aren't really aware of is the fact that playgrounds are meant to be a little bit dangerous, because they are designed for the development of skills like risk assessment and team building. If there are any parents reading this now-- let your kids on the playground as long as the surfacing (what's under the play equipment) isn't hard like concrete or a thin layer of sand. That's what really causes the injuries!",
"Not really ELI5 material, but here's my experience. I don't know anything about playground facility design, manufacturing or general council decision making process. But when I was about 10 the council sent flyers to the local schools for a competition to design a new playground. I won the competition and got to meet the mayor and various council people. I remember the massive gold chain he wore, but not much else. My entry contained a half pipe next to a small climbing wall to the top of a slide, at the bottom of a slide was a zip line to some monkey bars that dropped you onto a roundabout. It was supposed to be a sort of assault course. I remember being disappointed that the only thing they really used was the half pipe. And by this point I'd lost interest in Tony Hawk. URL_0 There was a roundabout, but that's gone now. I love roundabouts. And slides. I went on a brilliant slide in Thetford a few months ago. I knew I had to try as soon I saw it. [I didn't care if anyone judged me (nearly 30).]( URL_1 )",
"The first playground was in Manchester, England in 1859 but had hardly any equipment (reportedly two rotary swings). In 1887, the first US playground was built in San Francisco's Golden Gate Park. It had swings, slides and a carousel. Two decades later in 1906, the \"Playground Association of America\" was formed to promote municipal play areas for children, as a way to get kids away from playing in dirty, dangerous streets. That's as likely as any to be the point of \"standardisation\" for equipment. As time went on, safety became a greater concern, increasingly making playgrounds less \"scary.\" URL_0 For example, here is the kind of swings they had in England in the 1920s: URL_1",
"I was forged out the playground. A twenty foot steaming hot metal slide. A spinning metal disc of death. Fighting in the trenches of the sand box. All while the teachers smoked and watched on.",
"interesting to see how playgrounds have evolved from Monstrous Metallic Death Jungles of Spaceship/Pirate ship inspired climb-abouts to what they are today--Plastic Constructs resting on a foundation made of what i could imagine it would feel like to trample Gumby to death...oh and with more spiral things and Oversized Tic-Tac-Toe",
"Man, today's playgrounds suck. Rubber, padded ground. Tiny slides. Shorter swings... In the 80's we had sweet playground equipment. Wooden structures that stood up to two stories tall, with monkey bars, longer swings, zip lines, etc. and the ground was made of hard packed gravel. No shortage of scrapes, cuts, and goose eggs. Todays kids are pussies.",
"I was in an Egyptian Nun-Run French Catholic playgroup in the 1950's. We had all these things there, and 'Alouette, chantez-Alouette', while the rather nice, fierce, trim, little French girls did things on see-saws and swings. What an influence on 5-year-old male British minds! Pity we can't all still be friends? - But it was never to be. (And, the Yanks forced us out of Egypt - I was an overnight airlift refugee then). In defence of my never-consummated French friends, check 'Jeu de l'Oie'; can still be played on the ground, west of Paris centre.",
"This isn't a direct answer but it's supplemental information. I watched a show on PBS that told the history of America's greatest parks. Fredrick Law Olmsted is famous for designing Central Park in NYC as the lungs of the city, a giant preserve of wilderness for city dwellers. One huge park for the use of the whole city. But his sons were hired to design a new kind of park in Chicago - small places located within neighborhoods that would benefit local people, many of them immigrants. These were the first to feature playgrounds for children. It's really interesting that there are two vastly different concepts for parks that are equally as successful. While the father is the more famous, i think the work of the sons is more integral to American life. URL_0",
"Uhh and some parts of the link of the first comment says that there are 70yo playgrounds. Does anybody know them? Maybe in Europe?",
"Why is every score hidden in this thread?",
"To see some nice non-standard playgrounds in Germany, just do a google image search for \"[Abenteuerspielplatz]( URL_0 )\". Your inner child won't regret it...",
"Additional question: why do modern fancy playgrounds not always include swings, a slide, and a roundabout? We rejected dads need the basic kit to entertain.",
"Do see-saws still exist? I feel like I haven't seen one in years. Makes me wonder when I see the yellow street signs with an image of a see-saw to indicate a playground. Do kids today even know what that image is?",
"The fun yet injury prone wooden playgrounds built when I was kid are becoming a endangered species. Those castle type ones were fun to play hide and seek. Now playgrounds are much smaller, less fun, and have giant coverings to block out the sunlight. At least the swing-sets haven't changed.",
"I don't know the answer but relevant to the question is the \"reinvention\" of playground equipment that some Swedish company has undertaken recently. I live in Philadelphia and they must have some contract with this company because most of the playgrounds have this new equipment. This equipment has the same effect as the older equipment but looks wildly different. It's all actually amazingly cool.",
"This is still evolving, not really standard. Seesaws and merry-go-rounds have been declining in prevalence, in part due to the increased rate of injury on equipment with kid-reachable, moving parts. Metal equipment of the 80s including expansive jungle gyms were replaced with giant wood structures in the 90s, replaced with metal fiberglass structures in the 00s in response to falls and splinters. Slides too evolved. It looks like others have answered the history question already."
],
"score": [
3481,
2719,
179,
102,
100,
90,
82,
27,
11,
7,
7,
5,
5,
5,
4,
3,
3,
3,
3,
3,
3,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[
"http://www.aaastateofplay.com/history-of-playgrounds/"
],
[],
[
"http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Evolution_of_American_Playgrounds#Model_Playgrounds"
],
[],
[
"https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/gallery/2015/jun/09/britains-brutalist-playgrounds-in-pictures"
],
[],
[
"https://goo.gl/maps/cF4AEmjFm7s",
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SC_i6-9RqM4"
],
[
"http://www.aaastateofplay.com/history-of-playgrounds/",
"http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2321189/Is-worlds-playground-swing-Newly-discovered-photographs-children-fun-days-health-safety.html"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://interactive.wttw.com/ten/parks/chicagos-neighborhood-parks"
],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.google.de/search?q=abenteuerspielplatz"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5ph334 | Why are imaginary friends so common with kids? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dcr736p"
],
"text": [
"are they though? Only mentions about this i'v heard are from american movies/sitcoms. Is it only an american thing?"
],
"score": [
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.