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
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
7hdu26 | Do marketing companies intentionally make certain commercials annoying? What is the purpose of this? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dqq8y63",
"dqq9ijv",
"dqqbi6b"
],
"text": [
"Yes. Because it gets people talking about the brand. There is no such thing as bad press. They just want you to talk about it weather its a great add or shitty",
"Puppymonkeybaby. There's a thin line between clever and annoying. Like pulling off an awesome stunt and failing. Now there's YouTube. So even failed commercials get aired forever.",
"We're in a really unique age for ads. Ads are almost the red headed step child of multi-media. On demand has really cut out the legs of ads on TV. YouTube and social media has lowered the relevance of ads. Ad blockers are pervasive. And many ads can be opted out of after 5 to 15 seconds. So ad creators must capture your attention IMMEDIATELY. Also these 30 second spots have to exist as their own content. As the most successful ads must be shareable on their own. Rather then depend on a popular TV show or YouTube Creator, a good ad must be worth sharing on your timeline. Well, the issue is, you can't create good character development or even good story beats in 30 seconds. Also online media and social media skews younger then ad agencies have normally aimed for. As such, irreverent, self aware ads with quirky randomness is what the ad market has found as an equilibrium. It sort of matches with the popular comedy and humor of today. Movies like Guardians of the Galaxy or Deadpool are more sophisticated versions of this humor. Family Guy and South park are sort of the forefathers of this humor. And much of the viral comedy content online carries the same type. It's natural that this is what ads are morphed into. Oh and the Dos XX commercial and old spice commercial are simply the go-to template to copy in a very copy cat industry. Ads are only as creative as they need to be. It's all about *PROVEN* effectiveness, innovation is secondary."
],
"score": [
11,
6,
4
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
7hjnzc | Why is rape and the treatment of women such a huge problem in india/middle easter countries? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dqrh0tb"
],
"text": [
"Hinduism and Islam are both male-dominated religions, and while they are mostly getting better about it, they still see women as property to their husbands. When women are treated this way, it makes it easier for people to mistreat them."
],
"score": [
8
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
7hqg3h | What exactly is “American Exceptionalism?” | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dqsyl6e",
"dqt0bhz",
"dqszui1"
],
"text": [
"In its simplest form, American Exceptionalism refers to the idea that the United States is special in someway that makes it better than all the other countries in the world. Depending on the person, someone might have a different idea of what that means. Some people would say that because of our commitment to constantly trying to progress, we have a capacity for change that's different from other countries. Other people would say that in some way God has blessed our country specifically to lead the world. And a lot of people might reject the idea altogether and say we're pretty good, but not uniquely special.",
"It is the belief that the United States of America occupies a very unique (exceptional) position as a country, due to the historical circumstances of its creation and development in to a world power. And as a result of that, it can and should (if not must) take a leadership role in global affairs, because it can use that role in a way that no other country (existing now or in the future) could. It should not be confused with a simplistic idea that the US is \"the best country\" simply because of what it is or has achieved; it is more about the potential that it was born with. It can get kind of mystical as a sense of destiny as \"the chosen one.\" It's like if your high school class was choosing its class president, and there was this one kid who was popular, had top grades, athletic, etc. Even if he wasn't interested in being class prez, everyone knows that it has to be him, nobody else would be able to do as prez what he could. If he understands how exceptional he is, he will accept the role. Similarly, American Exceptionalism has the idea that the U.S. has to accept the role for the sake of the world.",
"Originally, the notion of \"American Exceptionalism\" derives from the fact that the United States was a nation born without hereditary nobility/monarchy - it was a nation purely of commoners. To 19th century thinkers, this utterly demolished the conventional lines of 'class' and the basis of most politics. It made the U.S. an exception to the normal rules of politics. In the modern day, the rest of the world has largely caught up with the U.S. What vestiges of the old noble order have largely been swept away - even the English monarchy is more like their own particular variant of the Kardashians than a legitimate 'class' exercising meaningful political sway. However, the U.S. still remains 'exceptional' in many ways - most notably in terms of religiosity and optimism. Even without explicit class divisions, people from the U.S. are far more likely to think of themselves as equals within society - or potential equals. They're far more likely to view their own future with optimism and far less likely to consider their 'place' in society than most developed nations. That being said, even as the rest of the developed world has drifted towards America, America has drifted towards the rest of the world. A good test is to ask an American if they believe in American exceptionalism. If they say yes, then they're probably part of the reason that America is exceptional. If they say no, then they're probably part of the reason that America isn't."
],
"score": [
28,
24,
4
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
7hx6f9 | If Dragons never existed, what brought about so much lore in so many different places across Eurasia? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dquh4ay",
"dquhcm0",
"dqulhlx"
],
"text": [
"When people found giant fossils of dinosaurs, their imaginations took hold and filled in all the missing pieces. That's about as simple an explanation as I can give.",
"We've always had a fear of scary monsters, and giant lizardy/snakey/salamandery/eely ones are easy to imagine would be really scary if they were supersized. A few fossil dino claws wouldn't hurt too, especially if shown to a peasant and accompanied by a thrilling story. So in a classic good versus evil tale (which more often than not had a companion man versus nature element), the hero defeating a giant lizardy/snakey/salamandery/eely creature kinda comes naturally and will grow organically out of regional folklore. And then all of those regional-cultural villains got translated over into the concept of the english word. Portuguese \"Giant sea leviathan!\" -- > English \"Ooh, dragon.\" Chinese \"Scaled flying snake with claws!\" -- > English \"Ooh, dragon.\" and so on.",
"Why do you click on click-bate? One of the absolutely most compelling things to us humans is a good story. Before the internet, before books, before television and radio, we all lived in pretty small towns where nothing overly dramatic ever happened. When a stranger was passing through that was a big deal. They might have weird stuff to sell (consider how exciting someone selling a wooden box with a hing would be in a town where the general store only sold stuff the owner's son could make. And as people like attention and to feel special, travelers would tell stories. Stories they had heard claiming them as their own, or just fables and legends. It gave you something to do once the sun went down. So it makes perfect sense that stories would spread and stories that resonated (for whatever reason that you care about dragon stories these people did too), would spread faster."
],
"score": [
20,
7,
4
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
7hze3q | Why are companies or groups regarded as singular objects in American english, but as plural objects everywhere else. | Example: America: Toyota is releasing its new car next year. Everywhere else: Toyota are releasing their new car next year. PS: I have a southern dialect. I hope that doesn't influence anything. | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dqux7gz",
"dquzmkn",
"dquwyj7"
],
"text": [
"Because both ways of saying make sense logically, these differences tend to emerge in societies that are geographically separated. Not much different than why an elevator is also called a lift: both are correct.",
"In Serbian we would say \"Toyota is releasing..\" but refering to Toyota as \"she\", because it sounds like a female, when we think about the whole company. Also, verbs' forms depend on gender of subject.",
"Those are called *collective nouns*. It is a result of our capacity for abstract thinking. A herd of cows is contains many things (lots of cows) but we may wish to distinguish between one group of cows and another, so it is practical to have such a label handy. If the group label (herd) itself was plural then that would be ambiguous between when we are talking about one group of cows verses many distinct groups of cows. With such linguistic tools at our disposal we can talk about a cow, many cows, a herd of cows, or many herds of cows."
],
"score": [
8,
4,
4
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
7i32b1 | why do so many game controllers use the button names ‘A, B, X, Y’? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dqvqm4m"
],
"text": [
"For the simplest reason of all; that's how the first 4-button game controller by Nintendo on the SNES was labelled, and other companies, trying to reach gamers used to Nintendo's consoles just adopted the convention on their systems as people were used to it."
],
"score": [
5
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
7i4ktz | is being used as “I’m to lazy to research into this. I just want an answer.” | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dqw2thn",
"dqw39g0"
],
"text": [
"It's because not everything on Google is either accurate or easy to understand. You could read a whole wall of text from wikipedia and not understand a single word that was written and with no way of asking for clarification. With interactive forums such as ELI5, people attempt to make it as simple as possible for the non laywer or English professor to understand and even then, the OP has the ability to ask the answerer to clarify certain points or simplify it. Lastly; > ELI5 means friendly, simplified and layman-accessible explanations - not responses aimed at literal five-year-olds.",
"for me a lot of the ELI5 is more like ELI50 with a college degree, you can usually find that on google"
],
"score": [
6,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
7i8564 | Why in English "T" and "D" sometimes sound like a Japanese/Spanish "R"? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dqwtprq",
"dqwsgvk",
"dqwugjp",
"dqwwext"
],
"text": [
"Written language often doesn't convey all the subtleties of the spoken language, and the letters are often used to represent different sounds in different languages. (For example, in Polish, \"c\" is used for a \"ts\" sound.) The sound you're talking about is called an [\"alveolar flap\"]( URL_0 ): the tip of your tongue quickly taps the ridge behind your upper teeth. In North American English \"T\" is usually pronounced as a flap when it occurs in the middle of a word. At the beginning or end of a word, or in British English, it's more of a full stop to the airflow than a brief flap. This same flapping motion is used for Spanish \"r\" (but not for Spanish \"rr\", which is a longer vibration called a trill). One of the most common ways Americans mispronounce Spanish is by using the English \"rhotic\" R. The Spanish word \"pero\" is pronounced closer to \"peh-doh\" than \"pay-roh\". Japanese also uses flaps, though I'm less familiar with the subtleties of pronounciation. To wrap up: languages often share sounds, but the alphabet can't describe all the subtleties, and it's used inconsistently between different languages.",
"Can you give some examples? As a native English speaker, I understand how T can sound like D when there's no glottal stop, but I can't think of a time they sound like Rs. Maybe I don't know what the Japanese R sounds like.",
"this occurs primarily in american and canadian english; less so in the various 'british' varieties. this is called [flapping]( URL_1 ). instead of pronouncing the 't' and 'd' fully, one would 'flap' it, producing a sound like 'r'. this 'r' is an alveolar flap and is quite common in the world's languages. it's a form of '[lenition]( URL_0 )', or making a sound 'weaker' in order to emphasize a more stressed part of a word. the reason is probably unsatisfactory, but it's just a feature of the dialect. it's one of many sound transformations that have happened historically between the dialects. note that it rarely happens outside of the US and canada. the alveolar flap also occurs in a similar form in scottish english (how they pronounce 'r' in words like 'world'). the closest reason to 'why do it' is in order to preserve the stress pattern of a sentence. most london dialects don't flap; instead, they use a glottal stop. (water, pretty, butter) this isn't limited to english. in some finnish dialects, a 'd' pronounced fast enough can sound like an untrilled 'r'. final 'd' in hindi/urdu can sometimes be pronounced as 'r'. danish sometimes does this with their 'd' (although the danish language and the letter 'd' have a very complicated relationship) this phenomenon has nothing to do with the spanish or japanese languages. fun fact: the word '[twenty/20]( URL_2 )' pronounced in american english causes a very odd sound where the 'nt' is. it's called an 'alveolar nasal flap' and is pretty close to unique to the english language.",
"Something to note is that this occurs whenever we have 'T' or 'D' between vowels and the first vowel is stressed. For example, 'wáter', 'bútter', 'ládder,' and not 'boutíque', 'voluntéer', 'grotésque'."
],
"score": [
29,
19,
14,
5
],
"text_urls": [
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flapping"
],
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenition",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flapping",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dental,_alveolar_and_postalveolar_flaps#Alveolar_nasal_flap"
],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
7i98ja | why is there an uproar about declaring Jurusalem as capital instead of Tel Aviv? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dqx1v97",
"dqx1xpl"
],
"text": [
"Both the Israelis and Palestinians claim the entire city as their own. At the moment it is divided and the implication of the announcement is that the US supports Israel claim to the entire thing. While trump explicitly stated it didn't mean this, it is how the world including his base views the implication",
"As I understand it, it basically means that we took a side in the Israel-Palestine debate, previously a big no-no in US foreign policy"
],
"score": [
5,
4
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
7ilmcc | Why do Christians celebrate Jesus' birthday along with many other Pagan traditions? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dqznk2m",
"dqznh0i"
],
"text": [
"The Medieval calendar had a very large number of feast days - close to 30. This were set around the cycle of the farm and the seasons. So, for example, around the time that lambs are born, you have a feast, because you have some mutton that died in childbirth and a few more lambs than you wanted to keep, so you have a meat surplus. When the Raspberries start to appear in large numbers, and the farmhands have been bringing it in, you have another feast day with raspberry pies, you make raspberry jam, and so on. The pagan holidays in any given area were timed around these appearances for the same reason. When nature gives you a food surplus, you preserve what you can, and feast. This has been the way since prehistoric times in northern climates. When Christianity spread, these same 'natural feasts' were still going to happen. Someone had to eat those dead sheep, you may as well cook a raspberry pie, and so on. So the church naturally took elements of the faith, like important figures and saints, and placed holidays commemorating them around those traditional feasts. Winter Solstice is by far the darkest of these feats, because it occurs after you've taken stock of what you have for the winter, and decide what you can spare, or if there's going to be hunger this winter. The Baby Jesus naturally symbolized that time best - hope in the darkness, whether it's the hope of salvation after starving to death, the hope of making it through the famine, or the good cheer of knowing you have enough food. In today's modern society with greenhouses and refrigerators and international food trade, these holidays make less sense, and most of the old medieval feasts have been forgotten. We've kept a few around as a means to connect with the community. Christmas is one of them. I think you're right to point out that it's not really a Christian holiday, it's a community holiday about hope and family. But I also see absolutely nothing wrong with a Christian seeing that through the lens of Christ.",
"It makes it a lot easier to get a massive amount of people to do something (convert to Christianity) when you don't ask them to change much of what they're doing ( by not making too many changes to their religious practices)."
],
"score": [
10,
5
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
7ilopc | Yayoi Kusama Dots and Nets | So I'm at the Forever Museum of Contemporary Art Museum Kyoto-Gion and it's showcasing Yayoi Kusama's Dots and Nets work All I can see are some intricately designed screen prints of pumpkins, butterflies, flowers and a really trippy piece called My Soul In A Boat Sure, I can see how the designs are difficult and the colours are pretty (as inspired by her mental illness) but I don't get the deeper meaning The exhibit says it's about perceiving the infinite-ness of things but all I can see are...polka dots of stuff Help me appreciate the art! | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dqzoboc"
],
"text": [
"Hi there! I study Fine Art in London so I think i might be able to help you here. Yayoi Kusama has schizophrenia and has self-admitted herself into an instution near her studio with round the clock care since the 70's. \"Schizophrenia\" here does not mean the medical term we all think about here. In an art context, the term \"schizophrenic or schizophrenia\" describes a bleeding of \"stuff\" across boundaries. We philosphically tend to compartmentalize our ideas and perceptions, for example, a sensual experience where you can touch and see and feel vs an intellectual though experiment. Art theorists like to use \"schizophrenic\" as a way to describe work that represents the breaking down of boundaries, specifically in the \"real\" and \"unreal\". Yayoi Kusama does just this by covering her installations with dots. She will have a room full of white washed walls and furniture, chairs and tables, all covered in rainbow dots. In this way, she effectively blurs the line between the chair and the floor and walls. They become the same thing and lose their initial \"meaning\" as a \"real\" object (i.e. the chair that is no longer a chair but a feature of the landscape she has created.) And so this relates back to her mental health because as she and many of the artists/academics of her time see it, her mental illness is a product of \"bleeding boundaries\" within her own mind. What is \"real\" (her actual lived objective experience) is indistinguishable from her subjective \"not real\" (schizophrenic) experience. This is the main thing you need to understand in order to appreciate her work from an intellectual standpoint: she's not talking about the typical, cliché \"suffering\" the layman might refer to when you mention mental illness; she's referring to the blurring of the lines between the real and imagined. What is also interesting to me is that despite all this, Kusama seems quite...happy. Which is a word art critics and enthusiasts tend to avoid because it's loaded with unintended meaning and seems, again, a cliché. Despite this, I'll continue to call Kusama happy, and this is a major reflection in her work. She is eccentric in her dressing style, is the most prolific and highest paid female artist of this past year and her work is nothing if not an intensely pleasurable visual experience. All this and she is ALSO coping with severe mental illness. Anything is possible, mental conditions or not. It's an extremely optimistic view but she is living proof that its possible. :)"
],
"score": [
8
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
7im829 | Why we still see laugh tracks in modern tv shows?/What the actual benefits of utilizing the laugh track are? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dqzskv6",
"dqzrep8"
],
"text": [
"Laugh tracks signal the audience that something is supposed to be funny. It's essentially a crutch to help prop up mediocre writing. [Exhibit A]( URL_0 )",
"The laugh track is usually used to the same affect as a film score, to help highlight a joke/sentence/physical gesture or set the mood. As to why we still hear it on today's tv shows. I think that producer's are afraid to stray too far out side the norm of what the viewers are used to hearing, in certain instances."
],
"score": [
15,
11
],
"text_urls": [
[
"https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=jKS3MGriZcs"
],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
7imues | Why is there so little religion in China? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dqzvn5s",
"dqzwkkg",
"dr02o2t",
"dr037hj",
"dr06u3j"
],
"text": [
"The other 75% isn't atheist, it's mostly [folk religion]( URL_0 )/[Taoist]( URL_1 ). The Chinese generally don't consider them to be religions, which is why they're often not included - but they're definitely religi*ous*.",
"During the reign of the CPP, Mao abolished religion including the destruction of precious religious artifacts and sites as to replace god worship with the worship of himself. Thus the cult of Mao was born. Even now, most people consider themselves atheist though they still hold onto many spiritual, superstitious quasi-religious beliefs. ie: many believe in Buddhism even though they themselves are not practicing Buddhists.",
"During the Cultural Revolution, Mao suppressed just about any organized system of thought that was not overtly communists. Scientists, doctors, artists, writers, and of course, ministers, were often killed or retrained and forced to work as farmers. It had less to do with any love of atheism, and more about tearing down any power structures that opposed him. Today, China's constitution guarantees freedom of religion, but religious organizations not endorsed by the state are illegal. China is particularly intolerant of any church that owes allegiance to a foreign power, e. g., Catholics and the Vatican.",
"Chinese here. Historically religion in China had always been subject to and used by the ruling power, instead of the other way. Therefore Chinese people don't really have the same attachment to Abrahamic monotheism typical to the west. Our myths and legends typically feature people overcoming nature or even gods, instead of being subject to or helped by divine powers. Nowadays people will identify as atheist because they don't really follow any organized religion, but at the same time people will follow various traditional practices likely religious in origin, perhaps not even seeing them as religion but only as part of the heritage and culture. It's common for homes and businesses have little shrines to buddhism or traditional folk deities or ancestors. It's complicated, variable, and difficult to identify as any single label, so if any survey attempts to categorize people according to major organized religions (or the government's branches of recognized religions), while assuming people who don't follow them are atheists, atheism will be over-represented. CCP membership does require atheism, but they also tolerate and regulate practices of religion, with limits that I personally view as taking the privilege away from religion like it should be in a modern secular society, but will be viewed by the religious used to the privileged status as persecution. Public preaching is banned (not perfectly enforced) and children are banned from religious venues (again not perfectly enforced or even enforceable). Cults are put down hard especially when they harm people and/or organize to threat the government. I think Christianity is clamped down alot because it arrived relatively late and is associated with a period of extensive foreign meddling in China. In contrast Islam in China dates back to the silk road times, Buddhism is largely sinicized, and Taoism is native.",
"When the CCP took power, they were militantly atheist. They destroyed a lot of religious establishments, severely restricted religious practice, and encouraged everyone to be atheist. While some people obviously maintained their religious beliefs and traditions, many did not. Also, religiosity is expressed very differently in Taoism and Buddhism than it is in Abrahamic religions. You will obviously find many devout Buddhists (especially Tibetan Buddhist monks) and many people who are very dedicated Taoists, but religious beliefs tend to be fairly flexible, syncretic, mixed in with folk beliefs/traditions, and generally more about cultural practices than being a believer in any real doctrine. Then you have the fact that even though since the 1970s the CCP has loosened up a great deal on religion, proselytizing is still strictly prohibited (and any that exists is very, very under the radar), only a select few strains of religions are approved by the government, and religious activities are closely monitored. This is one reason why there's a lot of unrest in Xinjiang, where much of the population is Muslim (and not Han Chinese), and do not like that the Chinese government restricts religious education, tries to discourage women from wearing hijabs, tries to prevent people from observing Ramadan, makes it really, really hard to open and run mosques, and places a lot of religious leaders under surveillance. TLDR: Religious practices/beliefs were always different from how the West conceives of religious practices/beliefs, and since 1949, there's been a concerted effort by the government to eliminate/discourage religious belief and practice. Source: studied Chinese history, lived in China for a while after college."
],
"score": [
101,
15,
14,
12,
6
],
"text_urls": [
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_folk_religion#Mainland_China_and_Taiwan",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taoism#Adherents"
],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
7in4p5 | Why it becomes easier to learn new languages if you know more than one language? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dqzx9pq"
],
"text": [
"Two reasons: First, you have a bigger vocabulary to start with. Since lots of the world's languages are related to each other one way or another, it becomes easier to find words you already know that sound similar to a new word you're learning and have a similar meaning, which makes it easier to remember. Second, by learning a second or later language, you get used to setting aside some of the ideas you have about how language works that are really ideas about how *your* language works (for example, many English speakers get very confused by French at first because adjectives come *after* the noun in French but almost always *before* it in English; once they've got used to this it's much easier if they later learn Spanish. For another example, Sanskrit has forms for words when there's *two* of something that are distinct from the forms for one and for several; learn that and it's less of a surprise when you find it in Arabic, and it might also be less of a surprise when you find out that Mandarin doesn't include any information about number in its word-forms). That makes it easier to get a handle on new languages that work differently, because you've got less to un-learn."
],
"score": [
13
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
7iolyv | Why do so many living rooms not come with overhead lights? Instead you have to have many (floor) lamps around the room and have to turn all of those on rather than just flicking a switch. | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dr0cuk5",
"dr0epcn",
"dr0883g",
"dr0ex46",
"dr0dlya",
"dr0fslc",
"dr0g3fz"
],
"text": [
"> Why do so many living rooms not come with overhead lights? Instead you have to have many (floor) lamps around the room and have to turn all of those on rather than just flicking a switch. First there is a misconception that you can't turn on floor lamps just by flipping a switch on the wall. There is a handy invention called a \"switched outlet\" which will send power to an outlet or socket based on a wall switch. So you can easily control room lighting despite not having it installed into the ceiling. So why do many living rooms not have overhead lights? It makes the room more flexible if the lighting is not in a fixed location. This setup is also desirable in apartments or hotel rooms because it means damage to the lighting can easily be repaired simply by unplugging a lamp and replacing it. Such a repair can be done by untrained personnel while damage to a permanent fixture would require employing an electrician for a much higher cost.",
"Are you US based? In the UK I don't think I've ever seen a living room without an over head light",
"It's a cost-cutting measure (Edit: except in Texas, where apparently apartment developers just suck at designing homes), plus they don't know where you want to arrange the furniture. More expensive homes usually have them.",
"My living room has an overhead light. My wife hates it and refuses to let it be turned on. She likes having floor lamps around the room, go figure.",
"I've never seen any newer house without it. Hotels and other rentals for sure though, because the goal isn't to provide the most comfort, it is to provide the most profit.",
"Reporting from Turkey. Every house I have ever been (both old as 1970's and brand new buildings) had ceiling lamps in every room. Big living rooms even have two separate outlets on the ceiling so you get an even amount of light every corner of the room. I think ceiling lamps are much better, you get more space on the floor for furnitures.",
"I moved from the south to the Midwest and I am so confused about this. In the south we always had an overhead light or two in each room, but here in the Midwest no one does. It drives me crazy going to my in laws because it's so dark."
],
"score": [
72,
18,
9,
6,
6,
4,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
7iox9z | Why is smoking so common amongst the Asian population at my college? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dr0c23z",
"dr0ay1d"
],
"text": [
"Smoking is socially acceptable in Asia (for men, not women). For example, around 70% of Chinese men are smokers. Furthermore, cigarettes are cheap. Cigarette companies bank on volume, and rising prices are usually a result of government pressure as a disincentive to smoking.",
"Impossible to know without more details, but if you have a lot of international students then it is possible you are seeing the effects of much higher rates of smoking in many east asian countries, like China."
],
"score": [
10,
8
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
7ixrm0 | Why did New York City experience a huge dramatic drop in crime rate in recent decades, while other cities like St. Louis, Gary, New Orleans have stubbornly high crime rates? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dr27x7s",
"dr2jc07"
],
"text": [
"Most cities have experienced a huge dramatic drop in crime rates in recent decades. Only a few have not dropped **as much** as others. The cause is unknown - it can't be policing, because the crime rate is dropping all over the world, even in places that don't police like we do. There's a suggestion that it might be the removal of leaded gasoline and paint - apparently even small lead exposure in childhood generates adults who will likely commit a crime. As for why a few have not dropped *as much* - probably cultural or poverty related.",
"The biggest factor is because New York was able to maintain a stable economy and provide a lot of jobs. Those other cities have had shrinking economies, those who were able left, leaving a disproportionate amount of poor unskilled workers because. This shrank the tax base, making it more difficult for those cities to provide police and other government services. Also, New Orleans was hit by a massive hurricane and a botched relief effort, accelerating the exodus of skilled, middle-class workers."
],
"score": [
10,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
7iyvs7 | Why don’t we eat turkey eggs? I mean chicken coops produce quite a few eggs. I imagine that turkey farms would also create thousands of eggs that could be sold. | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dr2fbc7",
"dr2f9bf",
"dr2gd8g",
"dr2frms"
],
"text": [
"Economics. The only turkeys that are kept long enough to lay are producing hatching eggs for meat birds. Turkey hatching eggs are worth a couple bucks a piece so a dozen of them would cost $25.",
"Turkeys are more expensive to raise than chickens, and lay fewer eggs. This would mean their eggs would have to be much more expensive than chicken eggs, and consumers would be unlikely to buy them.",
"The type of turkey we raise for meat is also very hard to keep alive for more than a year as they get so large that their hearts cannot support them and their joints break down. The heritage type turkeys that can live a long time only lay for a short period of the year.",
"They lay fewer eggs in a clutch and lay them less often. With the demand that we have for turkey meat this means that these lower egg yields have to be prioritized for fertilized eggs. But you can find turkey eggs in some specialty markets, and farmers markets. If you live near a farm that raises them you can often go and get the eggs there too. A lot of eggs are available in specialty markets: Quail, Duck, Goose, Turkey. Even Emu and Ostrich can be obtained in some regions (though the end of the Ostrich meat fad in the late 90s has reduced availability)."
],
"score": [
8,
7,
3,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
7j0y1u | Why did people start to live in monogamous relationships? | Is there any advantage over polygamy? Some cultures prefer polygamy over monogamy. | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dr2ucin",
"dr2ufk4"
],
"text": [
"Human babies/children take a long time to develop before they reach maturity and thus monogamy is seen as a natural evolution. Both parents need to invest significant resources to bring a child to a point of independence and that kind of investment is best aligned with long-term bonding. This is also rooted quite deeply in our species. We are among the few species where both sexes have sexual dimorphism (e.g. larger bodies in males, enlarged breasts in females also outside the period of child birth). Species with sexual dimorphism in both sexes tend to have greater parity and monogamy.",
"Humans have live in predominately monogamous or serial monogamous relationships for all of recorded history, and likely for as long as we have been human. The evolutionary benefit to monogamy is that you have a dedicated pair bonded mated couple that will provide for, and protect their offspring for around a decade and a half (relative physical maturity and point of \"adulthood\" biologically speaking). A male is more likely to stay and provide/protect a child if they know or believe that it is their offspring, so humans developed monogamy as a way to encourage that behavior. Now there are some cultures that do practice polygamy, but there are very few that preferred it. Polygamy was a status symbol of the wealthy or powerful in most societies that had it and so evolved from our complex social structures meeting \"needs\" different from the monogamous mating trends that evolved for raising offspring."
],
"score": [
18,
8
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
7j2wbn | Why do Attorneys and Real Estate agents so frequently use their face in advertising? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dr3744w",
"dr3f349"
],
"text": [
"Because they are trust based businesses. You need to trust your lawyer and your real estate agent, because there are plenty out there who are either incompetent or will try to swindle you. The hope is that by attaching their face to their business they show their dedication to being held responsible for their business practices.",
"Lawyer here. It's partly because it is possible to \"look competent.\" Sounds stupid, I know, but normal clients, as opposed to commercial or especially savvy clients, don't know how to judge you on your record or your qualifications, but human nature is to draw conclusions about someone based on their looks. Also, we advertise with faces because non-business clients have expectations and desires about \"personal service.\" They don't want some marble and gold edifice staring at them, or to be treated like a customer at a bank. They want to have a direct relationship with their lawyer. They want to call you by your first name and have you remember them by face. If they associate you with your face, rather than with your name or your firm's name, it helps them believe that's the experience they'll get."
],
"score": [
23,
9
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
7j5118 | How do we know when to use "a" vs "an" before an acronym? | For example, if the acronym was "RPG," we would say "an RPG." If the acronym was "KLS," we would say "a KLS." What's the rule? How do we know? It just sounds correct and that's all I got. | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dr3o12j",
"dr3ojyg"
],
"text": [
"If it starts with a vowel sound, you use an. While RPG doesn't have a vowel as the first letter, it is a vowel sound (ar-pee-jee). An example of the opposite is USB. Its pronounced with a consonant at the start (yoo-ess-bee), so its a USB, not an USB.",
"> What's the rule? As others have pointed out, it's about how you *pronounce* it, not about how you *spell* it. > How do we know? It just sounds correct That's basically it: it sounds correct. You \"know\" how to apply all the complicated grammar and pronunciation rules of your own native language almost instinctively, even if you can't say what the rules are. You learned these rules not by having somebody painstakingly explain them to you, but by listening to people talking around you when you were an infant and analyzing their speech automatically, without even consciously realizing it."
],
"score": [
25,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
7jajs1 | Why are some songs called Bonus Tracks, when they appear on every album release anyway? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dr4t5wt",
"dr4sxuo",
"dr50gfb"
],
"text": [
"There was usually an earlier release of the album that did not contain the song. That's the case with 60s & 70s rock. The LP vinyl record was limited to only 45-50 minutes. But CDs could hold 75-80 minutes. So re-releases often contain extra tracks (non-album singles from the same time period, B-sides, etc). But CDs have been around for 30+ years now so these 'bonus tracks' have been standard for decades.",
"Perhaps because the artist liked the song, but it doesn't really fit in the narrative of the album, so they put it at the end and say it's a bonus track.",
"Typically, they don't appear on every album release. Even for new releases, sometimes bands release a different version for different countries or even different stores (e.g., some of Taylor Swift's albums have additional tracks if you buy it at Target)"
],
"score": [
10,
7,
5
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
7jbdyj | What keeps successive Congresses from overturning previous laws and potentially creating policy uncertainty? | Let's say Congress passes a controversial law. Are there any mechanisms that keep the next Congress from overturning it? Couldn't this create uncertainty when it comes to policy? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dr501yl",
"dr50ig8",
"dr62ohu"
],
"text": [
"Nothing, that's how it's supposed to work. You can make your law a Constitutional Amendment, to make it harder to overturn. This was done with the Prohibition of alcohol. That turned out to be super stupid, so that's not going to happen again.",
"We have a perfect example of this in the form of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) which is very often dismissively called \"Obamacare\" as if Barack Obama devised it as a monument to his own ego, rather than as an effort to improve health care in America. It is immensely controversial and the Republican Party has been trying to get rid of it for years. Furthermore it was actually a campaign promise by Donald Trump that he would immediately get rid of it. So now, with Trump in office for almost a year, and a Republican majority Congress, the ADA has still not been repealed, despite several attempts. That is not because it is a political impossibility to repeal it, not at all. All you would have to do is to compose a better alternative with which to replace it. What if you just repealed it with no replacement, returning America to the largely unregulated health care system that existed prior to the ACA? Then you have a politically explosive situation. Then you will have millions of voters who will be very angry at the Republican Party for taking away their health coverage. So as it turns out, the Republican Party has failed to come up with any better alternative to the ACA and therefore, they have simply left the legislation as it is. They don't know what else to do. Things often work out that way, when it comes to controversial legislation. When Income Tax was first introduced, that too was controversial. However the government needs the money, and that was simply the best method of raising it that they could devise. There are people who still dislike the Civil Rights Act that was passed a long time ago under the Lyndon Johnson administration, but if you actually tried to repeal it you would have mass rioting in the streets. It is now a sacrosanct part of American politics. This is not to say that nothing ever gets reversed. Obama chose to normalize relations with Cuba, but Trump moved immediately to put a stop to that. Most Americans don't really care that much whether America has normal relations with Cuba or not, so it is not a hot-button item. Too bad for Cuba. They may be stuck in the Cold War forever, like it or not.",
"Nothing. And everything. In practice it’s a lot more difficult than simply overturning a law. Most laws take years and years to actually go from a bill to a law (necessary schoolhouse rock reference). And through many changes, amendments, and tacking on other bills, usually the finished bill looks nothing like the original bill. Keep in mind - you need both the House and the Senate to pass a majority vote to overturn a law. Two things to consider is that incumbents almost always win - if a representative goes up for re-election, most likely outside of some scandal they will win. Secondly, the senate only has 1/3 of their members up for re-election every 2 years. So the population actually voting doesn’t change too much year-to-year. Then there are tactics to kill a bill, such as giving it to a subcommittee ran by someone who doesn’t want to see it succeed, filibuster, and quorum busting (not having enough members present to vote). What does this mean? Congress doesn’t really change that drastically. So no - there is nothing ‘extra’ preventing a Congress from overturning all the laws the previous Congress enacted, but the regular methods of getting something through Congress takes so damn long with so much opposition that it’s usually not a problem."
],
"score": [
23,
13,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
7jbgrh | how do marching bands stay in sync with each other? What do they use as a reference to stay in sync? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dr50ag8",
"dr5eqvg",
"dr59fnr",
"dr50jb9"
],
"text": [
"They use the music to stay in sync. Each person knows what they are supposed to do with each note of the music, it's written on the music they are playing. Up in front they have a conductor, like any musical scheme, to set the tempo.",
"Music and the director guy just like a symphony. And lots of practice. But basically its the drum line.",
"Marching bands use the Drum Majors to stay in sync. These are people that stand at the side lines (often on mobile pedestals/podiums) and conduct. The patterns and signals that they give show the beats of the measure and instructs the different groups what to do. Even with Military Style marching bands what do not face the sideline to play and instead have the Drum major marching on the field uses a large staff called a Mace that is moved in specific patterns to conduct the band.",
"I can speak of how my sons award winning high school band does it, which I assume is probably how most do. Each instrument is broken into a section and has a section leader. So sections move together for the most part. As they practice their formations each band member has to find their \"dot\" which is basically \"when we are in this formation I stand HERE\" and they have what they call dot books to track where they should be at any given time (each member does their own book unique to them). At the high school level they do one main show per season so they learn most of it over summer and then make minor adjustments as the season goes on. As far as marching they learn specific foot movements to March exactly the same way forwards, backwards and sideways. They even learn how to fall so if they trip they can get out of the way and not take down other marchers. Someone else can probably provide a better answer. I was an orchestra kid but have really enjoyed learning about marching band and watching band competitions this year! My son is a freshman :)"
],
"score": [
6,
3,
3,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
7jcl7r | Where does "The Floor is Lava!" come from, and how did everyone invent it as a kid? | Idk about you guys, but I definitely played the game "The Floor is Lava" as a wee kid. Not only that, but being that young, I'm pretty sure I invented the game myself. The weird part is, there are a lot of people I know who played the same game, and invented it themselves as well. How the heck does a game like that get independently mass-invented? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dr59xs0",
"dr5dgyl",
"dr5o9kj",
"dr5s53q"
],
"text": [
"You didn't invent it yourself. :-) Most kids get it from other kids and it's passed down in grade school. A younger kid might see their older sibling playing it or an only child will see their friends or neighbors their age playing a similar game. \"Don't step on a crack or you'll break your mother's back!\" is very similar. Since lava is cool (hot molten rocks!) to well...most sane people but especially little kids, pretending your floor is something neat rather than the boring carpet your parents are thinking of replacing is just fun.",
"It was invented by people in Pompeii, actually, in 79 AD. And then just passed down ever since. You didn't invent the game, someone told you about it as a child and since it was so long ago, you don't recall the details of learning about the story.",
"Jumping from one thing to another without touching the ground is a common game even if you don't pretend the floor is lava. Then it's a small step to inventing a game where you aren't allowed to touch the floor. Then you think, \"What would make me not want to touch the floor?\" Of the things that might come to a child's mind, I would think fire would be the most obvious, but flames can reach high, so lava is a better pick. The only other reasonable possibility to a child might be quicksand - a variation I remember playing on my waterbed - which lets your friends \"rescue\" you.",
"When I was a wee lassie, my brothers and I played \"the floor is acid. My elementary school friend played \"the floor is quicksand.\" I don't remember how each one came about, but if I had to guess, we probably just picked whatever deadly surface we'd most recently seen in a cartoon."
],
"score": [
24,
14,
7,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
7jdq35 | What makes jazz music sound 'jazzy'? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dr5jwtr",
"dr5klxh",
"dr5j4i7",
"dr5ttjj"
],
"text": [
"Interesting question! There are a few different answers to this. The most obvious is instrumentation. Most rock music uses electric guitars and bass guitars, often with some kind of distortion or other effect on the sound. In general, jazz will use acoustic piano, upright bass, and clean guitars (more modern groups may use synthesizers and electric instruments, but they aren’t typically associated with the classic jazz sound). Additionally, a jazz drummer may use a metal brush on the snare drum instead of a stick, producing a very distinct sound. Another thing is harmony. With some exceptions, most chords in rock and pop music consist of two, three, or four unique notes. In jazz, it’s almost rare to play a chord with less than five. This gives jazz a more “complex” sound than many other forms of music. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, is the swing rhythm. In most rock and pop music, you will have four beats in a measure. You can pretty easily count “one, two, three, four.” Because they divide the measure into four parts, we call each beat a quarter note. Now try saying “and” between each beat, dividing each quarter note into two parts, like “one and two and three and four and.” Because we’re dividing each quarter note into two parts, these are called eighth notes. Most likely, if you’re counting along to a rock song, the time between each eighth note is the same. However, jazz will often give these divisions unequal lengths, resulting in a kinda bouncy feel called “swing.” This isn’t unique to jazz, and not all jazz music uses it, but it’s certainly associated with the jazz genre. Hope that helps!",
"In addition to the comments so far about extended structure of chords, syncopation and improvisation, there are a few more things in the example you link that are worth noting. One of my favorites is the use of the 2-5 (ii-V) turn around to transition between key areas or to reinforce the current one. That's a chord built one note up from where you're resolving followed by a chord built on the note 4 higher than where you're resolving. Check out the beginning of [this piece]( URL_0 ). The looping pattern at the beginning is (assuming they're using the standard key for this song) A minor (1), B half diminished (2) E7 (5). The B and E chords are the 2 and 5 reinforcing the 1, A minor. Once the vocal comes in, they do it twice more, but after the next A minor the chords are D minor to G7, which are the 2 and 5 of a C major, which is where it lands next and you can feel that a change has happened. In your example, you'll hear a transition like that at 0:35.",
"Often jazz musicians add extended harmonies to chords, such as 7ths, 9ths, and 13ths. Basic chords are comprised of a root note, a third that makes it major or minor, and the perfect fifth. If you add other notes, they keep their basic sound but have a destiny flavor. Example: C minor is C, Eb, G. C minor 7 is C, Eb, G and Bb. The Bb adds a jazzy, warm sound.",
"One thing that hasn't been touched on is the use of non-resolving tritones, which is one of the core building blocks of jazz chords. What does that mean? Well we'll have to go with a quick trip down some theory for that. A Tritone, aka the devil's interval, is 6 half steps. C-F#, G-C#, Db-G, etc. Sometimes it'll act as a diminished 5th, sometimes an augmented 4th. Tritones are super unstable sounding, and we generally \"want\" them to resolve. So diminished 5ths collapse inwards, aug 4ths expand outwards, whatever it takes to get to a \"stable\" interval like a Major 3rd or 6th The most common uses of tritones are in V7 chords. If we're in C major, the V7 chord is G-B-D-F. The tritone is between B and F. V7 will sound *great* going to a I chord. The B would move up to a C, the F down to an E, and the unstable tritone collapses satisfyingly to a third. This is super, super, super common. You can also do fun things with tritones like making a key change feel more natural, or doing things called \"secondary dominants\", where, say, if you're in C major again, you can add a Bb to a C major chord, which is a tritone with the E in the chord. Then you move to an F major chord, collapsing the E-Bb tritone to an F-A major third. You've basically turned the C chord into a V7 chord *of* the IV chord of F. So what jazz is built on is basically having tritones collapsing to... tritones. Take the first part of 12-bar blues I-I-IV-I. Let's add some key to it C7-C7-F7-C7. Ok, so We have the C7, except when we move to F, instead of moving the E up to the F, we bring it down to an Eb. So now we have the E-Bb tritone not-collapse into an Eb-A tritone. It then goes just right back up to the E-Bb to get back to the I. This basically gives us a sound where we always feel a unstable and like we want to resolve the tritone, but we just keep going to the next tritone. There's a lot more to jazz theory(since there are more chords than Dom7s!), but like, the most basic of basic building blocks is the idea of these connected unstable tritones that never really stable up. Then of course, syncopation which other people have talked about, different timbres, that sort of thing."
],
"score": [
29,
7,
5,
4
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LfibwW-bQos"
],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
7je4jl | Why did Spanish become so widespread in Spanish colonies, while French turned into various creoles languages? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dr5nc3a",
"dr5nrlc"
],
"text": [
"The French colonies in the Americas did not tend to become independent. Instead they were transferred to the control of other powers (Texas holdings went to Mexico, Louisiana went to the US, Quebec went to the British, etc). These powers sent their own colonials in and the languages blended (which is what a creole language is)",
"The French were all about trading, especially throughout the Caribbean. The Spanish, unified under the Catholic banner, were much more cohesive - everything was done in the name of the king and the church and reported back to Spain, plus they were there specifically for conquest and plunder and to subjugate. The French were more or less integrating with the local populations who could help them make money, and were heavily involved with trading while the Spanish had other plans."
],
"score": [
7,
5
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
7jj5dy | The Alabama Senate Election | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dr6q87g",
"dr6qdz1"
],
"text": [
"Alabama has been a deeply red state (republican) for the last 25 years, and it showed no sign of changing. So by all accounts, it looked like the election between Roy Moore(R) and Doug Jones(D) was all but a formality. Until the news broke that Roy Moore had a unhealthy fascination with girls on the younger side. (Think 14-18) and was at one point banned from a local mall, that had warned the local security to keep Moore away from the cheerleaders. Since this happened during the height of the #MeToo movement, it got tons of attention in the media. and Doug Jones started surging in the polls. In the end, it was close election, but Doug Jones (D) managed to squeeze out a win, in a state, that he has really no business winning, had any other republican candidate faced him he wouldn't have had a chance.",
"Jeff Sessions was a Senator representing Alabama. Mr. Sessions was appointed as Attorney General, so a special election was held to elect someone to replace him as Senator. Normally Senators hold office for six years, but since a Senator needed to be chosen outside of the normal schedule, a \"special\" election was held."
],
"score": [
5,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
7jqytr | Why does some countries require your passport to be valid for 6 months after your return? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dr8i70i",
"dr8i9ro"
],
"text": [
"In case you get stuck there for some reason. You could be injured and stuck in an hospital. Or you could miss your flight and not be able to afford another ticket.",
"Because they don't have agreements with your country of origin to waive that requirement. It's fairly standard to require 6 months left on your passport, but some countries do a lot of travel with one another and have a good enough relationship with your country that they are confident your country is taking care of their passport shit (security and validation, etc) and have the local resources (embassies and such) to resolve the odd situation where your passport expire inside their borders. Even when the 6 month rule is waived its usually replaced with a requirement to be valid for the duration of your planned stay so there's no reason a passport would expire on a standard trip."
],
"score": [
20,
9
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
7k15vg | How did man discover smoking things like tobacco and marijuana? What made those plants special to give them the idea? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"drapy4x",
"drapq4t"
],
"text": [
"They probably just started out by throwing random things in the fire as fuel or to create smoke (which is great for keeping bugs away). One day someone threw on the leaves of one particular plant and it was **awesome** so they did it again.",
"To the best of our knowledge, it was trial and error. Many people tried poisonous substances, and eventually people realized certain things were unsafe, and they realized certain substances brought forth different reactions."
],
"score": [
8,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
7k1hl8 | As a non-american person, why is the Confederate Flag associated with Nazis and racism? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"drasjfc",
"dratoy1",
"drate39",
"drau8dp",
"dratm9x"
],
"text": [
"THE confederate flag was a symbol of the south(who fought and supported racism/slavery) in the civil war and beyond, many people see the confederate flag and associate it with slavery, much as when people see a swastika they associate is with hitler.",
"The Confederacy started and existed for one purpose: To keep black people enslaved in the South, because the Southern states had built their entire economies on slavery. Plantation owners didn't want to pay for labor, and poor whites took comfort in looking down on slaves even though slavery was why they were so poor (no jobs, and impossible to compete as small farmers). There's a saying that \"We hate who we wrong,\" which describes how people make excuses for the harm they do to others by lying about them as bad or inferior people who deserve it. The South did that to black people: Its entire society was built on murder, torture, and terror against its slaves, and to live with themselves, Southerners created a belief system where blacks deserved what they got. After the Civil War destroyed the Confederacy, disorganized groups of guerrilla terrorists who ended up becoming the Ku Klux Klan continued to murder and torture black people, and considered themselves to be defenders of the Confederate vision. A different white supremacist vision came about in Europe in the form of Nazism, although the Nazi obsession was against Jews rather than blacks, though it considered both inferior. Today, the Confederacy and the Third Reich both have fans among racists, and the distinction is usually which minorities they hate most, and which culture they admire most (Confederates/KKK also consider themselves a Protestant religious movement, while Nazis are largely secular).",
"Some Southerners claim that the Confederate flag is about \"Southern pride\" or \"Southern heritage,\" but such claims are just a smokescreen, in my opinion. The Confederate flag is a symbol of Southern pride in the Southern heritage of racism and slavery, and the proud Southern tradition of treason to fight for racism and slavery.",
"The South succeeded because the tides were turning against the practice of slavery, and they felt the only way to preserve the institution of slavery was to break away from the federal government. While some people try to negate that point by claiming succession was a \"state's rights issue\", the truth is that it was really about a state's right to continue the practice of slavery. Following the war, Southern society faced major changes. Free black people was seen by many whites as a threat to their way of life. In response to that threat, there was a movement to limit the ability of free black people to succeed. There was a big push to suppress African Americans both legally and culturally. Nevertheless, African Americans in the South eventually increased their influence politically and economically. Many white people saw that growth as a moral problem. In response, many blamed the federal government. In response to what was perceived as a failure with the federal government, southern white power groups formed. Groups like the KKK were natural evolutions of ideologies that both hated the \"liberal\" federal government and the threat of the black community. For many hate groups like the KKK, hate of the government and hate of blacks was intrinsically linked. The Confederacy in many ways embodied those two issues, so hate groups started to incorporate confederate imagery into their identity. Confederate symbols represented both disdain for the federal government and a call to a time when whites were superior to blacks. Interestingly, the Confederate Flag (at least the one we see today) wasn't really as \"iconic\" as it is today until 1948. The flag itself was actually one of many flags, serving as the battle flag for the military. Dixiecrats (a political group in the South) embraced the Confederate battle flag, and it quickly became the most identifiable symbol of the movement. The confederate battle flag essentially had a rebirth as a symbol for hate. During the 20th century, many groups like the KKK eventually embraced Naziism. Nazis supported white nationalism and a strong, white-focused government, so it naturally blended with groups like the KKK. Because so many white supremacists (who proudly waved the Confederate Flag as a sign of their political identity) also identified as Nazis, the confederate flag became a symbol associated with the neo-nazi movement.",
"During the US Civil War, the Confederacy fought for, among other things, continued slavery. Showing allegiance is an implicit endorsement of race-based slavery. After the Civil War, what is now known as the Confederate Flag, the \"stars and bars\", was adopted by racist organizations, particularly the Ku Klux Klan. In many ways, the flag is more closely associated with the Klan, who has been using it for over a century, than the Confederacy, which had several different flags over the course of the war. The flag has also been used to signal for covert racism. If a bar in the South is flying the stars and bars, you can be pretty sure minorities will not be welcomed. If called on it, they have the plausible deniability to claim it is merely about their heritage, and they are totally not racist."
],
"score": [
54,
48,
18,
10,
5
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
7k2hbi | What is the ideology of the political party 'Britian First' and how are they seen socially in england? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"drb25vu",
"drb1ywu",
"drb5pq4"
],
"text": [
"To be clear: they're **not** a political party. They don't stand for elections or anything like that. They're a group, but not a political party. I'll add one more thing: it is a centralised *group* rather than a *movement*. They're sort of like the \"MAGA\" rhetoric but for the UK. Except they don't have any political clout, support, tact or ambitions. They also don't have any veneer of respectability (no matter how thin) around them. They don't have mainstream support, but I've seen my cousin sharing shit they've posted on Facebook (probably not knowing anything about the group). To the best of my knowledge they're mostly a social media group. A Facebook page that posts things about how they want Britain to be back British and to get rid of the Muslims. They post a lot of bullshit (see the threads about where Trump retweeted them), including mislabelling things like a crowd cheering a cricket game as a crowd rejoicing at the Paris terror attacks. Oh, and when a guy killed an MP in the run-up top brexit he shouted \"Britain first\" as he did it. He shot her three times and stabbed her multiple times. He also stabbed a 70-something year old man at the same time. That didn't endear them to the public.",
"They're racist, xenophobic nationalists. They're seen as the lowest of the low by most people who have heard of them. The vast majority of people who show up to their rallies are there to protest against them. To be honest, most people have probably never heard of them. They're barely an active political party.",
"Most people regard them as a group of knuckle dragging thugs who want to blame everything on anyone who looks a bit foreign."
],
"score": [
9,
7,
4
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
7k5pvc | why do different countries drive on different sides of the road? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"drcaol1",
"drbsetr"
],
"text": [
"In North America, the task of keeping out of the ditch or swamp was more important early on than the task of avoiding other vehicles. The definitive reference work on this subject is Peter Kincaid's 1986 book *The Rule of the Road: An International Guide to History and Practice.* Writes Kincaid: \"In summary, different types of transport, all used by right-handed people, tended to produce different rules of the road. Armed walkers and armed horsemen tended to keep left to leave their swordarms free. Horse riders kept left in any case because they mounted from the left and stayed near the edge where it was easier and safer to mount and dismount than in the middle of the road. People leading horses with their right hands tended to keep right because the led horse was then protected from passing traffic. Carters tended to keep right because they walked on the left side of their horses, leading with the right hand, and by keeping right could walk in the middle of the road...to avoid collisions. Postilion riders tended to keep right because they sat on the left-rear horse and thus could better judge clearances....Drivers who sat on the vehicle kept left because they sat on the right to keep their whip hands free and could judge clearances better when passing if they kept left.\" Kincaid describes other contributing factors such as conformance with neighbors (undoubtedly the reason for Canada), influence of colonization, national unity, imported vehicles, etc. Although we tend to think of a keep-left rule requiring right-hand controls, and vice versa, he points out a number of instances where curbside controls have been preferred to centerline controls. As of 1986, he counted 118 \"independent territories\" with right-hand traffic and 51 with left-hand, adding: \"The above figures show what a minority rule left-hand traffic is today. Countries which use it account for only about a third of the world's population, a sixth of its area, a quarter of its roads, and a sixth of its motor vehicles.\" A number of countries have changed their rule of the road, including, since 1950: Cameroon, Belize, Ethiopia, Sweden, Bahrain, Iceland, Burma, Sierra Leone, Nigeria, Ghana, and South Yemen. All these but Burma changed from left to right. The American expert on this subject is Richard H. Hopper, whose article \"Left-Right: Why Driving Rules Differ,\" appeared in *Transportation Quarterly* 36 (1982), pp. 541-548.",
"Mental Floss [made a video on this]( URL_0 ) about a year ago. Had to do with how you mount a horse and if you had a sword in hand, or not."
],
"score": [
5,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=blDT-QwK4hw"
]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
7k7kbb | Why are workers unions such an issue in the US when in the UK employers encourage you to join one? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"drc5ci4"
],
"text": [
"Unions support one of the major political parties. So it has less to do with workers' rights, and more to do with politics. There's a saying out here that in the US, poor people don't think of themselves as poor, but temporarily embarrassed millionaires. As such, people who could really benefit from union representation will oppose it because their politics supports giving money to the wealthy (because they're soon to be wealthy, right?), and wealthy people with more money make more jobs (this has never been the case, but that's their economic model)."
],
"score": [
5
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
7kc5te | Virtue Signaling | It seems with every year we have new buzzwords that enter everyday discourse in politics, education, and other society-sensitive arenas of conversation. The concept of "virtue signaling" seems painfully ubiquitous to me. I can't read a news article or watch a YouTube video without VIRTUE SIGNALING being spat out like some tabboo act. Is someone being mean? Insensitive? Racist? What does it mean to signal a particular virtue? Explain, please. Recent and/or common examples would be lovely to see. | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"drd7lgi",
"drd7x8x",
"drdb53o",
"drddo89",
"drdnljx",
"drd7mb2",
"drdcdil"
],
"text": [
"How do I explain this without getting attacked by the left or right? Let us say there is a guy named Johnny and he believes that we need to plant more apple trees because apples cure the deadly fructositis disease. He goes on Facebook and posts pro-apple memes, he talks about apples with his friends, just apples 24/7. \"We must help those poor fructosis infected people!\" Sally comes up to him, says \"I agree. How many trees have you planted?\" Johnny never planted any trees even though his backyard is spacious and he could do the work as he is fit and young. Johnny never cared about those poor people suffering from not having apples. Johnny just liked the attention he got by pretending to care. Fighting fructosis was the cool thing to do and Johnny wanted to be doing the cool thing without sacrificing his time and comfort. Johnny was virtue signalling. Hopefully this comment explains virtue signalling without any bias. It is not as in-depth as some other answers may be, but it is as close to the truth as one can make it without shoving an ideology down your throat at the same time.",
"It's like saying \"Oh my god it's so awful that people have to live on the street, people should give them a place to stay!\" without actually inviting anyone to stay with you You're trying to appear virtuous without actually doing anything",
"You signal virtuous behavior towards others for the sake of being seen as virtuous, not the actual act of living one's life as virtuous.",
"The recent case of Keaton Jones provides a good example of virtue signalling. Keaton Jones is the boy who was filmed by his mother talking about his experiences of being bullied. That video went viral, and celebrities started sending messages of support, telling Jones that they \"loved\" him. At least one of them called him their \"new best buddy\". What makes that virtue signalling is that they clearly didn't love him. They knew nothing about him except what he said in a short video. They had never met him or spent time with him. Anyone who truly cared about him will have contacted him in private and offered actual help; those who simply shared the video and made public comments about how strong and brave Jones was were more interested in being seen to be compassionate. That's the essence of virtue signalling: it wasn't about helping Jones or even victims of bullying in general; it was all about making the virtue signallers appear compassionate in other people's eyes. As anyone who has ever dealt with bullying, or been a victim of it, knows, that kind of thing only makes the bullying worse. Things got more complicated, though, when a journalist looked through his mother's Facebook page and found pictures of her posing with a Confederate flag and making comments apparently criticizing those who took a stance against it. She now claims those pictures were a joke, but whatever the truth: suddenly the tide turned against the Jones family, with people now publicly condemning their racist attitudes. A crowdfunding campaign to raise money for the family was closed with tens of thousands of donations already made, the people who started it now apparently in a quandry over whether to give the money to a victim of bullying, or withold it from an allegedly racist family: is it better to be seen as \"uncompassionate\" or \"racist-enabling\"? This, I think, is an excellent example of virtue signalling. However, the term \"virtue signalling\" is so often misused that it has essentially become meaningless. People with extreme right-wing views in particular will often use it to criticize those who disagree with them. For example, men who say they support the feminist cause might be ridiculed for their alleged \"virtue signalling\". It's important to distinguish between real virtue signalling, which is loudly proclaiming what a virtuous person you are when in fact you are not doing anything virtuous at all; and simply expressing a sincerely-held belief.",
"Virtue signaling is the accusation that someone who is declaring support for a particular moral cause (usually in a way that doesn't require effort) is doing so for social approval. Josh Wheaton is a good example. Wheaton spent (or spends) a lot of time on Twitter tweeting support of feminist causes. Turns out he was cheating on his wife and treating her like garbage.",
"It means expressing you care about something (normally some sort of moral issue) solely or mostly for the purpose of making other people know you care about it so that you get a sense of moral superiority. A good example, is lots of people on Twitter expressing dismay and care about the Hollywood sexual harassment scandal are accused of virtue signalling. I.e. they are not doing it because they actually care, but they want to make themselves look morally superior. It is a dumb word, and is normally used by alt-right weirdos (Mike Cernovich, Paul Joseph Watson, etc) as an ad-hominem attack against people rightly calling out their shit. (ELI5 note: ad-hominem means when you attack someone's character during an argument as a way to avoid actually addressing their argument directly).",
"It is a criticism of people who try to make themselves look good by publicly declaring support for \"good\" things, regardless of whether they act in accordance with these beliefs. They are \"signalling\" to other people that they are virtuous. Some responses here say that it is about hypocrisy. I think it is a little more than that. I think it is also about how people try to achieve political goals by framing them as \"virtuous\" things. For example, imagine that Bob wants to raise funding to homeless shelters. Imagine that he responds to criticism by saying: \"what's your problem, are you against the homeless?\" It's not that Bob is a hypocrite. It's that he is trying to deflect criticisms of his view by making it a question of who is a good person. So calling Bob a \"virtue signaller\" is like fighting fire with fire. It throws the same kind of suspicion back at him, suggesting that hey, maybe he is not such a good person either--maybe he is just trying to show others that he cares about the poor."
],
"score": [
72,
17,
12,
7,
4,
4,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
7kh8e5 | What were the factors that led to the destruction of the USSR particularly how did the US contribute to its demise? What impact did the end of the USSR have on Europe? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"drec1kl"
],
"text": [
"The Soviet Union in the 80s was basically if you put the DMV in front of a country. Communism mad everything cheap and affordable, there wasn't really an issue with starvation or anything, but it took forever to get anything because of misallocation. also chances are the job you worked was completely meaningless. You couldn't really improve your life either - banking was illegal (you could store your money, but you couldn't invest, or get interest or anything). Instead, it was all about waiting. If you wanted a car, it wasn't a matter of whether you could afford it - it was a matter if you could wait 10 years or so. Likewise, if you wanted a different house, it wasn't a question of affordability, it was a question of whether you found someone willing to trade. In other words, life was dull and everyone new it could be better. Gorbachav was the leader of the Soviet Union, and he did several things. First, he created democracy. Under the Soviet Union, there was voting, but it was basically you voted for the local communist representative, who would vote for the higher up, who would vote for the higher up, and so on. Your vote was meaningless, in other words. Gorbachav changed this, so you could vote for your regional congress, and you could vote for multiple parties. Secondly, Gorbachav basically made all the countries that were part of the Soviet Union unofficially independent. So for instance, east Germany. IT was basically Russia, but technically it was independent. Now all of a sudden it was literally independent. What happened is that there was a rumor that you could now cross the wall, and when people started doing that, the East German government didn't know what to do - remember, they had basically been a figurehead, and the soviets were really in charge. Now all of a sudden, they had to stop this crisis that threatened to destroy their country. Well, in pretty much every country the government gave up and literally just let the people come up with a new government peacefully. The exception is Romania, but there the people literally just stormed the palace, the leader tried to escape but his own military captured him and shot him. Thirdly, Gorbachev allowed freedom of the press. People were seeing that the government could easily be overthrown, and they were generally in favor of it, simply because life in the Soviet Union was so BORING! So, they voted for pro independence parties, and all of these parties got together and said they were independent, and Gorbachev basically was powerless to do anything. He ended up being the leader of a country with no land. He decided to give up and said that the Russian federation, one of the countries that had seceded from the USSR, would be the official successor of the USSR (ie, take on the seat in the UN, in international treaties, etc.) Now, how much did the US contribute to this? Probably not much. Its true that the Cold War exhausted soviet resources, which strained their economy, but overall it wasn't lack of resources that failed in the Soviet Union, as much as it was misallocation of those resources. overall, it was really boredom more than anything else that killed the USSR"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
7kkqvg | Why people are so quick to overgeneralise behaviours of individuals to large groups when they disagree with their point of view? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"drf3a7x"
],
"text": [
"> But slow to blame all Christians for the actions of one individual. They do. > But not so quick to blame all men for the actions of a few misogynists. They do. They make that jump because it fits right into their narrative and it justifies their discontent and when a crowd of people chant the same thing, you feel safe around people who share your ideals."
],
"score": [
4
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
7kljk0 | How did circumcision go from being a mostly Jewish custom to becoming the norm for many newborn boys? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"drf8oth",
"drf9feb",
"drf9frf",
"drfastf"
],
"text": [
"Rich religious zealot in the US propagated it massively. Said it would curb masturbation. The guy was Kellog, the one with the corn flake money. - Doesn't curb masturbation. - Is a very US thing. Elsewhere, non-Jews and non-Muslims are generally not having their reproductive organs mutilated.",
"The practice is incredibly ancient, estimated to be about 15,000 years old. It has never been a mostly Jewish custom, as Muslim men also are circumcised, continuing a Middle Eastern cultural tradition that predates the advent of both religions. There is evidence the ancient Egyptians practiced circumcision. Today 1/3 of all men in the world are circumcised. The practice became more common in the modern era for non-religious medical reasons because of the quack Victorian era belief that circumcision was thought to reduce masturbation. Doctors in the 19th century thought masturbation caused insanity and had other pretty wild ideas. But real medical evidence built up through the 19th and early 20th centuries demonstrating that circumcision reduces the likelihood of UTIs and other common genital ailments. This was a big deal before antibiotics were readily available, because a UTI could become serious enough to be fatal. Today, of course, UTIs and common skin infections that may effect the genitals are readily treatable with antibiotics, which tends to reduce the medical justification for routine non-religous circumcision substantially. Not surprisingly, the rates of routine medical circumcisions have gradually reduced and continue to do so. Hope this was helpful.",
"More importantly, how come it is not illegal unless medically necessary or the individual wants to do it after he reaches adulthood.",
"Some prudish Americana who was obsessed with masturbation, convinced the American public that cornflakes and circumcision would stop men from masturbating and thus save their souls. I don't know about the effects of circumcision or the existence of immortal souls, but I do eat Kellog's cornflakes regularly and can report that it doesn't prevent masturbation."
],
"score": [
9,
9,
8,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
7kpxov | How does fake wrestling work? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"drg9dx1",
"drg9z2q"
],
"text": [
"Choreography. Wrestling is kind of like it’s own language. Randy Savage is famous for having most or all aspects of his match choreographed, while Ric Flair was respected for his ability to improvise. Headlocks and other close encounters are used to whisper moves/sequences on the fly, and many wrestlers these days perform most of the match without any previous discussion. Regular people fighting got boring, so for the past few decades storylines and other drama are added in to make the feud more dramatic. A lot of the business it based on honor, so a lot of the hits and falls you see really hurt, and championships are put on people the company who have the ability to combine athleticism and some sort of charisma. That’s why the Rock won a lot.",
"I assume you are talking about the fights and not the theatre/soap opera performances before and after the fights. Basically wrestlers are a combination of small time actors and improv stuntmen. Two guys that are generally in good physical shape and have practiced a number of moves, both the attacker and victims portion, will get into a ring and act out a fight. There is usually at least some planning beforehand about the general flow that will happen so that it leads up to the pre-planned conclusion (much more planning if major or set piece stunts are going to be performed) but most of the filler is often improvised in the ring. A lot of it comes down to both wrestlers knowing how to telegraph the move they are about to do (so you'll see them doing things like bouncing off the ropes to 'pickup speed') and how the victim should respond to both sell the 'hit' and take it safely. Much like how students in a Judo or Karate class learn how to fall 'correctly' so they don't hurt themselves wrestlers learn to correctly roll with punches and other hits. That's not to say that wrestlers don't feel pain or get real bruises as a matter of course but serious hurt or injury is intended to be fake - an old trick is when a wrestler is knocked to the floor he will covertly use a razer blade to cut his forehead, making it seem like he hit the mat much harder then he did. Good wrestlers know how to read their 'opponent' so that they can back off (disguised as preening for the crowd while the other guy is down) or change things up (setting themselves up for a short dive) if the other guy is in real distress."
],
"score": [
7,
4
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
7ks9bn | How did the tulip market during the tulip fever work? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"drgro6n"
],
"text": [
"It worked much like modern-day stock markets do: tulip bulbs were only available a few months of the year, but by purchasing future options for tulips, you could keep trade going all year round. An option means that you enter into an agreement with a vendor to purchase a given item at a given cost at given point in time, i.e. in January you would agree to purchase two tulip bulbs 1st of June at a cost of 4,000 Dutch guilders. Different categories were also created, meaning you held an option for a certain category of tulip (e.g. solid red colored or white with red stripes, the latter which was considered the most rare and thus valuable). At the height of the fever during winter 1636-1637 bulb options would change hans ten times a day. However, prices across the Netherlands collapsed in February, following a scheduled action in Harlem for which no one showed up, most likely due to a plague outbreak. The event sparked concerned across the country, and people attempted to sell off their options, leading to a collapse in prices."
],
"score": [
7
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
7ktaio | Why is the Lion so widely used in European Heraldy even though they are mostly found in Africa? | Why are Lions used so much on European Heraldry, especially British/English ones, despite lions being primarily found in Africa? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"drgy3lt",
"drgyrpq",
"drgyaji",
"drh1vq2",
"drhtscv",
"drhfkj5",
"drgyvpb",
"drhuven",
"drhu761"
],
"text": [
"Well, the dragon is used a lot too, even though it's found... no where. It isn't about the actual, physical representation of the animal. It's about the symbolism and ideas it represents. Europeans thought of the Lion as \"king of the jungle.\" A powerful, noble animal at the top of its food chain. There really isn't an analogous animal in Europe (aside from wolves, which always had a negative connotation).",
"The lion was widespread in Europe until roughly 100BC, and was often used by the Romans in the Colosseum, so it isn't like the lion was completely unknown to the European nobility. The lion represents strength, power, nobility, dignity, wisdom, courage, and dominion. These are all fantastic traits to have represent you as a king. Having a lion in your herald is a statement of your strength and bravery, the authority and power you hold. Heralds are almost always symbolic, so whenever you see a herald depict some animal or object try to imagine what said object represents, what statement that herald is trying to convey about the people bearing it.",
"The lion was one of the most widespread mammals not too long ago. Only humans topped him expansionwise (and reduced his appearance significantly).",
"In the 900s, the Kingdom of Leon (Leon means Lion) was in the Spain/Portugal area. I don't know how they got their lions, but Spain/Portugal kind of kept them. In the 1100s, Richard I used them. Heraldry was kind of formalized, so later designs English and French used them in corners. Then with Great Briton, Scotland and Ireland also adopted designs containing them from England. I'd say this is why they're common: the largest countries used them, and over several rulers. That's not to say Lion-Mermaids, and Unicorns and other mythic beasts weren't commonly used. Also, many of these lions are \"leopards\", when on crests of Abbots, or bastards. In the 1500s, the Nordic Countries, Denmark first adopted the lion presumably for \"The Lion of Judea\". These usually carry weapons. This sort of broadly explains Flanders and Norway. Mostly, you see it a lot because England was very successful.",
"There were lions in Europe but they went extinct because they killed them all URL_0",
"There are a number of reasons European royalty would have used Lions in their heraldry. First off, Lions are huge, powerful creatures. Having a Lion on your banner or coat of arms or armor evoked those qualities. Lions have a biblical context. Jesus Christ was called the Lion of Judah, and as many Europeans trace back to a Judeo-Christian tradition, leading an army with one or more religious symbol would have been common. Along those lines, since the King rules by “divine appointment” from God and because the Lion is the King of the Beasts it would make sense to use a lion in your coat of arms.",
"Exotic beasts were transported to Europe from Roman times. Not just for the arena but they would have been used as status symbols in processions and special gifts for high-ranking individuals. There are records of the Tower of London having a menagerie from the time of King John in the early 1200s. Exhibits at various times include lions as a gift from the Holy Roman Emperor Frederick II, also there was an elephant and a polar bear. URL_0 Some of the lions, both as animals and in heraldry may actually have been leopards, there was often little distinction made.",
"Check the Wikipedia article for “European Lion.” Tl;dr Europe used to be full of lions, they went extinct, but not before humans had the chance to encounter them. Their presence in the European imagination survived long past their disappearance.",
"Not sure if it's already been said but The lions in Europe are Barbary lions native to north africa and Mediterranean Europe, these lions are almost certainly extinct. They are a separate group from African lions with mains that stretch further down the animals back and neck."
],
"score": [
482,
256,
23,
18,
16,
9,
6,
3,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_lions_in_Europe"
],
[],
[
"https://www.hrp.org.uk/tower-of-london/history-and-stories/the-tower-of-london-menagerie/"
],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
7l0988 | () Why does having the “high ground” on a combat its an advantage? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"driia3g",
"drii54p",
"driih9f",
"driwj9l"
],
"text": [
"Several points Being up on a hill gives you a better view of what is happening Running/charging uphill is tiring and slows the attack down Running downhill gives additional impact to a charge. Firing uphill reduces the range of the weapon Firing downhill increases the range of a weapon Whilst in combat bringing your weapon down on someone increases the impact of the weapon whilst thrusting up decreases the impact.",
"It’s from the art of war. High ground allows for more surveillance of an area as opposed to the limitations of low ground, also soldiers fighting uphill will get tired quicker than those fighting downhill. Projectiles like rocks and arrows(extending to modern weapons) will travel further going down, and difficult terrain going up will hinder the enemy. That being said, it’s not always advantageous to have the high ground.",
"You can run faster down hill, also the enemy can't run as fast up hill, so they are more exhausted apon arrival. Also the archers can have alot more opportunities to shoot them, one is from the enemy taking longer to arrive on site. Another is the kill shot range is smaller, making it easier for up hill to shoot down, than at down the hill up. The down hill has more kill shot range to cover, so their shots require more force, since fighting gravity, and are less likely to be fatal. Another is up hill can use gravity to roll big bolders down hill, or even flaming tar hay balls. In conclusion up hill, has more advantages than being down hill.",
"The Art of War talks quite a lot about terrain in general. Being on high ground has numerous advantages : - You easily see what's around you, while your enemies can't see your positions and numbers easily, which allows for nasty surprises. - Allows numerous tactics relying on height difference (rolling stuff downhill, breaking a barrage to drown enemy units...Go crazy !) - In more ancient times, it was much easier and safer for ranged units, due to increased range, easier aiming, and a harder time for enemy units (especially cavalry) to hunt them down. Range advantages still apply in modern combat. - On certain meteorological conditions, it can be a deadly trap to any units going uphill (Battle of Azincourt is a perfect example : Terrain was muddy as hell, so French knights were totally powerless against the insanely outnumbered English longbowmen while trying to get up the hill) - It's much harder to charge uphill : You have gravity working AGAINST you, tiring you out much faster. - It's much harder to battle uphill : In bladed combat, someone higher than you can easily aim at your head or chest, and will have much more power in his attacks."
],
"score": [
25,
18,
4,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
7l09sz | Why are some Religious groups like Judaism and Islam often considered as races whilst some like Buddhism and the various branches of Christianity aren't? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"drij53z",
"driifh8",
"drikygi"
],
"text": [
"Islam isn't considered a race. People tend to conflate \"Muslim\" with \"Arab\", even though most Muslims aren't Arab at all. Jews are considered a race because they are an ethnic group as well as a religion (an [ethnoreligious group]( URL_0 )). This is mainly because Jews don't proselytize and don't tend to intermarry, so Jews remain a small, genetically related group of people. As a side note, \"racism\" is often used for other kinds of bigotry, including against other religions. So while Islamophobia isn't technically racism, it usually tend to be included under it.",
"Judaism is believed by many to be matrilineal, aka your “Jewishness” is determined by whether your mother is Jewish or not. Islam is the same but patrilineal, on the father’s side. Of course, many believers of both religions do not believe in this rather traditional aspect of the doctrine and consider people to be Jewish/Muslim, respectively, based off of profession of faith alone. As far as I know, there isn’t a similar belief within Buddhism or Christianity, so I think that’s why Judaism and Islam tend to be understood from a more racial lens. More recently, Islam is more racialized and understood to be an Arab/“brown” religion since 9/11, evidenced by the attacks on Sikhs (Indians who follow Sikhism, a religion associated with Hinduism) whom ignorant white people thought were Muslim because they wore turbans.",
"Jewishness is considered by many (Jews and non-Jews) to be an inherited trait, and Jews were kept apart from wider society for a lot of their history. Muslims aren't really seen as a race, but as the vast majority of Muslims are non-white a lot of the prejudice against them does have racist overtones."
],
"score": [
31,
10,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnoreligious_group"
],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
7l4bib | Why are there so many different places (not to mention things) with the word "Guinea" in the name and what is the origin of this word/placename? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"drje2y0"
],
"text": [
"It is simply the name of an area in Africa that played a significant role in trade with Western Europe. URL_0 URL_1"
],
"score": [
9
],
"text_urls": [
[
"https://www.etymonline.com/word/guinea",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guinea_(region)"
]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
7l8aqn | When does a company become a monopoly? Are there any companies near this that we should be concerned about? What's the process to stop it from occuring? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"drkb0ul"
],
"text": [
"Generally, a company is considered a monopoly when it has complete control over the sale of a particular good in a market. Any time you can only get one kind of thing from one place, you're dealing with a monopoly. Economists will carve them up into a lot of different types, but you can usually classify monopolies as one of three kinds. For most people, the word makes you think of a giant, evil corporation. That would be an **economic monopoly**. If there were only one company that made cell phones, for example, and everyone had to pay whatever price that company set. This isn't always illegal. Patents let drug companies make their drugs without competition for a certain amount of time, so they can recoup the cost of developing the drugs. Sometimes, it just doesn't make sense to have more than one company delivering a good. These are called **natural monopolies**. Water and power companies are good examples of this. Five different power companies would have to run five different sets of power lines. Five different water companies would mean five times the pipes underground, all twisting around one another. Government usually recognizes these natural monopolies, and regulates them heavily. Sometimes, the population just isn't dense enough to support more than one of a company. These are called **geographic monopolies**. Think about a gas station or grocery store in a very rural area. There are really only enough customers to support one store, so any new businesses entering that market would be hard-pressed to make money. In lots of cases, monopolies are hard to form because starting a new, competing company is pretty easy. Making shoes, for example, isn't so difficult that one company can form a monopoly over shoes. In other cases, starting a new company is too difficult. It would cost a lot to start your own oil company and compete with BP or Shell, or to start your own television network and compete with ABC. Stopping these monopolies from forming requires government intervention. This is why big companies often have to get special permission from the government before they can buy one another."
],
"score": [
3
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
7lb3c0 | What do neo-nazi's want to achieve? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"drkwwd4",
"drkv6gl"
],
"text": [
"Ask ten neo-Nazis and you'll probably get ten different answers. Nazism is a blend of fascism and straightforward racism (in the form of white supremecism): originally, it was what happened when Hitler met Mussolini and added his hatred of Jews to the mix. Fascism is the belief that both capitalism and communism have failed, and that democracy is weak and ineffective. A strong country is independent, so fascists believe their country should be self-sufficient and not have to trade with other countries. A free market economy is useful to improve industry, but if it fails the state should step in and take over. Fascists also believe that every able-bodied member of society should have military training and be able to defend the country against attack at a moment's notice -- in other words, the whole citizenry forms part of the military, and is run with a military-style hierarchy (this is why you often see fascist leaders wearing military uniforms). Conflict and war are inevitable, but they're also good because they purge society of the weak, thus strengthening society as a whole (Hitler once claimed that \"democrats\" who opposed the Nazi movement actually did it a favour, because that had the effect of stripping away those not fully committed to the cause, leaving a hardened core of the truly fanatical). Fascism is very big on social darwinism. Nazism added to that a bunch of pseudo-scientific mumbo-jumbo about how the \"Aryan\" white race is inherently superior to everyone else, and the Germanic people are the true \"Aryans\" that gave birth, as it were, to European culture -- they were, in that sense, the \"master race\". It is the natural destiny of the Germanic people to be the leaders of western culture, and indeed the world. There's evidence that the Nazis were in the process of slowly replacing the Christian religion with a mix of old Nordic and Germanic mythologies and a personality cult around Hitler. Whether most neo-Nazis know any of this I can't be sure. I think it's more likely that individual neo-Nazis have a range of different aims (that was, to an extent, true of the original Nazis as well). But you will usually find a few things they have in common: * the belief that white races are superior to others * the belief that capitalism and communism have both failed, and that it's time for a \"radical new approach\" * the belief that Jews are unjustly in a powerful position, controlling all the money and the banks * the belief that Muslims are waging war against \"us\"",
"It really depends on the person, but neo-nazism generally emphasis creating a white aryan ethnic state through exportation of non whites and genocide. They believe that white men should be the only ones with rights. Basically, they want to fulfill hitters vision of an aryan nation."
],
"score": [
9,
6
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
7lh35f | How can many cultures have so many similar myths? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"drm5cyw",
"drm5lli",
"drm5s6s"
],
"text": [
"Angels are not very similar across cultures, except those that came into contact with one another. Ghosts are just a discussion of \"what happens after you die,\" a universal human concern. Dragons differ hugely across cultures; it's a stretch that we call them all one thing. Monsters aren't similar at all across cultures, beyond the reality of dangerous predatory animals. That pretty much leaves crossing the river -- a myth that most cultures don't have, but a real experience that used to be typical human experience in the days before big bridges.",
"Humans had the same lifestyle all over the world for tens of thousands of years, and dealt with a common set of experiences and emotions. They lived mostly on river deltas, because that's where the food was. The river was therefore Life. Sometimes the river flooded, so the Giver of Life was also a capricious thing that could take it away. And on rare occasions the river flooded *so much* that it seemed \"everything\" (that the storyteller knew) was being washed away in some great cataclysm of cosmic anger. As something so intimately tied to Life and Death, it was common to dispose of bodies in the river - ergo Styx et al. Naturally as with the body, so the \"spirit\" - the water joins the Great Sea, therefore the \"soul\" or \"essence\" of the person would join somehow with the cosmos. With the same experiences and emotions, storytellers and philosophers were drawn to the same metaphors.",
"Because people are the same everywhere, they have the same fears and insecurities, so they sometimes come up with the same kind of explanations for the unexplainable. River I think is just another way of saying \"one way street\", meaning no one can come back after they've died, just like a river can't flow uphill."
],
"score": [
11,
4,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
7llv7l | What makes something mythology? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"drn7hpm"
],
"text": [
"Mythology is the stories and tales of the origin of the universe and its peoples and other inhabitants. All religions have a mythology. Like the Bible in Christianity, the Torah in Judaism, or the Koran in Islam. However, because people are weird, if you believe in the mythology, you are likely to not believe it is a mythology. So, Tolkein looked at the predominantly Christian England and saw that there was little in the way of surviving pre-Christian mythos, ignoring the fact that there were stories of gods and monsters at everyone's fingertips."
],
"score": [
4
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
7lns9u | Why are some countries considered to be “developing” when they have a higher GDP per capita than “developed” countries. For example, Malaysia has a higher GDP per capita than Greece but is considered to be a developing country and Greece is considered to be a developed country? | This question came to me as I was reading the Wikipedia article below URL_0 | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"drnm1dz",
"drnqv6m",
"dro3dsn"
],
"text": [
"GDP per capita is one indicator of how developed a country is, but it's not the sole indicator. Other factors play in strongly (like the Human Development Index, which accounts for life expectancy, education; freedom indexes). The terminology itself is based off of concepts from the late 19th/early 20th century and is a bit Western-centric (based on Western standards); because of that, it's not necessarily a perfect or comprehensive measure of a country's successes or economic standing.",
"In addition to the other answers here, the article you linked is about Purchasing Power Parity GDP, (PPP GDP), not the traditional measurement of GDP. Normal GDP is calculated by simply calculating a country’s GDP in its own currency and then converting that currency to dollars/euros/whatever currency you’re using as the standard. So lets say that Mexico’s GDP is 500 pesos and the exchange rate is 12 pesos per dollar. Their GDP is therefore 500/12 = $41.67. PPP is different. PPP attempts to compare countries better by factoring in the different costs of goods in 2 different countries. For example, many goods and services will be cheaper in Mexico compared to the US, but GDP doesn’t account for that when comparing them. So, since less-developed countries tend to have cheaper food/services/land/etc. their GDP (PPP) is usually better-looking than normal GDP.",
"Greece is not a good example to use. Due to the extraordinary nature of their economic crisis, their GDP is about half of what it was 10 years ago. Greece is in danger of becoming an undeveloping country, as its standard of living continues to erode. Even so, GDP is not the sole indicator of development, that money has to be invested in infrastructure, physical, institutional, and technological. Wealth disparity also plays a role. Many countries that rely on oil production have *dual economies*, those who work in the oil industry and reap its benefits, and a majority who do not, and have the same sort of standard of living they did before oil."
],
"score": [
38,
13,
5
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
7lntvl | How come Christmas is celebrated in the morning in America and on the previous evening in Europe? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"drnn13u"
],
"text": [
"Firstly it should be said that not all Europe does this, for example here in the UK we celebrate on the 25th, but yes some countries like Germany open presents and eat a meal etc on the 24th. The answer is fortunately pretty simple; Jesus was born in the middle of the night (so the story goes), so celebrating the night before or the morning after is just a choice various countries have made differently. In 24th-celebrating countries there is still celebrating to be done on the 25th, it's just the lead up to the event that has more emphasis - like how there are parties on the evening of New Year's Eve, rather than throughout the day of New Year's Day."
],
"score": [
8
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
7lqkt2 | . Why is male circumcision routinely performed at birth in the US, but female circumcision is considered a crime against humanity? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dro8q83",
"dro9349",
"dro940g",
"dro9ht7"
],
"text": [
"FGM is pretty horrific. It is removing the clitoris which serves the same function of the penis head in the man. It is objectively worse than male circumcision, though they are often done for similar reasons. Male circumcision is accepted in western society though it should probably be questioned more than it is. Or at least deferred until sexual maturity. In both cases though you run up against notions of tradition and sexual identity which can be hard to let go of. It’s a tricky situation but I think ideally society should not have either practice as a widespread norm",
"You are making an error by calling both these procedures \"circumcision\"; that implies a similarity between the procedures that does not actually exist. The medical community now uses the phrase \"female genital mutilation.\" Let's look at why. In male circumcision, the foreskin is removed. The female tissue most analogous to the foreskin would be the clitoral hood, insofar as they both cover the most sensitive part of the sexual organ. So, if the two procedures were actually the same, we would expect female circumcision to consist of only removing \"excess\" clitoral hood tissue. This type of female circumcision, in which only the clitoral hood is removed, is so rare that it is never the procedure to which people are referring when they use the phrase \"female circumcision\". [Source]( URL_0 ). So, what actually happens when a woman is \"circumcised\"? \"Procedures differ according to the country or ethnic group. They include removal of the clitoral hood and clitoral glans; removal of the inner labia; and removal of the inner and outer labia and closure of the vulva. In this last procedure, known as infibulation, a small hole is left for the passage of urine and menstrual fluid; the vagina is opened for intercourse and opened further for childbirth.\" [Source]( URL_1 ). Bear in mind that the male equivalent of removing the clitoral glans would be removing the penile glans, i.e. the head of the penis. Holy hell! I don't even know what the male equivalent of infibulation would be. Maybe sewing the scrotum in such a way that it entirely covers the penis? I have tried to give an explanation that is independent of medical or social justifications for the procedures and instead focused purely on their contents. Female genital mutilation is considered appalling because the procedure is much more extensive than male circumcision. I hope that I have demonstrated that for you. EDIT: /u/Consilio_et_Animis has replied to this comment with vivid (NSFL) documentation of a style of male circumcision that occurs outside the US and also, undoubtedly, qualifies as genital mutilation.",
"They do not compare even though they share the same name. When we are a developing fetus a lot of our parts are the same until our sex genes kick in and start devolping the more specific parts of a male or female. (Explains why men have non functioning nipples, at least the main function which is nursing). In human genitals there is a large collection of nerve endings to aid in pleasure when they are stimulated. This collection of nerves grows into the penis for men (and the nerves are mostly collected in the tip) and is the clitoris in females. Both men and woman have a flap/covering for this part of their anatomy, in men it is the foreskin and in women it is the clitoral hood. Male circumcision removes some foreskin. Female circumcision removes the entire clitoral hood as well as the clitoris, removing the ability to receive stimulation through those nerve endings. If they were equal in their meaning this would mean removing the entire penis. While male circumcision MAY remove some nerve endings or possible stimulation, female circumcision removes ALL possible stimulation. This is usually done due to religious reasons and the desire for woman to not receive pleasure during sexual contact.",
"I can't answer your question directly, but I recently had a conversation with my adult son about my decision to have him circumcised at birth, (we're athiests), and before I could finish the question he just said, \"thank you.\""
],
"score": [
18,
10,
7,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[
"http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/43839/1/9789241596442_eng.pdf",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_genital_mutilation"
],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
7lu3j5 | Why do people’s voices change when they are advertising a product? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"drp01p1",
"drp0fkv"
],
"text": [
"You're being paid to present specific information as clearly as possible. So, you tend to go out of your way to enunciate everything clearly, and cover up your accent or regional dialect. You can get a similar effect yourself. Try reading a news article to a group of people, it's the same thing. You'll find yourself taking on a more neutral tone and projecting your voice differently.",
"I would think they talk different because either * scripted * trying to be as clear as possible * possible new actors who don't have the skills yet * actors tried to be more not robotic and the director did not like it * the actor has done a lot of takes/different advertisements that day and wants to get it done"
],
"score": [
7,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
7m1uvy | House numbering, how does house numbering in the U.S. go? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"drqpdk0"
],
"text": [
"Generally, all of the even numbers are on one side of the street, and all of the odd numbers are on the opposite side of the street, both increasing in the same direction. The numbers don't have to be consecutive, and there are often gaps so that more addresses can be added between existing houses in the future."
],
"score": [
6
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
7m7ygp | Why do so many orchestral pieces have a slow second movement? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"drs26jd",
"drs7q9d"
],
"text": [
"For the same reason why so many modern songs have a chorus--it's part of the traditional structure of how pieces were organized. Symphonies transitioned from 3 movements to 4 movements in the 1700s somewhere, but even across both of those the second movement is slow. As for *why*, I dunno how you can really answer that question. Why is any artistic tradition the way it is? I suppose aesthetically it allows for a more exciting/enticing first movement and then shows a nice contrast? There may have been a reason if it was used as an accompaniment to an opera or theatrical piece; if it was used as a piece to be played during entertainment it may have allowed dancers to have a chance to rest or dance in a different style.",
"Because they don't have slow first movements. :) The first movement needs to grab the audience's attention, so it is generally going to be pretty lively. The second movement provides contrast and transition, settling down an audience that has been overstimulated by the first movement. It also sets up a good contrast with the third movement, which once again is going to be fairly rousing."
],
"score": [
8,
4
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
7makhc | why do members of the military always wear their uniforms when they reunite with their family? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"drsizkv",
"drsjvyx"
],
"text": [
"We don’t always do so. Those that do may just be proud of their uniform. Others may have family members that are proud of them seeing them in it.",
"I think you are referring to images you see when a sailor/soldier/airman gets off a ship or a plane? When a ship pulls into port after a six-month deployment, at least when I was in the Navy, we were ordered into the uniform of the day. The uniform of the day was determined by the time of the year, if it was summer then it was our white uniform if it was winter it would be a dress blues (think Cracker Jack box character). The ship pulls in and moors, the first off where the new fathers, then officers, then enlisted. There is usually media present and the Navy knows that it is good public relations for them if it shows a young sailor embracing his wife and children. When I was in it might be a bit different than it is today, for example, we did not have women permanently attached to my ship. Also, the media wasn't there every time the ship pulled in, only after long deployments. There were many times at sea when we got back pier side and no one was there. As for soldiers and airmen, when they are deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan I don't imagine they take many civilian clothes with them. They return in what is clean and comfortable, which happens to be their uniforms, usually not dress uniforms though. As with the Navy, PR is important to the Army, Marine Corps, and Air Force. At the airport family members greeting a bunch of people in jeans, t-shirts, and sneakers doesn't drive home the same image as a fighting force in uniform embracing mom and dad. Correct me if I am wrong other service members of different branches."
],
"score": [
6,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
7me10e | Why do many Russian cities still have statues of Lenin but most Chinese cities took down statues of Mao? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"drt9xbx"
],
"text": [
"After Stalin died, all the problems of the Soviet Union was blamed on Stalin, and Lenin became the object of the personal cult that Stalin had created around himself. As such, Stalin became rightly hated, but Lenin became very unjustly deified. This mythos spread also outside the Soviet, and you will hear it repeated frequently; that Lenin was a good guy, and Stalin messed everything up. Facts do not really support this. He may very well have been a better and less brutal dictator that Stalin, but his portrayal as an infallible protector of the people is completely fictional. But the result of this propaganda campaign is that Lenin is still highly admired in many parts of the former Soviet Union, so statues of Lenin often remained. In addition to that, peoples lives, especially in Russia, did not drastically improve, in fact it often got worse after the fall of the Soviet Union. As such there is a strong nostalgia for the Soviet Union in Russia, which manifests itself in both support for Putin, his imperialistic policies, and keeping the superficial trappings of the Soviet, like statues etc. In China something similar happened after Mao's death, and the new leadership set China on a path to capitalist reform, and tried to paint over the atrocities that happened under Mao, and that included taking down statues of him, basically trying to pretend none of it happened. But in China Mao had been both Lenin and Stalin, so there was no Lenin-figure to deify. Edit: sp"
],
"score": [
6
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
7mineg | How Do We Know That There's No Spelling Mistakes or Grammar Mistakes on Ancient Texts? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dru7ncj"
],
"text": [
"On the contrary, such mistakes may exist. Most bodies of text contain a lot of redundancy, especially if there are many documents by different authors, making the errors sometimes obvious."
],
"score": [
3
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
7mkfkw | Why does the sinking of the Titanic still fascinate children, adults, educators, and researchers globally? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"drumvld",
"druoc4u",
"druphe8",
"druoet5",
"drus0u7"
],
"text": [
"I don't know about researchers, I think the actual facts are fairly well established. However, I believe it fascinates us for the sheer scale of the disaster. We are speaking about a ship literally billed as unsinkable. Its sinkage was a big deal, especially the media attention it received. So, in short, I'd say the scale of the tragedy, coupled with the media capitalization of the issue, gave it iconic status.",
"Remember when you felt you were invincible, and you jumped off the couch hurting yourself? Titanic was our nation's feeling of invincibility. It's felt like even God couldn't stop us, but in the ultimate case of poetic irony mother nature, God, or whatever you want to call it destroyed that hubris. It's our real life version of Icarus.",
"For me, I'm fascinated because it seemed like all of the stars had to line up in such a weird way for things to have happened the way they did. Binoculars for the crow's nest locked away without the keys, no moon or waves to make the iceberg more visible, the ship being billed as \"unsinkable\", the decision to swerve out of the way which allowed for more bulkheads to be penetrated, not having enough lifeboats for all of the passengers, radio operators of nearby ships going to bed for the night, lighting more fuel bunkers to go faster, ignoring ice warnings, etc. It's also because we know the story of many of the passengers, its become almost a romanticized story or legend.",
"Really unique set of circumstances. Maiden voyage of the biggest ship of the time sinking with thousands dead. It was also a pivotal moment in safety at sea with huge changes being brought about because of the sinking. One of the big changes was a push for lifeboats for all. Ironically this led directly to the Eastland disaster where over 2700 people, more than the titanic, were killed due to the extra lifeboats capsizing the ship.",
"1. That one movie. 2. The several other movies, starting with newreel footage. Alongside the Hindenburg, it was one of the very first disasters people got to see visual evidence of en masse. The timeline of the last century of human progress figures heavily into the perpetuation of this event and its myth. 3. It was an international, apolitical disaster that included lots of relevant and rich white folks with heirs, guaranteeing a legacy of tribute. 4. The socially layered nature of the ship, its presentation and pomp, and the natural appeal of the story of failure. Natural, as in some primates and marine life and elephants have concepts of this kind of effort/failure/tragedy/drama. 5. That movie and internet got really big around the same time. Lots of humans bonded over the movie and the feeling of sharing that movie and the ideas of that movie. 6. All of these things at once and some more. But definitely these things. 7. Why does it fascinate *you*? Why are you trying to \"solve\" the wide spectrum of human fascinations down into a single answer? There isn't one. 8. It's a nice fancy story for history class, but you're overstating any major fascination from educators or researchers. It exists. It's been scaled back to the superfans and the people willing to fund scientific superfans."
],
"score": [
19,
10,
8,
5,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
7mnc8l | Why is multisyllabic rhyming common in rap but not in poetry? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"drv756h"
],
"text": [
"There’s something “on the nose” about it. When Eminem says “I have an aspirin capsule trapped in my adam’s apple”, it’s bouncy and fun, but there’s something about it that’s a stretch——it often puts syllable over meaning. So in a medium where the rhyme is the point, it works well. But in a medium where the emotion is the point, it detracts. You can see a similar effect within rap itself: take the most lyrically complex songs in one hand, and the most emotionally powerful songs in the other—-there’s barely any overlap. Sometimes More is less."
],
"score": [
4
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
7mnjra | How do companies like apple keep track of laws in different countries? | in light of france suing apple due to a law in france that say that planned obsolescense is illegal, how can an international company keep track of every thing | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"drv824n",
"drv80m7"
],
"text": [
"They hire legal departments. Literal scores of lawyers specifically hired to keep track of these things.",
"They hire an experts in the country they're trying to do business in. By selling merchandise in France they agree to follow all the rules and regulations set down by that country. To even import their products they need a legal and accounting team to figure out the laws and fees associated with doing so. Generally most companies make a subsidiary in the country they are doing business in so something like \"Apple France\" just worries about the French specifics of doing business there."
],
"score": [
7,
7
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
7mqi4b | Is there a reason the English alphabet is in the order it is in? Is there a specific reason for the sequence? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"drvwc3r"
],
"text": [
"\"There is no rhyme or reason — theorder of the letters seems to be arbitrary. From what historians understand, the order of the alphabetis the way it is because, well, it's always been that way. ... The Greeks used the Phoenician alphabet as a model for their alphabet, which saw the addition of vowels.\""
],
"score": [
3
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
7mv5zz | How do recently made movies have the same title? How does movie title copywriting work? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"drwwcd2"
],
"text": [
"You cannot copyright or trademark titles. This is because they are generally too short to have significant content and the copyright office will not accept them. Trademarks on the otherehand cannot be applied to words alone and require artistic design or concept for them to be trademarked. When it comes to copyright the movie is copywritten as a whole... title story etc... for trade mark a logo has to be designed or content has to be produced that needs protection from recreation by other individuals, and thus it has to come down to a specific use in the industry and requires that proof of property exist, which is extremely hard to prove, and trade marks are extremely limited in their scope when they are awarded, e.g. Tangled is TMed by Disney but I could theoretically make another animated movie with the same exact name if I can prove the name best applies to my film and it doesn't violate the copyright on the Disney movie of the same name. (Deleted and edited for clarification. )"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
7mxo4k | The US social collar colors. Like white/blue/etc... | I mainly see them in reference to the US. What exactly do they mean and how many different colors are there? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"drxg78p",
"drxgk8x",
"drxgb8e"
],
"text": [
"There are only two generally-recognised collar-colour names, and they are blue and white. White-collar work is office-work, because traditionally you'd have worn a dress shirt. Blue-collar work is things like factory work (manual labour, but not farming work), where you'd have worn a uniform which was likely to include a blue top, particularly because denim is hard-wearing and usually blue.. \"Pink-collar\" is in less-broad use, but refers to jobs that were historically done by women, hence the assigned colour. That mostly means things like waiting, care work, teaching... that sort of thing. Side note: this is not actually US-specific; the first two at least are well-known terms in many English-speaking countries.",
"URL_0 White collar workers are office workers. This comes from the stereotypical white button-up dress shirt worn with a suit. These days, it tends to carry a connotation of upper-class jobs (management, bankers, lawyers, etc) rather than just *any* office job (eg - secretaries & IT), especially when used in the term \"white-collar crime). Blue collar workers are those that do physical work. It comes from the color of strong blue work shirts and coveralls that factory workers would traditionally wear. Beyond that, other colors aren't really widely used in general conversation unless some journalist is trying to make themselves look clever.",
"White collar are working professions like attorneys, doctors, office workers. Blue collar is working class. Plumbers, construction, delivery men. Office workers wore collared white shirts while the working class uniforms often had blue denim or chambray."
],
"score": [
13,
6,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Designation_of_workers_by_collar_color"
],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
7mzlj2 | How did the Last Supper become the subject of so much obession and analysis despite there being hundreds of other paintings about Christianity | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"drxwycs"
],
"text": [
"Da Vinci's painting is beautiful, almost unearthly beautiful. He also captured the human emotions of the Apostles right at the moment Christ revealed that one of them would betray him. The chaos, the range of reactions, and Christ's own acceptance and serenity. It depicts one of the most important moments in Christianity in almost perfect skill, attention to detail, and understanding of the human condition."
],
"score": [
7
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
7n0bb2 | Why does one need to hire lawyers to get a divorce? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dry294s",
"dry24c9",
"dry24ht"
],
"text": [
"I handled my divorce in 2011 by myself. I believe the term is ‘pro se’. We were simply walking away from the marriage. Kids were both legal age, there was also no house to fight over. Here in Pa we have “no fault, no contest”. If she wanted spousal support, we would have needed lawyers. We just wanted it dissolved so we could both move on. I went to the county website and printed out the paperwork. I served her the divorce papers myself. Filed in early March and it was finalized July 1. Happy Independence Day. 🙂 It cost like $183 total. So it can be done without lawyers if neither party is going to be a dick about it.",
"If there are no complex assets, and no child care, and no disagreements between the parties, they can do exactly as you suggest, at least in much of the USA.",
"It can be if both of you agree on divorcing and agree on what properties and kids should be split. But since yer having a divorce, chances are you don't agree with each other."
],
"score": [
12,
5,
4
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
7n0o9f | The meaning of Auld Lang Syne | I read the wiki, but I still don't understand what the song is trying to say. | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"drybq7r",
"dry6iiz",
"dryi7ip",
"drzsh1t"
],
"text": [
"> Should old acquaintance be forgot, > and never brought to mind? > Should old acquaintance be forgot, > and old lang syne? Should we forget our old friends? Should we forget the times we had? > CHORUS: > For auld lang syne, my dear, > for auld lang syne, > we'll take a cup of kindness yet, > for auld lang syne. > And surely you'll buy your pint cup! > and surely I'll buy mine! > And we'll take a cup o' kindness yet, > for auld lang syne. Let's toast to the good old times, my dear To the good old times We'll drink to the gold old times. > We two have run about the slopes, > and picked the daisies fine; > But we've wandered many a weary foot, > since auld lang syne. We've been together a long time, We've traveled and lazed about We've been friends a good old time > We two have paddled in the stream, > from morning sun till dine; > But seas between us broad have roared > since auld lang syne. Although we've been friends a long time, Sometimes we've been apart, But that's just fine > And there's a hand my trusty friend! > And give me a hand o' thine! > And we'll take a right good-will draught, > for auld lang syne. Let's hold hands, Let's have a drink together, To all the good times This is a simplification of the traditional English translation. I hope it helps. If you need, I can do Burn's original Scots as well, but the lyrics are more-or-less the same meaning. *We've been apart, my friend, but now that we're together let's have a toast to all the good times.*",
"Should you forget your old friends as time goes by? Hell, no. Raise a cup in kindness and cheer, and drink to days gone by. Let's remember the times past and not forget them. Let's drink to those we loved.",
"It makes a bit more sense if you read the words in a Scots accent. Literally, it's \"old long since\", or, as others have put it, the good old days.",
"Auld Lang Syne is \"Good Old Times\" or \"Times Long Past\" in Scots, a language spoken in lowland Scotland that is a kind of a hybrid of Old and Middle English with remnants of Gaelic. It has morphed over the years to even include some modern English words and spellings. It is a song talking about old friends, and the memories you have with them. u/Kotama does a good breakdown of the song verse by verse. It is basically about toasting to old memories and continued friendship."
],
"score": [
112,
57,
12,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
7n1bwd | Why do Japanese people keep using logograms (Kanji) when they could write everything using their syllabaries (Hiragana/Katakana)? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dry9p38",
"drya744",
"drybezj"
],
"text": [
"In languages such as English you use a space between each word so you reader can understand you. In Japanese there are no spaces so writing only with hiragana/katakana would be somehow confusing. Also in the eye of a reader a kanji is quick to catch, so you'll easily find the verbs and the adjectives. TL:DR Without kanji reading Japanese feels like \"textwithoutseparationnorpunctuation\" Source: Japanese studies master degree",
"The English word is \"homophones\". In the English language, there are words that sound the same despite drastically different meanings. Let's take this sentence I just created: He led the lead lead thoroughly through the fair in order to obey his fair master's order. I use \"led\" as in the past-tense of \"to lead (something somewhere)\", as well as \"lead\" as in the metal often used in plumbing. These two words sound the same despite one being a noun and one being a verb. I also use \"lead\" as in someone of more importance than others, in context the person who is the star of a performance or plays the protagonist although it could be any sort of hero. This word is spelled exactly the same as the metal, but is pronounced differently. I also use \"fair\" as in a social gathering offering access to different worldviews and activities and such, as in terms of the \"Renaissance Fair\" or \"Great New York State Fair\" or \"Science Fair\" or \"Scholastic Book Fair\". And along with this, I use \"fair\", which is spelled and pronounced the same way, meaning \"beautiful\". And, similarly to \"fair\", I used \"order\" both in terms of a command (i.e., \"I order you\") and in terms of signifying a means to achieve one's goals (i.e., \"in order to\"). Same word, same pronunciation, same spelling, but different meanings. ----- Japanese has a similar problem. You mention the 46 Hirigana characters, but those correspond merely to vocalizations of the desired words. With \"thousands of\" Kanji characters, you get the same mix of Hirigana covering dozens to hundreds of Kanji that have different meanings. I know that some \"compound\" kanji have upwards of 5 syllables to them, and as such when written in hirigana it becomes quite tricky trying to determine if a phrase with those 5 syllables refers to the compound kanji or if the syllables/hirigana characters are supposed to be split. Meanwhile, you just have the one kanji to worry about. ----- In short, two (or more) different \"words\" can have similar pronunciations, just because there's only so many ways that things can be pronounced. Thus kanji clarifies the meaning: a specific kanji has either a specific meaning or specific range of similar meanings, significantly narrowing the potential for conflating or misinterpreting the word with a homonym/homophone.",
"The main advantages to using kanji are: Once you have learned them, it is much faster read kanji than to read hiragana/katakana. There are many more homonyms in Japanese than in English, and unlike English where you can use alternative spellings (to, too, two/ flour, flower), in hiragana that is impossible. Kanji allows you to distinguish homonyms. Finally, having four different writing systems (kanji, hiragana, katakana, romaji) allows you to add nuance in a way that is really impossible in English. To give but one example of this, a few weeks ago I was at a dinner where a Japanese-American man attended, and everyone had their own place card to tell them where to sit. Now despite the fact that this guy grew up in Japan, was a native Japanese speaker, and had a Japanese name, they wrote his name in katakana. This made it very clear that whoever made the placecard did not think of this guy as Japanese."
],
"score": [
19,
9,
4
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
7n82bq | The protesting in Iran, what is it over? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"drzsbgb",
"drzsccs"
],
"text": [
"*This is based on a limited amount of information on the subject and while it is based on reputable sources, I may have overlooked or missed some information. If you see something wrong or in need of an update, please reply and I will edit my post after confirming.* The starting point seems to have been falling living standards, or at least that is being cited, but the protests quickly spread and became more and more political, calling for an end to the theocratic system. This has, understandably, pissed off a lot of people, mostly the IRGC, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, a militia organization dedicated to retaining the Islamic order in Iran, who have threatened use of force against protesters. There have been some casualties in the last 24 hours, but the cause is unclear, as protesters claim security troops opened fire, and security troops blame protesters and foreign agents. In further concerning information, about 7 hours ago large numbers of unidentified aircraft were seen leaving Iran, some of these having seemingly disappeared from radar since while others have continued towards Azerbaijan and Armenia, and yet others have landed in various airports around Iran. It is currently unclear if these are flights seeking refuge, fleeing leaders or IRGC troop movements, potentially all of those. A video allegedly showing Iranian troops moving towards Mashhad, transporting what appears to be S-300 SAM systems, surfaced yesterday, but its authenticity hasn't been confirmed, nor how it would connect to the events. As for expected results, it will depend on how much popular support the protests really have. If IRGC starts a proper crack-down, that could be the tipping point that either leads into an open revolt or into the protests being suppressed. The protests are the biggest since 2009, which is saying something about the intensity. POTUS has issued a statement calling for Iran to oust current leadership, so at least they likely believe something will come out of these protests. Based on a source living in the country: Things have been awry for a while now. This issue started months ago due to jobs getting scarcer and scarcer, and the protests and riots are mostly poor people. Seems like the issue has been brewing for several months at the very least, and has now reached boiling point. Things are getting serious, but there is no indication yet of where this will lead. **Following several hours of rumours and a denial by the protocol office, Fars has now stated the Iranian president will release a pre-recorded message, assumed to do with the protests. As of now, the president's office hasn't confirmed this. Potentially tonight, although no times have been given yet. ISNA has said president Rouhani will address the nation on Sunday evening. No official confirmation. Iranian authorities are reported to have blocked access to Telegram messaging service after anti-government accounts were not locked down despite Iranian demands. Iran has also blocked Instagram to \"maintain peace\". Both of these reports come from Iranian State TV, so personally I believe them to be credible.** Edit: Almost forgot the expected results. Added that. Edit 2: Got in touch with a friend living in the country. Updated with their views. Bolding the latest update, so if you're checking back, it's easy to find. Edit 3 (15:10 UTC): Updated to reflect developments of the past few hours. Will continue to observe and update.",
"From what I read, the protests are generally about high unemployment, rising prices for food and government corruption. There wasn't a specific spark that started the protests. They have been in the making for quite some time. The Iranian economy has been struggling, social inequality is rising, women demand equal rights, the government is quite corrupt, etc. Usual issues to spark protests. The Iranians are particularly upset now because they had hoped for a better future after the Iran Nuclear Deal. It was promised that billions of frozen assets would pour into the Iranian economy. So far it seems like only little has actually reached the Iranian people. What will happen? The protests seem to be a civil rights movement, not a revolution. They will probably be calmed by promises and measures to lower prices, grant more civil rights, and take measure against corruption. If the people protesting trust that, time will tell. The other possibility would be a brutal suppression which could either succeed or trigger a revolutionary movement. I don't think this is likely, though."
],
"score": [
24,
5
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
7n8fwq | Why are manual transmissions still so prevalent in cars in Europe? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"drzugy7",
"drzuqdm",
"drzwi38",
"drzutgw",
"drzuwyx",
"drzwbh3",
"drzuh4n",
"drzz2yu",
"drzy12f",
"drzzi2y",
"drzycmk",
"drzww0u",
"drzyxx8",
"drzxl9p",
"drzyyp2",
"drzxzsp",
"drzuh31",
"ds00yfj",
"drzyeva",
"drzxkxk",
"drzzj68",
"ds00iga",
"drzxayp",
"drzwsjm",
"drzyi9p",
"ds00ivr",
"ds00d9v",
"ds01p99",
"drztyui",
"ds0077e"
],
"text": [
"I think the main reason it that **we're just used to it**, and it's a vicious circle. If you want to get a driver's licence, you need to choose whether you learn it for a manual or an automatic car. The latter option doesn't allow you to drive a manual one, so everyone picks the former one and learns to drive a manual car. Then when it's time to buy a car you can choose between a manual and an automatic one, the latter is typically a bit more expensive and since you've already learned to drive a manual one you might as well buy that one. Another possibility is that you **feel/are more in control** of the car with a manual transmission, and we don't really want to lose that feeling.",
"As well as the efficiency side of things there's the weight and cost. European cars are generally quite small and we have a much more compact road network. American style large cars do not fare well in medieval urban road layouts. Automatic transmissions started of as heavy, expensive, and uneconomical. When your car is only a few hundred kilos and has a 1 litre engine they are not an appealing addition for most people. Most people enjoy the control of manual gears too. Edit: to clarify, these (as I see it) are the reasons automatics were not popular for a long time and gave the manual market a lot of momentum. As car sizes have increased automatics have become more popular.",
"I prefer manual due to having much more control over the power transmission to the wheels. During winter here in Finland, when the roads can be extremely slippery, having a clutch to control the torque delivered makes it easier to not lose traction in tricky situations. A second thing I always look for in a car is being able to sense the road surface through the steering wheel. My father-in-law has a Citröen with air suspension that feels like you're driving a hovercraft, without a clue about whether or not the road is dangerously icy.",
"Automatics are known to be more costly, break down more often and inefficient. I'm sure they have improved but it'll be difficult to convince us (Brits) that automatics are better. We grew up amongst petrolheads and taught that only hairdressers and shit drivers drives automatics.",
"A better question is, \"Why are automatic transmission cars so popular in the US.\" In most parts of the world outside the US autos are manual transmission. Personally, I despise automatic transmissions. I prefer to choose the appropriate gear for the situation and to *pay attention* to the vehicle I'm driving.",
"Where I come from, in the northern parts of norway it’s just better with manual. An automatic car would suck on our winding mountain roads, and in winter we need the controle, you know, on ice and stuff. My dad had a automatic once, didn’t last the summer before he got rid of it. Couldn’t make it up the mountain with a hanger.",
"Old prejudices about fuel-economy and comfort. Valid points are price and maintenance costs, as well as I would definitely say you become a better driver, if you learn how to use cars with manual transmissions. Especially young people do not consider auto trannys as \"sporty\" or \"cool\". They are the opposite. \"You drive an auto transmission? Wtf you can't drive or what?\" I love my DCT transmission but I am very glad that I was able to learn driving and get to know the feeling of a car's behaviour, with shifting all day long. Electric cars will make transmission obsolet anyway, so most of the europeans will just skip all that tranny science lol",
"Certainly in the UK (or at least, my part of it...), there's a strong association between older drivers and automatics - people get automatic transmission cars when they are either too old to drive a \"proper\" car, or are simply not interested in driving as an experience any more. I have driven both extensively (live out in the sticks, so fairly high mileage for a small country), and find that the automatic makes me lazy; you have to do so little to actually drive - add in cruise control, and you might as well be asleep.",
"Hey Canadian here who knows how to drive manual but owns an automatic. I have found that for me manual for isn’t really worth it. Manual is nice on open roads with no traffic but if you get caught in traffic it is extremely unpleasant. In term of winter driving i see little benefit. I frequently drive 3 hrs plus in heavy winter conditions and i’d rather focus on not smashing into anything during a snow storm than my gears. Also, every automatic i’ve had let you shift into simulated manual control for the first few gears, if you need to get up an icy hill.",
"Why are automatic transmissions so prevalent in North America?",
"How else are you going to put it in H?",
"They are still superior when it comes to driving pleasure. Automatics are only advantageous in heavy traffic.",
"I mean, I'm an American but I prefer manual also. There's just something about banging through gears and having complete control",
"I think the question should be why are they disappearing in the US?",
"I live in a remote location. Manual vehicles, especially diesels, are prolific here because of their simplicity in regards to ease of maintenance and repair. A manual that fails in the outback is much easier to put back on the road with minimal specialised equipment and training than an automatic. [EDIT] The other side of the equation is boredom, when I'm driving for literal hours on end, the necessity to think about what gear you are in and whether it is the most efficient may help in keeping me awake and alert. There seems to be a lot of hatred against manuals in this thread, and the honest and realistic answer is that a lot of people don't understand the abject difficulty of living, working and travelling in remote areas. Everyone here needs to have a basic mechanical capacity, and that's much easier to learn on a manual.",
"Manual transmission gives control to the driver. If I want to drive in higher RPM I do. If I prefer a calm low RPM Sunday drive by the ocean, I can. Versatility.",
"Can only speak for Germany. Driving with manual transmission is considered more sportive/race-car-style than automatic. And with long stretches of the Autobahn without speed limits, driving fast is a popular thing here. Furthermore, automatic is usually more expensive than manual. (Edit for adding price argument)",
"Automatics have always been 5-10% more to buy over here. Also we always paid more for petrol over here so normally smaller engines so don't want to waste 10% of a small engine by using auto box. It's also more fun if you're into driving, small county roads, heel and toe etc.",
"A few reasons : ~~-gas/petrol is usually twice as expensive in Europe than it is in the US and manual transmissions get better milage~~ -manual cars are less expensive -many countries use weight as the basis for their car tax so Europeans favor smaller engined (lighter) cars -automatic transmissions both add weight and don't preform very well on smaller engines Edit: apparently the first point is no longer the case",
"Fuel Costs have to be up there. I paid $2.42/Gal today - which is .70 a liter - would you own a Twingo or a Mustang at these prices?",
"At my work we have a mix of manual and automatic vans and while us drivers can appreciate having a luxury of automatic while going through the city all day long all automatics will be replaced with manuals because they break down more often and are more difficult and more expensive for our mechanics to repair.",
"It's simple to me: driving is just more fun and dynamic when shifting gears yourself. Could find a good non automatic when I moved to the US and now driving is so dull and boring. And living in a hilly area automatic cars just suck A LOT! Seems almost no American has yet understood the concept of the engine breaking when going downhill.",
"Quick note also about driving on snow or in the mountains. This is quite common in Switzerland, France, Italy and so on to go uphill for a long time. Automatic transmission tend to shift so frequently that it reduces the driving comfort and fuel savings. Also, automatic on snow is a true challenge if you don't know properly your car. I used to drive with all the versions, and I preferred a dct or a manual for our roads.",
"Fuel saving really since petrol prices are so high. I've got very good coasting down hills and matching revs to start accelerating again safely. And when I go for the mad coastal drives in N. Ireland being able to heel / toe break is just gravy on the cake for satisfaction.",
"Along with what benefits others have mentioned (lower weight, driver engagement, lower cost to buy),licensing may be another reason why. I know in Germany, if you take the license test in an automatic car, you are only permitted to drive automatics but if you take the test in a manual car, you are permitted to drive manual AND automatic cars.",
"You could say the same about still having separate hot and cold taps, or no electrical outlets in the bathroom other than a special shaver plug. Tradition dies hard in Europe.",
"A lot of really childish and pathetic transmission snobs in this thread. Some people really will use any insignificant excuse to seem better than others.",
"There's an annoying amount of people here assuming an automatic car is just an objectively better \"progression\" of the technology because it's the only thing they've ever driven, they can't compare. If you've never tried a manual because you live somewhere that encourages autos try one (and don't be put off by how it \"seems more complicated\") you might find driving much more enjoyable than you did. That's why they're everywhere.",
"They're more fuel efficient than automatics. It takes energy to shift gears. An automatic transmission gets that energy from the engine; a manual gets it from the driver. Fuel prices in Europe have historically been what Americans would describe as \"insane\"--I can't speak for right now, but when I was in Italy in 2000, we were paying about $1.50 a gallon here. In Naples, Italy, it worked out to about $9.50 a gallon. The fuel savings from a manual transmission isn't dramatic, but when prices are that high, literally every drop saved makes a noticeable difference. Incidentally, that's also why diesel engines are more popular in Europe--they're about 30% more fuel-efficient than gasoline engines.",
"Most people in the UK learn to drive manual as the license grants you permission to only drive automatic if you take your test in an automatic. The manual transmission test/license allows you to drive both. When buying cars, especially used cars, the availability is going to be heavily skewed to manual transmission. I suspect many younger drivers will be budget-limited and will be in the used car market for their first car. After a while of driving a manual transmission, the clutch-in, change gear, clutch-out to biting point becomes automatic in the driver. You don't think about it except perhaps when starting on a hill. At this point, the need or desire to drive an automatic has diminished to the point where it not considered at next (possibly new) car purchase time. Automatics also cost a £1000 or so more."
],
"score": [
1632,
757,
335,
207,
153,
134,
67,
57,
37,
32,
21,
18,
16,
15,
12,
11,
11,
10,
8,
7,
7,
7,
6,
5,
5,
4,
3,
3,
3,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
7n8g1u | Can somebody explain the class divisions in England/UK? | I visited there last year and class seems relatively important. How important is class? Are people from different classes expected to behave a certain way? Manners, accents, where they live, etc. UPDATE: I never expected so much thoughtful responses. Class in the UK is difficult to explain but I think I was schooled by the thoughtful responses below. I will be back in London this year so hopefully I will learn more about the UK. Happy New Year everyone! | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ds05z35",
"drzuxob",
"drzvi6p",
"drzxddq",
"ds00e0s",
"drzxodg",
"drzunsq",
"ds04ogh",
"drzzhz8",
"ds0clem"
],
"text": [
"I have to laugh at all the people saying ‘class divisions don’t really exist here any more’. My life has been a study of British class divisions. My family went from lower working class (both grandfathers were coal miners) to the lower rungs of aristocracy in two generations (my sister and I were privately educated, went to very good universities; she married name-on-buildings wealthy). I can safely assure you that class divisions are very deeply entrenched in the UK, but not in a glaringly obvious way to most people. The working and lower-middle classes are relatively close together in wealth, education, society, location, etc. They intermingle pretty seamlessly, having gone to the same state schools, holiday destinations, restaurants, rugby/football games, pubs, etc -and in some cases universities. The major fork in society is found at true middle-class, where those who can afford it send their children to private schools. This is the most obvious indicator of class and wealth. ‘Old money’ places like Eton, Harrow and Gordonstoun (expect titles and landed gentry), newer money but still very wealthy places like Charter House and Cheltenham Ladies’ (father is a CEO, CFO, Russian property magnate, mummy comes from old money), moving ‘down’ the ranks to Haberdashers’, Houndslow, etc. until you find yourself among the thousands of ‘no-name’ private schools that, despite not possessing massive endowments or educating peers of the realm, still act as the gate-keepers of social stratification. Universities are *slightly* more egalitarian. Theoretically, anyone can make it to Oxford, Cambridge, UCL, St Andrews, etc. if they work super hard and have all the right extra-curriculars, but state schools capable of sculpting such a student are relatively thin on the ground (and generally located in high net worth areas anyway). In comparison, private schools exist to craft you into the perfect candidate. If a state school student does manage to make it to the British version of the Ivy League, they are immediately met with their first taste of social stratification: drinking port with tutors, rowing, lacrosse, punting, literal Old Boys’ and Girls’ networks, wine tasting, ski trips, gap years, summers abroad, polo, and so on. Having never experienced these things, it is very difficult to assimilate and learn the new language of wealth and privilege, even if you can afford to indulge such pastimes. Upper-middle and upper class people don’t apply for jobs. They reach out through the previously established networks described above, secured and reinforced by a lifetime of shared experiences on their strata. It is because of these literally exclusive experiences that the wealthy have their own language that distinguishes them from middle-class in a way that doesn’t ‘upset the proletariat’. Your average Brit wouldn’t be able to distinguish a casual mention of skiing in Corchevel from Klosters or St Moritz or Val Thoren, but these all mean different things to the initiated. The working and middle classes would just hear ‘I went skiing’; something that most can not afford to do either way. But to those in-the-know, these make a difference between networking with millionaires and networking with billionaires. This is just one example out of dozens to show how the upper-classes heavily stratify themselves in ways the lower classes aren’t privy to. Where you shop, dine, drink, live, work, entertain and are entertained, holiday, golf, swim, play tennis, etc. mean little to those who don’t know the language, but everything to those who do.",
"The simplest class divisions in the UK are probably working, middle, and upper class, which roughly translates to people who have skilled or unskilled manual jobs (construction, mechanic), people who have jobs that require more education (teacher, accountant), and the aristocracy. However, these days it's a lot more complicated than that! Since a lot of industry here collapsed (see the 1970s and 80s), there are a lot of people who would probably consider themselves working class, but no longer work in those industries. \"Middle class\" encompasses a huge swathe of the population, so it's not necessarily a useful distinction. You could probably more usefully divide the population by which newspaper they read, that seems to group people roughly by their wealth and political leanings. You've got papers like the Mirror and the Sun, whose readers generally have less money and education; the Daily Mail, which is like the British equivalent of Fox News; then more \"high brow\" papers like the Guardian (liberal/left wing), the Telegraph (Conservative/right wing), and the Times. The different papers often strongly advocate certain political stances (the EU referendum was a great example). I'm probably what you could describe as a typical Guardian reader - a bleeding-heart lefty liberal with too much education, who recycles and grows their own vegetables for fun ;-) There's still very much an us and them mentality in this country when it comes to class, which the media and our politicians like to exacerbate and mercilessly exploit...",
"This sketch explains the dynamics nicely URL_0 The most interesting part (on which John Cleese has written about in one of his books) was the part about the middle class having more money than the upper class, but still being vulgar. The dynamic there is that it's fine to have money, but not to make it (ie inherited wealth vs. working as a lawyer or other professional)",
"It's clear from the comments so far that nobody can *really* explain the British class system. It's very complicated. The only clear designations are working class and aristocracy. The middle class is stratified almost infinitely. Lower middle, upper middle, middle lower middle and so forth; and members of each stratum can easily recognise those who aren't. To decent people the differences don't carry any weight at all - nobody chooses their parents. As you suggest, behaviour is very important. For entertainment, the working and lower middle classes go to football and pubs, upper middle enjoy opera and fine dining, but there are many crossovers.",
"The primary difference, at least between US/UK class systems, is financial But it’s not just about how much money you have (like in the US), but how old, where it came from, etc. In America, in theory anyone can rise to the upper echelons of society purely through economic means. In the UK you can be a broke aristocrat and still be “upper class”. Money does not equate with social “class” as simply as it does in the US. In fact the wrong kind of money can be seen as vulgar and negatively impact your standing. One exception would be honorary titles. If you were working class and distinguished yourself enough to receive a title, that would give you a boost in society, but more as a novelty factor. As has been said in this thread, accent is the easiest signifier of class, (as it directly relates to your education - government or private school, note I did not say public school) but only to trained English ears as it’s more akin to dialects, so it’s quite nuanced. This is why American’s tend to butcher the English accent. They think everyone English is “posh”, but they usually end up with a hideous version of Cockney from Mary Poppins. Cockney is definitely not posh. It is an awesomely weird and wonderful culture though. This might be a good time to explain the Posh Spice conundrum. Posh Spice is ironic. She was/is very working class, she married a footballer. Doesn’t get more working class than football. But she liked to wear heels rather than trainers, hence the “posh”. Glad I got that off my chest! Leaving aside arguments of rapacious elites sticking it to the working classes. A different topic. I think there is actually a good amount of genuine affection between the classes. I think a lot of this goodwill stems from WWII when the working class “Tommy” (enlisted men) really distinguished themselves and saved the nation. The officer corps was more likely drawn from the upper classes. But they all mucked in together. In many respects I think a lot of people are quite comfortable with the class system. Its confusing to outsiders but makes sense to a lot of people in a weird way. Middle Class is of course the exception as they are perpetually aspirational. You can see this affection today in small pockets of country life and sporting pursuits. it’s a tradition that is uniquely English and most everyone involved values it and wants to preserve it. My 0.02c having lived in UK for a number of years and knowing people of all stripes.",
"Working class and upper class people are the same. They love a good time and are totally unselfconscious about themselves. Middle class people, on the other hand, spend their whole lives desperately tweaking their accents and manners to convince working class people that they are better than them and trying to persuade upper class people that they’re as good as them. It’s painful to behold.",
"I think the only people who find class to still be important are working class people with a bit of a chip on their shoulder about being working class. I suppose I would technically be considered middle class (both parents were educated to university level and had professional jobs, both myself and my brother went to private school and then university, grew up in small village), however I never really thought about class or the differences until I myself became an adult moved to London and mixed with people form all over the country, and world. These days it is very unusual to have any awareness of high society and upper classes, even the lords and peers have to open their estates to tourists to pay for the up keep. Most of what was associated with upper classes (birthrights, land ownership, independent wealth) seems to have all but disappeared from day to day life and relegated to tv and film. I believe the modern class system in the uk is the very wealthy and everyone else. i.e those with the ability to support themselves and their families completely and those who have to rely on the support from the government in some way (social housing, benefits etc..) the lines are very blurry and there are probably only a small proportion of the population that don’t take any support from the government in someway (tax credits, help to buy scheme, increased personal tax allowance, free school meals, means tested bursary, pension, winter fuel, small business start up support, free child care...etc). Even a household earning over £60k per year would be in receipt of some kind of government support in some way. I don’t have any evidence or references for this. I have just given my opinion and experience as a 34 year old female living, working and educated in the UK.",
"Not an explanation but there is an excellent book on this (and other) subject(s) called \"Watching the English\", by Kate Fox",
"Name on your shirt - working class. Name on your desk - middle class. Name on the building - upper class.",
"You can't really simply 'become' upper class. You usually have to be born upper class. All the rest, are to some extent mobile in as much as you can move between them, either way, except if you're educated, its very hard to be working class. Class is not usually about money, but is often about assets: lots of people who live in huge historic houses are very poor in cash terms. Lots of working class people drive big fancy cars. Being middle class is often about money and education combined. Some people say any class except the upper classes is simply a state of mind. Margaret Thatcher was definitely middle class. It can depend on if you call it a serviette or a napkin. It can depend on what time dinner is."
],
"score": [
796,
209,
40,
25,
25,
20,
14,
12,
6,
6
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[
"https://youtu.be/-_xURRQD6-M"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
7nbhrm | Why do so many Australian desserts contain jelly? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ds0kefl"
],
"text": [
"URL_0 > Is jelly just a traditional Australian ingredient Pretty much. Especially back in the day when Australia's economy was based a lot on agriculture - gelatin was readily available so Jelly was cheap and readily available. Especially during world war 2 when rationing hit - groups like the CWA (Country Women's Association) would hand out ideas for cheap and easy recipes to help out - and jelly featured in a lot of them. And it's just stuck. Parents give their kids jelly so then those kids grow up and give their kids jelly, and so on and so on. Well that and Jelly tastes good. Edit: Also Jelly in the US and Australia are different things - In the US Jelly refers to the spread, in Australia Jelly refers to what you guys call Jello"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text_urls": [
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dJZ2w6Q_Uww"
]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5rc49o | Why were slaves that escaped into the Free states returned after the Fugitive Slave Laws were passed? (read text) | These slaves were taken back even though they had escaped BEFORE the law was passed. Since laws cannot be applied retroactively (you cannot incriminate someone that did an action that was banned after they committed it), wouldn't the slaves be still free? This was occurring in the 1800's in the US for clarification. Thank you! | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dd62rjz"
],
"text": [
"Because they were still listed as slaves. Their names are still on their most recent master's books as being owned by them. In the north, yeah they were technically free, but in the south they weren't. The fugitive slave laws let slave owners go up and get slaves they legally owned still. In practice though, it was usually slaves they legally owned as well as just about any black guy unlucky enough to be on the street at the time of the slave catcher going through."
],
"score": [
8
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
5rc61l | What was the actual process for immigrating to America like in the days of Ellis Island? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dd63m1x",
"dd62pip"
],
"text": [
"They just showed up on boats and were screened and either approved and allowed to stay or rejected and sent back on a boat. If they were rejected they were allowed an appeal to argue their case. There was also a quarantine process where they'd keep the ill on Ellis Island if they had an infectious disease. There is a fairly large hospital there. If you're ever in New York the immigration museum at Ellis Island is terrific and really explains the process well.",
"From what I've thought is that there really wasn't a process before, people just came on boats with hopes & dreams and that was it. However we always hear in recent years refrains such as 'my family came the *right* way' when referencing ancestors who came in that time period and I realize I don't actually **know** what people did. My own maternal family came from Greece in 1915 and I've been lucky enough to see their entry from the records, but it doesn't provide more than names & dates."
],
"score": [
8,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5rc8k6 | Why are judges on The Supreme Court appointed instead of elected? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dd63d5k"
],
"text": [
"They require such a devoted and intricate knowledge of all facets of the law that appointment will always end up with a better court overall than simply letting the overly emotional and easily swayed public decide based on how they feel that year. Appointment and life terms also make sense because the basis of interpreting every law in the country shouldn't be changing on a regular schedule and should stick around for longer"
],
"score": [
7
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5rchs6 | Neil Gorsuch's political stance/history? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dd66f46"
],
"text": [
"The following is my attempt to be as impartial as possible.... Gorsuch is an originalist. This means he believes the Constitution should be read and interpreted as the founding fathers initially intended in 1787. This view lends itself to a pro-life stance, a traditional definition of marriage, fairly heavy emphasis on states' rights, etc."
],
"score": [
4
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5rdj2i | Immigration Outside the US | I know that most countries have arrangements where they allow foreign nationals to live and stay *temporarily* in their country through the use of Visas, either for school, or work, or whatever. It seems that the US has a large number of "Permanent Residents", who are not citizens, but live in the US permanently. Do other countries have "Permanent Residents" (like green-card holders in the US)? Or are only temporary visas granted, and permanent residents must become citizens to stay indefinitely? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dd6flmz"
],
"text": [
"A lot of countries give the option of being a permanent resident (PR) to foreign nationals who have been long-time residents. The criteria for getting a PR may differ by a lot depending on the country. A lot of it has to do with supply-demand economics. I know for a fact that US, Canada, many EU countries as well as Australia offer PR option.. In a country like US, there are HUGE number of foreign nationals interested in becoming PR, simply because of greater opportunities, a better life. For others where the demand is still high but not astronomically high like the US, the criteria are relatively less stringent (compared to US). The criteria a country uses for PR applications may by of different types: education, salary, years lived in the country, any relatives who are citizens etc."
],
"score": [
7
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
5re3kn | How the US Congress was able to stall Obama's nomination for late Justice Scalia's place on the Supreme court? | What would keep Congress from stalling the next president's nomination for Supreme Court? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dd6sxje",
"dd6jfpr",
"dd6mbqx",
"dd6jglb",
"dd6oqre",
"dd6tfn8",
"dd78gc5",
"dd78ntk"
],
"text": [
"TLDR: They didn't feel like it. Conversations with a 5 year old: 5YO: How did they stall the nomination for so long? Me: they didn't feel like it 5YO: so if you don't feel like doing your job, you can just not do it? Me: yeah, but then you can get fired 5YO: will they get fired? Me: No, politicians don't get fired. All they have to do is convince enough people that all the bad things happened because of politicians in the opposing party and get re-elected 5YO: and people don't see through that? Me: Nope 5YO: But don't they have a moral obligation to try to improve this country and help the people that elected them? Me: Yep 5YO: so they just don't care? Me: Nope 5YO: ....Fuck Me: Yeah...don't tell mom we had this conversation. Here is some money for video games....and please get off Reddit.",
"The Senate is required to confirm the President's nominee. The Senate was majority Republican in the last congress, and refused to even hold a hearing. The Senate is still majority Republican in the Congress.",
"> ELI5: How the US Congress was able to stall Obama's nomination for late Justice Scalia's place on the Supreme court? The constitution requires the Senate to give confirm the President's nominee. However, it doesn't set any other requirements- it doesn't say it has to be done by a certain time, or at all. There's also no repurcussions, other than if voters decide to change how they vote over it. The Senate was Republican last year, meaning they could refuse to hold a hearing. It's up for debate as philosophy whether stalling counts as \"and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate\", since stalling kind of isn't a yes/no advice. Practically speaking, it doesn't matter, since there's no way to contest it. > What would keep Congress from stalling the next president's nomination for Supreme Court? It depends. If nothing changes, there's nothing preventing Democrats from filibustering the nomination. However, Republicans could threaten to retaliate by eliminating the filibuster (which is basically tradition, there's no legal requirement to keep it). A filibuster requires 2/3 vote, but if it's eliminated, they only need a majority. If Democrats do filibuster, it's seen as fairly likely that R's will get rid of the filibuster, and put in a different conservative candidate anyway. Even if they want to keep the filibuster, it's wildly accepted that it would be political suicide to let it go for 4 years. aside: Comments implying it's common/normal are poppycock. Whether you agree with the delay of Merrick Garland, it's historically unprecedented and a very big change in precedent. /u/Delehal posted a nice list in the comments. Quite frankly,\"letting the people choose\" doesn't even make sense, since President Obama was elected. edit: I derped, as several commenters mentioned, cloture is only 60 votes.Don't post late at night, kids!",
"They are required to confirm or reject the nominee for Supreme Court, but nothing in law tells them how quickly they have to do it. So there is no legal thing that would prevent stalling.",
"Simple answer is that the Republican majority in Congress refused to do *anything* that Obama proposed merely because he's a Democrat. Confirm a Supreme Court justice? Filibuster. Approve a new budget? Filibuster. Have the floors waxed? Filibuster. US politics has become so polarized over the last few decades that you could release a litter of kittens into the RNC, all wearing cute little sweaters that have \"Democrat\" written on them, and they wouldn't get ten feet before they're all stomped to death.",
"The President gets to suggest supreme court judges, and the senate needs to approve or reject them. It is widely considered a \"perk\" of being president that you get to pick the supreme court judges because it is hard for the seante to vote against a qualified candidate for blatantly political reasons. So generally speaking the President's \"suggestion\" ends up getting Senate approval. This time however there were a couple of pretty big twists. First The vacancy opened up in Obama's last year in an 8 year term when he had appointed several supreme court justices already. This last year is an odd time because the next president is running for election and its pretty rare for anything major politically to be done by the \"lame duck\" president. Second the vacancy was an arch conservative. It is one thing to fill the seat of a swing vote with someone on your side, its one thing to fill the seat of a conservative with another conservative or a liberal with another liberal. But Obama was going to be FLIPPING a seat. on a court that is 5-4 splitting frequently. THIS WAS HUGE. Third Obama had suffered a series of painful electoral defeats and had lost control of the senate. Fourth during his terms Obama had systematically ruined his relationship with the Republican senators. He used the \"nuclear option\" for judicial appointments, he made \"treaties\" that didn't get senate approval as constitutionally required, he didn't have any give and take to him like Bill Clinton or Bush did. There was no bipartisanship and that really was as much his doing as anyone else's. Fifth, everyone thought Hillary would win. So ordinarily you can't vote against a supreme court candidate for blatantly political reasons because it looks bad. But suddenly Republicans could just not bring the matter up for consideration (because they were in control), and argue that because it was the end of Obama's term and new people were running, it was appropriate to leave it to them. And since everyone thought Hillary would win... no one was really all that pissed off about it. Turns out trump won.",
"They simply refused to even put the appointment on the Senate Judiciary Committee agenda for review and consideration, much less bring it before a full Senate for a hearing and vote. They had the numbers to make it work, and still do: URL_1 ) Just in case you think the Dems might be able to put together any sort of blocking effort to stall his approval, forget it. The GOP members will just do what they did to fast-track Trump cabinet appointments — suspend committee procedural rules to prevent it. URL_0",
"They simply refused to hold hearings on the nomination or take a vote. There is no requirement that the position be filled in a certain amount of time. As an example in the mid 1840's Justice Henry Baldwin died, and the Whig controlled Senate refused to take action on President John Tyler's nominees. It wasn't until Polk was elected that that Senate finally approved his *second* nominee. A total of 841 days. Had Hillary been elected the Senate would have likely swiftly approved Obama's pick of Merrick Garland in order to avoid someone they found less palatable."
],
"score": [
82,
42,
14,
7,
7,
5,
3,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.theblaze.com/news/2017/02/01/senate-republicans-change-rules-unanimously-approve-trump-nominees-without-democrats/",
"https://www.govtrack.us/congress/committees/SSJU"
],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
5rehv8 | Why do Americans hate communists? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dd6me3p",
"dd6n4qq",
"dd6plza",
"dd6n519",
"dd6t358",
"dd6v21t",
"dd6n77p",
"dd6m5pw",
"dd6sd90",
"dd6snd8"
],
"text": [
"To put it short it's the result of decades or even a whole century by now of propaganda and indoctrination. The first anti-communist propaganda in the US became popular around the 20s I'd say. When worker movements and protests were gaining a lot of popularity and with that communist, socialist and anarchist movements. The US government and those in power of big companies didn't want those movements to become to popular or even take over one day, because that would mean they'd lose their power. After the Second World War that propaganda became a lot more apparent. With the USSR being one of the biggest players in the second world war and having become a powerhouse, the US government felt even more threatened. That is how the Red Scare came to happen. It was the time in the US when anti-communist propaganda basically was the most present and the strongest. Again they feared that they might lose power, because the USSR and over time more and more countries became socialist. Such a long exposure of propaganda and being taught lies still has its effects today (not saying that it ended today, but since there is no major communist threat anymore, there is far less propaganda against it). Should probably keep this last sentence out, but there's a saying that goes as following: \"It is easier to believe a lie that one has heard a thousand times than to believe a fact that one has never heard before.\" It's also a quote from Robert Lynd if I remember right.",
"Because those of us with parents or grandparents that immigrated from communist countries have heard many times their first impressions of a US grocery store.",
"Well, I'm an American born citizen, but my family is all from Cuba, immigrated here legally. I hate communism because it led to the destruction of Cuba. It's sad that the island is in the shape it is today, due to the actions of Castro's regime. In short, some of us hate communism because it destroyed our home.",
"Ok, so I am a US citizen born in a communist country. The anti-USSR propaganda others mention is definitely a factor. It was used effectively to paint all left of center US politicians as evil liberals, and conservatism as the only true way. Also, anyone that owns a business is probably anti-communist because you can't own a business in the communist system. All businesses are run by the government. Next, I'll quote my mom: \"working for ration cards sucks.\" You don't get paid with money in a communist system. You get a little piece of paper that says you get x of whatever per month. Then x (let's say coal to heat your house) is dropped off in your neighborhood and it is up to you to get it home. To me, communism is just as extreme as GOP style capitalism, religious extremism and all other -isms. Dogmas are obsolete, we live in the Information Age, why does anyone need to be locked into a dogma? IMO, dividing the populace into pro/anti capitalist/communist is a great way for the oligarchs in each country to continue robbing the average citizen.",
"On top of the answers already given (of... varying quality), it's probably good to get some definitions and history down, since by understanding _why_ the USSR came to be a thing and how it operated itself, it should be apparent why America is as it is. It will become clear why i'm defining these as the comment goes on. I'll also point out the difference between technical and academic definition, and colloquial (everyday) definitions - when talking about ideologies, they very often do not match up. I will be using two examples to illustrate these definitions - a coal miner, and a computer programmer working in an office. _**Basic concepts**_ In economics, the **means of production** are 'physical, non-human inputs used for the production of economic value, such as facilities, machinery, tools, infrastructural capital and natural capital' (wikipedia). In a sentence, they're the thing you use to make other, useful stuff (which you may then sell or use). You can differentiate between the instruments of labour (e.g tools) and subjects of labour (raw materials) if you want, but in colloquial use it usually means the former more than the latter. For a miner, your means of production will be the pickaxes, drills, and other machinery used to extract coal (your useful stuff) out of the ground. For a programmer, your means of production will be the computer you code on to write programs. In Marxist analysis (and to an extent in economics), your relationship to the means of production defines your **class**. A **worker** (a member of the working class) is someone who sells their labour for a wage and, under capitalism, does not own the means of production. Both the miner (who digs for coal) and the programmer (who writes code) utilise production to make useful stuff, and in return they are paid a wage. Workers are members of the 'working class' (colloquially, 'working class' simply refers to people who are poor or have low income, but this definition lacks nuance) - they area also referred to as the **proletariat**. **Private property** is a legal term referring to stuff which is owned by individuals and corporations. It is contrasted with **personal ownership**, which is stuff owned by the individual using it, and **social ownership** which refers to a bunch of different types of ownership - the most common being **public ownership** (owned by the state), **worker ownership** (owned by the workers), and **common ownership** (owned by everyone). The proletariat, in Marxist analysis, are contrasted with the **bourgeoisie** - those who privately own the means of production and receive money (but do not work for it), and act as [rent seekers]( URL_3 ). For example, landlords are the classic example of the bourgeoisie, as they charge rent from you despite not actually doing anything to 'earn' that rent income. _**Capitalism and Socialism**_ At its most basic, **Capitalism** is an umbrella term for a system where the means of production are privately owned. Under capitalism, the miner does not own his pickaxe and tools, nor the coal he mines out of the ground - the mining company does. Similarly, the programmer does not own his computer nor the programs he writes - that IP belongs to the company. Similarly, **Socialism** is an umbrella term for a system where the means of production are socially owned. Under socialism, the miner owns both his tools and the coal, and the programmer owns both his computer and his programs. Both may not have sole ownership - inevitably, unless they are individually self employed, they will own it with other people. In practice, both of these terms are _extremely_ vague - there are endless ideological fights between and within these terms, which are umbrella terms (for example: [can markets exist within socialism?]( URL_5 )). Colloquially, use of either term is asking for a semantic argument. For example, in the USA and parts of the UK, [social democracy]( URL_1 ) (capitalism with safety nets and state welfare) is considered synonymous with socialism. Academically, social democracy is capitalism, and since both capitalism and socialism are mutually exclusive systems, social democracy is not socialism. Finally, **Communism** refers, academically, to a society where all property is owned in common - i.e, everyone owns everything, and everyone has a say in how everything runs. Marx described it as a 'classless, stateless, moneyless society'. Colloquially, 'communism' refers to the communist parties, who are usually Marxist-Leninist (more on that later). _**Marx and dialectics**_ Marx was influential for a bunch of reasons, but there was one big idea that he had which really set it all in motion. To understand this, you have to understand a philosopher which he (and a bunch of other influential dudes) loved, called [Hegel]( URL_2 ). Hegel's works are notoriously difficult to read and to understand, but in short he pushed the idea of the **Hegelian dialectic**. The idea goes like this: 1. A development (called the 'thesis') happens. 2. A reaction to the thesis (the 'antithesis') happens. 3. The tension between the thesis and the antithesis is resolved via a third route, the 'synthesis'. This can be a difficult concept to wrap one's head around, so as an example I am going to paraphrase something which [someone]( URL_4 ) wrote about Fallout: New Vegas. New Vegas is a game which draws on these themes a LOT. [Caesar himself]( URL_0 ) explains his situation using dialectics: > PLAYER: So you'll destroy the NCR because you hate its inefficiencies? > CAESAR: No, I'll destroy it because it's inevitable that it be destroyed. It's Hegelian Dialectics, not personal animosity. > PLAYER: Hegelian Dialectics? What are those? > CAESAR: How do I put this basically enough? It's a philosophical theory, the kind you might encounter if you took time to read some books. The fundamental premise is to envision history as a sequence of \"dialectical\" conflicts. Each dialectic begins with a proposition, a thesis... which inherently contains, or creates, its opposite - an antithesis. Thesis and antithesis. The conflict is inevitable. But the resolution of the conflict yields something new - a synthesis - eliminating the flaws in each, leaving behind common elements and ideas. > PLAYER: So what's \"dialectic\" about you and the NCR? > CAESAR: The bombs wiped the slate clean. Human civilization descended to a level of ignorance that effectively set our cultural progress back to zero. The NCR has all of the problems of the ancient Roman Republic - extreme bureaucracy, corruption, extensive senatorial infighting. Just as with the ancient Republic, it is natural that a military force should conquer and transform the NCR into a military dictatorship. Thesis and antithesis. The Colorado River is my Rubicon. The NCR council will be {beat} eradicated, but the new synthesis will change the Legion as well... from a basically nomadic army to a standing military force that protects its citizens, {finality} and the power of its dictator. Caesar believes that the rise of the Legion (a totalitarian, even fascist, military dictatorship) was the natural, unavoidable reaction to the NCR and the bureaucracy and inefficiency he perceives. He sees the end result of the tensions between the NCR and the Legion as a military dictatorship, which he will head. Of course, this is just his interpretation. Dialectics suggests that something new will be created from the tension between thesis and antithesis, but doesn't claim to know _what_ will be create. Hegel's view was that these theses and antitheses would be created through human thought - this is referred to as ['absolute idealism']( URL_6 ). Then Marx came along. It was his view that Hegelian dialectic was flawed, and that history did not move forward based on abstracted human thought. It was his view that history moves forward based on materialist observations, that the socio-political world is shaped by _stuff_, rather than ideas. This is referred today as **dialectical materialism**. This idea was, and continues to be, _MASSIVE_. Just like Caesar in New Vegas claimed it was inevitable that a military dictatorship would result from the battle between the NCR and the Legion, Marx claimed that it was inevitable that human history would move forward as a result of material tensions, and that within each stage of humanity there would be a class who would cause the demise of that order, and set the next stage. He claimed that human history has gone like this: 1. Tribal society/'Primitive communism': Pre-agricultural society where the concept of 'ownership' hasn't been invented yet, so everyone 'owns' everything. 2. Slave society: After the agricultural revolution, the concept of ownership was invented. Class and the state hence develop. All property (land and wealth) is concentrated into the hands of a few, while the vast majority have nothing. Marx claims that the slave society ended itself since its requirement for an endless supply of slaves lead to over-extension and too much maintenance to cope with. The Aristocracy demolished the slave society, causing a shift to Feudalism. 3. Feudalism: Defined by aristocracy (the state is run by individuals with inherited wealth, and property is owned by these individuals) and the birth of the nation-state. As nation-states grew, trade between them increased, leading to a merchant class (what we would now call the bourgeoisie). This class is driven by a profit motive, which is restricted by the feudal lords - so they overthrow feudalism, bringing us into the current era of Capitalism. (to be continued)",
"Hey, I'm from country that tried to build communism, clearly failed and still didn't recover from it nor mentally nor economicly It's a stupidest thing to live in free country and wonder why communism, totalitarism, socialism e.t.c. gets all the hate. I want to live in a good country, let's switch. Propoganda, yeah, riiight",
"Well, 100 million dead does that to you. Generally anyone with sense is going to reject an idea which has caused the people of this earth more misery than any other. Of course, some people possess so much abstract intelligence that they become devoid of common sense- these are the communist sympathizer intellectuals who are so far removed from reality that they don't feel ashamed to speak well of this monstrosity. Don't ask just why Americans hate communism, ask why the people of countries formerly under its rule hate it even more. Go to Cambodia, Ukraine, China, Vietnam (last two communist in name only now), Czech Republic... of course they say that's not real communism. Yeah right was Nazi Germany not real fascism?",
"After World War II, the US and Russia were in conflict with each other. Russia was communist, and so the US made a point of opposing communism. Generations of Americans were raised to believe that communism wasn't just bad, but actively evil. It's been years, but that influence on America is still there.",
"To answer the question itself, it started as propaganda shortly after WWII and increased going into the Cold War that the right wing used to make the public afraid of communist countries that way politicians could fear monger and start wars. The main staple of the propaganda is that \"the communist is coming to take your freedom\". But now I think its used jokingly as an insult. Like for example, in school when working on art projects we didn't have enough markers/paints/tools for everyone to use so we had to share and some class clown would call the teacher a communist. It doesn't really carry the same weight it used to, but its still the butt of the joke. As for my personal belief. I think a perfect form of Communism is an ideal society. However perfect communism has never happened, and if it did, not for long. There are always people that want to be greater than others, and often times they find themselves in powerful positions. If there was a way to start a new country populated 100% by selfless people I would sign up right away.",
"This is a massive question which would be extremely difficult to do an ELI5 for. If you're interested, I'd suggest reading about America's complex history with communism through key moments. It's amazing how it went from Karl Marx exchanging letters with Lincoln, to communism being near non existent as force in the 1980s. Here's a timeline: 1. Anti-communist rhetoric became mainstream in the early 1910s. America supported the Russian Tsar and as such heavily opposed Lenin's communist revolutionaries. The US would go on to support the White Army in the Russian Civil War. This began by branding communists as being 'the enemy' as part of a war. 2. 1920s saw the rise of the American labour movement. This was a very violent time coinciding with prohibition, the Great Depression, and the victory of the Red Army in Russia. American communists were great supporters of trade unionists and played a key role in attaining many workers rights which still exist today. There was often small wars being fought between those who opposed unionists (Mafia, National Guard/government, various corporations) and those who supported trade unionists (USSR, and all ranges of the political left from progressive liberals through to radical communists). These conflicts largely ended when FDR took power 3. WWII played a mixed role. The USSR betrayed the USA with the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact, then became America's closest ally aiding the victory in both the European and Pacific theaters. FDR maintained a close relationship with Stalin, but after FDR's death his successor Truman was a lot less friendly. 4. The Cold War began following WWII and in in the late 40s saw the rise of the single most significant event. This was the rise of McCarthyism. Senator McCarthy went on a crusade against everyone remotely left leaning. Communism became a boogeyman to use against his political opponents. This also entrenched anti-communism in the Republican party (not to imply the DNC is not anti-communist also). Many famous allies to the US were forcibly deported, including many Hollywood celebrities like Charlie Chaplain to academics and even some of those who built the nuclear bomb. 5. The Civil Rights movement brought a second wave of McCarthyism. Groups like the Black Panthers who had strong Marxist tendencies were branded enemies of the state. Many civil rights leaders such as MLK were socialists, and considered Soviet sympathizers for opposing the US government. 6. In the 1980s Reagan and the Republican Party sabotaged President Carter's diplomatic foreign policy. The USSR were made the great boogeyman once again and Reagan became extremely hostile towards all communist ideas. In particular he targeted universities and areas of study such as economics. Presently, communism doesn't have as negative a view that it did in the 20th century as the Cold War is over and China has abandoned communism in all but name, whilst other communist nations are of no interest to the US. The legacy of McCarthyist ideas still persists and is why there are fewer/smaller communist movements in the US compared to other countries."
],
"score": [
111,
21,
11,
11,
11,
7,
7,
6,
6,
4
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NyeTaXv6o4Y",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democracy",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georg_Wilhelm_Friedrich_Hegel",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent-seeking",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/falloutlore/comments/2z0g1s/fallout_new_vegas_on_dialectics_and_moving_on/",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_socialism",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_idealism"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5rf45c | How can some countries claim separation of church and state, but use religious reasoning to pass bills/laws? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dd6ppbn"
],
"text": [
"Separation of church and state simply means that the government won't favor one religion over another. It does not mean that people can't base their political beliefs on religious principles."
],
"score": [
9
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5rfamj | Why is it disrespectful to wear hats during the American National Anthem? | We're also told this when reciting our pledge of allegiance in school. "Gentlemen, please remove your ballcaps" is standard at ball games for the national anthem. | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dd6raoj"
],
"text": [
"It is inherited from Victorian English behavioral models, and their predecessors in Renaissance and Medieval times. It is considered rude to wear your hat in the presence of a superior unless you are military. So you take your hat off when greeting them. This goes on to being disrespectful to have a hat on when taking an oath, which is what the Pledge of Allegiance is. You also have the fact that it is specifically in violation of what you are suppose to do as per US Flag Code. Which are all the ordinances and laws pertaining to the US Flag. All civilian citizens capable of standing are suppose to do so, face the flag, remove their hats, and place their right hand over their heart. Military personnel in uniform salute instead, and if they are outdoors that means they have their hat on. This option to salute is also given to Veterans, though they should remove their hats if they are not in uniform."
],
"score": [
10
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
5rfbjb | How does suing the president work? | Does it happen often? Does the president actually have to go to court? What's the process? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dd6r948",
"dd74dkq"
],
"text": [
"> Does it happen often? No, in fact I can't find a case where such a suit actually went to trial. > Does the president actually have to go to court? Maybe? Depends. You cannot sue the president directly for on-the-job actions. You can sue the Federal government, as an entity, in which case the government would have a defense attorney represent the government. The president wouldn't appear. You *can* sue the president directly for off-the-job actions, as has happened to Clinton and JFK, but they both settled out of court. > What's the process? The same process for anyone suing anybody else.",
"The president gets sued a lot by different groups and congressmen/senstors including just recently the ACLU. The president does not go to these courts but instead employs the US justice dept that act as representatives for the president and other high ranking officials (secretary of state for example). Most of the issues deal with executive orders and administrative actions since it is not allowed to sue the president for a political decision as opposed to an administrative decision. You can google the pdf of the aclu suit and see the top left where is states \"the president of the united states\" as defendant. There are rules governing the inclusion of all defendants for the purposes of equal justice and rules regarding frivolous suits that can get you dis-barred as a lawyer, fined, held in contempt or thrown in prison (last one unlikely). If you would like i can try to dig up some cases on westlaw but it may not happen today, i got an appellate brief due soon. Source- law student"
],
"score": [
24,
17
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
5rfgyq | Why is local control of schools seen as superior to national government control? | We always hear about the states fighting about getting "local control" but why is the mindset that this is better? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dd6s7w9",
"dd6u91e"
],
"text": [
"People care about their children. When national criteria differ from their own criteria of what's important for their children to know, people start demanding local control. I see it as part of a widening gap between urban and rural areas, but that's probably going a bit further than what you asked.",
"I think, whether this is ever stated explicitly as a goal of \"local control\" or not, that it is also about laying groundwork for future voters. If you have control of school boards, textbook adoption committees, and the like, you can educate/indoctrinate whole generations of people. For example, you can push abstinence-only sex education, propagate myths about homosexuality being linked to mental illness, misrepresent American history, promote the values of one religious group over another, marginalize Evolution, equate socialism with fascism, teach consumerist values and behaviors, etc. With all this training in place for children, one group or another can home-grow their voter base."
],
"score": [
8,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
5rfk0v | Why is it called "Latin" America when Spain/Portugal are the biggest European influences to the region? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dd6smq1",
"dd6szs3",
"dd7cq9k",
"dd752a3",
"dd6tbxa",
"dd6yday"
],
"text": [
"Spain, Portugal, France and Italy(and a few other minor countries) make up Latin Europe. The all speak romance languages which evolved from Latin after the fall of the Roman Empire. Since as you mentioned Spain and Portugal had the biggest influence on them they are subsequently known as the Latin America similar to their European counterpart.",
"The French, Spanish, Portuguese, Italian, and Romanian languages are the languages descended from Latin. Because of this they are called the Latinate, or Romance languages. So to answer your question, it is specifically because Spain and Portugal were the large European Influences of the region that they are called Latin America. Hispanic is the term specifically for the subset influenced by Spain.",
"Here is [a good explanation from Wikipedia]( URL_0 ): > The idea that a part of the Americas has a linguistic affinity with the Romance cultures as a whole can be traced back to the 1830s, in the writing of the French Saint-Simonian Michel Chevalier, who postulated that this part of the Americas was inhabited by people of a \"Latin race\", and that it could, therefore, ally itself with \"Latin Europe\" in a struggle with \"Teutonic Europe\", \"Anglo-Saxon America\" and \"Slavic Europe\". A further investigation of the concept of Latin America is by Michel Gobat in the American Historical Review. > > The idea was later taken up by Latin American intellectuals and political leaders of the mid- and late-nineteenth century, who no longer looked to Spain or Portugal as cultural models, but rather to France. The term was first used in Paris in an 1856 conference by the Chilean politician Francisco Bilbao and the same year by the Colombian writer José María Torres Caicedo in his poem \"Two Americas\". > > The term Latin America was supported by the French Empire of Napoleon III during the French invasion of Mexico as a way to include France among countries with influence in the Americas and to exclude Anglophone countries. It played a role in his campaign to imply cultural kinship of the region with France, transform France into a cultural and political leader of the area, and install Maximilian of Habsburg as emperor of the Second Mexican Empire. This term was also used in 1861 by French scholars in La revue des races Latines, a magazine dedicated to the Pan-Latinism movement.",
"Napoleon wanted a better claim on the americas after Spain and Portugal had a firm grasp on their expansion. He started using the term 'Latin America' so that he too (French has Latin roots) could justify expanding into that territory",
"Latin America is bits of the Americas that were influenced by Latin descended/Romance languages. Now don't confuse Latin America with South America because they are two very different things despite having people use them interchangeably. South America is South America, while Latin America is South America-Guyana and also includes Mexico, central American countries, some of the islands in the Caribbean, southern parts of the United States, and Quebec.",
"It was named by the French. And it includes the Caribbean. I imagine that might be a reason for the broad name."
],
"score": [
210,
39,
14,
8,
5,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_America#Origin"
],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5rfl50 | Why the African Union is urging it's members to leave the ICC | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dd6t54a"
],
"text": [
"The International Criminal Court basically only prosecutes crimes Africans commit, such as crimes against humanity by a warlord somewhere in Africa. There are a couple of reasons for this: The ICC mainly focuses on genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity which Africa has an abundance. However, any attempts to prosecute Europeans is made difficult by political influence. Charging some leader in a generally irrelevant country in Africa is easily done, while pointing fingers at Putin for war crimes in Ukraine presents enormous problems. The total effect is that the ICC seems incredibly skewed toward prosecuting Africans is it makes sense that a union of African countries would want no part of the body."
],
"score": [
8
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5rfqmf | why were people bled in the past in hopes to get cured? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dd6uelp"
],
"text": [
"The general idea stemed from Ancient Greek concepts of medicine called \"Humorism\". In their model all sickness was caused by imbalances in the four distinct fluids: Black bile, yellow bile, phlegm, and blood. Such ideas make some sort of intuitive sense in that if someone becomes sick they produce an overabundance of phlegm and if someone loses too much blood such as through a wound they will die. Otherwise of course it is complete nonsense, but what people were trying to do with the bleeding is to bring the four into balance. Unfortunately you might identify a fever as a sign of excess blood (blood being associated with hotness due to flushing from exertion, etc) and then decide to bleed someone simply because they have an infection causing fever. Not a great plan!"
],
"score": [
14
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5rg7m7 | How are Supreme Court judges considered liberal / conservative? | It seems like interpreting the law shouldn't be a partisan process, but I always see judges referred to as liberal or conservative. How does this work in practice? It seems like there should be pretty limited interpretations of a given law | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dd6ybj1",
"dd6yqk5"
],
"text": [
"Liberal/Conservative aren't terms referencing party loyalty, they reference overall political ideology. Even in law there's ambiguous terms like \"undue harm\", that are open to interpretation and contextualization. How two different people can interpret those words can be wildly different.",
"Unfortunately, or fortunately depending on your own views, laws can be pretty widely interpreted, as they are written not to be comprehensive, but to be later interpreted by judges in court. That is the basis of our common law system. Consider the following law: \"All drivers must observe the posted speed limit on any public roadways.\" Simple and straightforward right? Well, I can think of plenty of exceptions or extenuating circumstances that wouldn't be covered. Are cops or other emergency responders covered under the law? What if they don't have their lights on, or aren't responding to an emergency? Are regular drivers covered if there's a medical emergency, such as a pregnant wife in the back seat? What happens at the point where speed limits change on a straight road? Does the change take effect when you can see the new sign, or when you pass the new sign? Is it excusable to speed if the speed limit sign has been stolen or blown down in a storm? The list goes on and on, and new exceptions and exclusions pop up from time to time that no one ever thought of. You can write the law to cover as many of these as possible, but at some point the legal system has to stop and say that anything not covered under the law is left for the judges to interpret. So now we get to the crux of your question. A conservative judge is more likely to stick to the exact wording of the law, especially when dealing with the Constitution, as the Supreme Court does. A liberal judge is more likely to reinterpret the law or Constitution as situations change (new technology is frequently discussed here.) On top of all that, you've got plenty of gray areas where there just isn't anything to work off of. In those instances, a conservative judge is more likely to side with conservative politicians, while a liberal judge will do the opposite."
],
"score": [
6,
5
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
5rhfol | Theoretically, how does Constitutional Originalism place New Technology in antiquated categories? | > The Constitution that I interpret and apply is not living but dead, or as I prefer to call it, enduring. It means today not what current society, much less the court, thinks it ought to mean, but what it meant when it was adopted. If the constitution means today what it meant when it was adopted, then how can the constitution apply to technologies that did not exist when it was adopted? For example: How can the First Amendment's "freedom of the press" apply to electronic publications? Electronic publications did not exist when the Constitution was adopted, so electronic publications could not have been meant by the authors. For example: How can the Second Amendment's "arms" apply to forms of armament not existent at the time of the Constitution's adoption? Allowing categories such as "press" and "arms" to include kinds of objects that did not exist at the time when the Constitution was written requires that the meanings of those categories change over time. How does Originalism account for this change of meaning, if meanings do not change? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dd794nm"
],
"text": [
"The question is the level of abstraction. It could well have been that freedom of the press was supposed to refer only to a literal press, but originalism says that you look at how the term was understood at the time. Even back then, press was a general term that was independent of technology, which allows an originalist to deal with a modern case. By contrast, something like the 35 year age requirement to be president didn't have any more abstract meaning. It just meant 35 solar years from the date of birth. Even if we changed how we measure time, the court could just push back. I think you would gain a lot from reading the heller decision that found an individual right to own a firearm, both the majority and the dissents. They do a good job of walking through this issue in the context of firearms, and point out the strengths and weaknesses of the approach."
],
"score": [
4
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
5rizdm | Why do some people (especially online) get abusive/insulting when they get rejected? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dd7n854",
"dd7yokq"
],
"text": [
"It's a defense mechanism. If they can convince themselves the other person is worthless and deserves being insulted, being rejected doesn't seem so bad anymore. It's not an online thing exclusively, but in real life, there are societal pressures against acting like that. Those are weak or nonexistent online.",
"Remember this: the people who have been rejected and took it normally (ie, was hurt but dealt with the hurt in a healthy way and then moved past it) aren't going to be a \"story\" unique enough to make it to the internet. **The fact that \"crazy\" stories are posted as entertainment** (both as a \"haha\" and a \"whoa that's crazy\") **is proof that they are not normal, but outliers.** Wayyyyy more people than not are the responsible, sensible kind when rejected."
],
"score": [
8,
6
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5rj0ag | Why is Justin Trudeau backing off on his promise to reform Canada's voting system such a huge problem? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dd7qto5",
"dd7ntqm",
"dd7nhxe"
],
"text": [
"It is because Trudeau was not getting his preferred option. A proportional representation government, as was endorsed by the other parties, would pretty much guarantee there would never be another majority government in Canada. Coalition governments would become the norm. Trudeau's preferential ballot system would have pretty much guaranteed a Liberal majority government for decades and so he could be prime minister for as long as he liked. When Trudeau realized what was going to happen he immediately backed off so he at least had a chance of having a majority government.",
"The first past the post system is now helping his party stay in power. Whereas before it helped the Torrie party stay in. The federal liberal party has also stated that it is unclear weather or not Canadian voters want a change or what system they would like to change to.",
"It was a pretty prominent feature of his campaign platform, and so obviously some people feel that it was just something he said to earn votes without any real intention of following through."
],
"score": [
12,
8,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5rjj4p | Why do free streaming sites always have ads that try to fuck your computer up? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dd7qqb5"
],
"text": [
"The short answer is, they don't. The long answer is, those ads are generally not handpicked by the site you're visiting, and are served to the site by a CDN (content delivery network) that they have an affiliate status with, that provides them money in return. The less savory (illegal or risque) sites often can't become affiliates with larger, more reputable CDNs, so they get set up with the kind that accept ads from just about anyone, and don't always have the best screening policies for content. So you end up with ads run by outfits that want to infect you with malware so they can mine information and/or hit you up to purchase removal software at a later date. If a site you visit has harmful ads, report it to the site manager. It's not in their interest usually (unless they're in cahoots with the ad supplier, which is unlikely) to inconvenience visitors, so they will often quickly have the ad removed."
],
"score": [
5
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5rjpfi | What punishment would I face for unknowingly paying for something with counterfeit currency that I received from another unknowing person? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dd7s9dj",
"dd7srzi"
],
"text": [
"None. Counterfeit money gets circulated all the time, half the time passed from the counterfeiter to a cashier who doesn't check it, then paid out as change, then to another cashier, then out as change again... Your punishment is that you're out $20 because no one will want it, and odds are good you're not even getting the fake bill back. There's some really hefty punishments for *creating* counterfeit but it's pretty hard to prove it and the vast majority of people you try to pass the bill to won't care enough to pursue it. EDIT: Just to expand this into something a little more interesting: crime in the US requires intent. Ignorance is not an excuse, but the prosecutor has to prove that you *meant* to commit a crime to convict you (with exceptions - liability claims don't require intent, nor does statutory rape sometimes). If the prosecutor can't prove you *meant* to commit a crime - for example, because you were given a fake bill without knowing - then you can't be convicted of a crime. Mind, you can still be *arrested*, which is why ignorance is not an excuse.",
"Depends on the situation. Say you goto a convenience store, and try to buy a case of beer with a counterfeit 20. Clerk runs a check with a pen or light. Poof it's counterfeit. Clerk will probably hand it back and ask for other payment. I have been that clerk many times. Most people will be annoyed, and you will figure out the ones that know it was fake. Now I had a situation with a customer that paid for his orders with a lot of old cash. He didn't trust banks. One time after he paid for his delivery our office manager went to the bank to deposit the 1200 buck in 20's. The bank ran the bills through a counter and one kept getting rejected. They detained her and treasury agents came to interview her. Then they interviewed me cause I was the driver that took the money. Finally the interviewed the old man. They took all his money and ran it through the counter. No other bill was rejected. The nice part was because the old man had around 60,000 in various bills that where old, mouse and worm chewed they replaced all of it with new money and gave him a safe to keep it in at no charge."
],
"score": [
14,
7
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5rk2jv | what are "sovereign citizens"? I've heard the term a couple times and see it online but don't really understand what they are and how they work | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dd7v69s",
"dd882na",
"dd7xn0t",
"dd8aurf"
],
"text": [
"Basically it is a semi-delusional believe by some anti-government individuals that, through some bizarre interpretation of the language of the law that people are not actually subject to the law or the constitution and the government has no real jurisdiction over them and are exempt from things like paying taxes. They don't work.",
"Essentially it's a group of separatists who believe that if you don't acknowledge the authority of a government, then it doesn't have any authority over you. They don't feel like they are subject to follow the laws of the government because they never agreed to be a citizen of that nation. Often they will cite antiquated laws or letters (such as the Articles of Confederation) as giving them this power to ignore governmental authority. Often times you will hear them parse words during traffic stops about how they aren't \"driving\" but rather \"travelling.\" This is a reference to the Articles of Confederation which said that \"free inhabitants\" have the freedom to \"travel\" from state to state. So if a cop pulls one over for doing 100 in a 55 mph zone, that traffic stop is \"illegal\" because it violates their right to \"travel\" freely. Most of the ones I've seen on YouTube act like they know the laws and how they don't have to obey them, but they typically only parrot poor interpretations or versions of laws that have no relevance or aren't even applicable. They simply like the idea of not being subject to any government, so they believe anything that serves this purpose, even if it makes no sense or completely fabricated out of thin air.",
"Essentially they're nuts who believe that because they haven't specifically consented to being governed by laws, laws don't apply to them. They have some wacky legal justifications for their beliefs but they've been laughed out of every court in the land.",
"I assume sovereign citizens feel the way they do because [this article]( URL_0 ) on *PEOPLE or CITIZEN WHICH ONE ARE YOU?* which states: > From the beginning, in the 1776 Declaration of Independence, the people were acknowledged as the source of authority, i.e. the sovereignty which authorized the Declaration of Independence. > After the Declaration of Independence, but before the ordainment and establishment of the Constitution, the people of the United States pretty much handled their own affairs using the common law. They were not subject to any higher authority other than the authority of the common law as administered by the people themselves (self governance). Although the states did exist, they only existed by the authority of the people. Every man was a king, and every woman a queen--and none had any subjects. Upon declaring our independence, we all became sovereigns and members of the peerage (nobility)."
],
"score": [
37,
15,
11,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.1215.org/lawnotes/lawnotes/pvc.htm"
]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5rk5ib | Why Does Every Contemporary Christian Rock Band Sound Like A U2 Tribute? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dd83j3i",
"dd880km",
"dd83zay"
],
"text": [
"So Christian music is developed around the ease of singing along- the real money is in licensing songs to be sung by churches during worship, so they have to have some key traits: A range that can be sung by most people, which means mid-range male voice. Women can harmonize up, but it's harder to fit a vocal range under the singer instead of above. The tempo and cadence of the singing, likewise, must be accessible for the average singer. After that; it's a question of style (rock also tends to use common, easy keys and simple drum rhythms). So the answer is U2 discovered how to get people to sing along to music really effectively and the formula is being used elsewhere that your ear recognizes as U2.",
"Most Christian rock sounds nothing like U2 but if we are talking about Worship music then that sounds about right. Reason 1: Big sound. The big delays and reverbs make it sound huge without having the whole Gospel Choir. U2 pioneered this sound for the mainstream. When you are doing the whole hands in the air thing having a huge sound really puts you in the emotional state for it all. Reason 2. Worship music seems to follow mainstream by quite a number of years. Hillsong Young and Free for example is far from the U2 approach and has much more of an electronic sound. Reason 3. Vocal lines all need to be easy enough to join in with after at most one listen. This isn't unique to U2 but it is a feature of popular music.",
"The Edge's sound is heavily modified with delay and reverb pedals. His extreme use of them set U2 apart from other bands. U2 has a very mainstream clean sound in order to make them relevant and approachable. Churches have very large rooms surrounded in stone. This caused a lot of natural reverb, so composers who wrote songs with long sustained notes had success with church music because it did not create unwanted dissonance, but instead the reverberations resonated with the notes currently being played. eventually this became the aesthetic associated with churches. Heavily distorted guitar sounds angry, while cleaner guitar sounds much more calm. Christian Rock combined the reverb aesthetic with popular music, preferring influences that use clean tones for a calm but positive energy. TLDR U2 was more interested in heavily altering the guitar through effects pedals but provided a similar energy to past successes in order to appeal to a wide audience. Christian Rock artists used a similar aesthetic because it is similar to both traditional church music and popular music."
],
"score": [
79,
3,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5rkg29 | Why is the Challenger shuttle disaster remembered more prominently than the Columbia disaster? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dd7yzes",
"dd7yuqw",
"dd7yrp0"
],
"text": [
"The Challenger disaster took place on live TV, beamed into school rooms all around the country because there was a teacher on board planning to teach science class from space. It also reflected an attitude, somewhere between ignorance and hubris, that the engineers were so busy sweating the little stuff that they risked missing the big picture. The President and the school systems had blocked time for this launch, and postponing into the evening or the next afternoon would ruin a massive NASA PR opportunity at a time where space travel was running the risk of becoming mundane. NASA feared that \"running a bus company\" would significantly reduce their budget, and the \"teacher in space\" angle was a big deal. I knew Greg Jarvis, the other civilian killed on the mission, at Hughes.",
"Is it? Maybe depends on your age. Challenger was the first teacher in space, launch was widely anticipated and many people were focused on it for different reasons. The explosion was huge, televised, played over and over. Columbia landing (and most shuttle landings) not something usually \"filmed\" and most people were not even aware it was happening. Most news was if gunship footage and debris on the ground. In Columbia, there was just not the same visual impact that in a single frame or short segment captured the loss of hope and dreams of a nation reaching to the heavens and having those dreams extinguished in a cloud of vapor.",
"Better pictures is one. Challenger has those iconic shots of the plume of oxygen and hydrogen, and the two boosters spiralling away. We do have images of the small bright dot of the reentering Columbia becoming many bright dots and fading away, but you'd need to know what it is before it means anything to you. Another reason is that Challenger happened live on TV, and the shuttle was still a relatively new thing that many were still interested in. The launch contained a school teacher, and many students were watching it live. This event is a major landmark in the lives of many adults today. But by the time of the Columbia disaster, people in general had long lost interest in the shuttle."
],
"score": [
11,
6,
6
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5rkxqk | How difficult is ventriloquism in other languages? Are there languages where ventriloquism cannot be performed very well? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dd84kbn",
"dd85mud",
"dd84cw9",
"dd84l3z",
"dd8470j",
"dd863bw",
"dd85eit",
"dd85h6t"
],
"text": [
"I imagine sign languages are not very conducive to ventriloquism. Languages that involve a lot more use of lip movement would probably be less friendly as well. However, ones that use more tongue movement and other internal anatomy might be easier.",
"One of the keys to ventriloquism is speaking without moving the lips (the others being movement of the puppet and the puppet's mouth at the right time). The tricky parts in ventriloquism are labial consonants, or consonants that involve the lips. These include * bilabial stops (both lips pressed together) such as \"b\", \"m\", \"p\" * labiodental fricatives (blowing air between the upper teeth against the lower lip) such as \"f\" and \"v\" * bilabial fricatives (blowing air between the lips) such as \"b\" and \"v\" in some Spanish words (non-existent in English) * linguolabial stops (pressing the tongue against the upper lip) and linguolabial fricatives (blowing air between the tongue and upper lip) - non-existent in most languages So I guess ventriloquism is difficult in languages with a lot of labial consonants and easy in languages with few or no labial consonants. I don't have a full answer but [Wikipedia] ( URL_0 ) lists the following languages that have no labial consonants: Tlingit, Eyak (both Na-Dené), Wichita (Caddoan), and the Iroquoian languages except Cherokee.",
"I don't really have a full answer, but even in English, certain sounds are modified in ventriloquism to allow them to be pronounced without moving the lips. That's part of why the dummy always speaks in such funny voices (the other part is, well, funny voices). Like apparently, the \"m\" is really pronounced more like an \"n\" (because you don't have to close your lips to do an \"n\"), but if you say it in the right way and it's obvious from context, the listener doesn't notice. I'd imagine as long as you come up with good techniques for the difficult sounds, almost any language can be spoken without visibly moving your mouth. Perhaps some languages have more frequent lip-sounds, like \"b\" \"v\" \"m\" etc., so I suppose they'd be harder.",
"I think r/linguistics may potentially be a place where you could find someone to answer this.",
"This is an interesting question, but maybe not quite the best sub for it. I really do want good insights on this, too.",
"I'm certain this isn't what you meant, but sign languages such as ASL (American Sign Language) would certainly not fall under conventional ventriloquism, haha. However, I have seen Deaf performers use ventriloquist dummies and general body language to create some great Deaf-friendly \"Ventriloquist\" shows.",
"I'd imagine it would be much easier in Japanese. Most sounds require no movement of mouth or throat muscles. Pretty much everything is controlled by tongue movement. Look at some videos of Japanese people talking. Even in normal conversation they move their mouths very little.",
"I'd imagine any language with heavy with bilabial and labialdental sounds (sounds made using both the lips such as p, b, w, m and sounds made with teeth and lips such as f, v ) would be quite difficult and languages that have less of these sounds would be easiest."
],
"score": [
305,
222,
142,
81,
28,
5,
4,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labial_consonant"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5rm40w | Considering the origins of the English language (of which I have limited knowledge). Could an alien civilisation develop a strikingly similar language? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dd8done",
"dd8j7yx"
],
"text": [
"Well, you have rather easy window into this: Try comparing languages from other places around the Earth. Do they resemble each other? Turns out, even if you have people who repeatedly talked to each other, shared environment, and their language was born from the same original language, the languages within just the span of hundreds of years diverge greatly. Languages sharing roots basically means that the language you speak and language they speak were originally the same language, but both developed in other direction. For example, English is a Germanic language. A long time ago speakers of that Germanic language started living in various places in Europe, and that Germanic language then developed, due to various circumstances, into English, German, Swedish, Norse, etc. Germanic languages belong to wider group of Indo-European languages, which also contains Latin and other Romance languages, like Spanish. Originally these were a single tongue that was just split. But there are other language families. Within Europe, Finno-Ugric language group is entirely unrelated to Indo-European languages. Japanese belongs seemingly to the language family of its own, it doesn't seem to share similarities with any other major languages. Africa has languages that for example utilize that clicking sound you can do with your tongue, resulting in massively different kind of language. Etc etc. Basically, even if you have humans, living on the same continent, that couple hundred or thousand years ago were speaking the same tongue, the language they speak today doesn't necessarily resemble much at all each other. Even further, if you're curious about English, you know how Shakespeare has his curious style of writing? That style is kinda what defines \"Early Modern English\". But turns out, English just couple hundred years earlier was almost unintelligible to modern speaker, Here for example is a Bible passage, in English, from 1380's: > And it was don aftirward, and Jhesu made iorney by citees and castelis, prechinge and euangelysinge þe rewme of God, and twelue wiþ him; and summe wymmen þat weren heelid of wickide spiritis and syknessis, Marie, þat is clepid Mawdeleyn, of whom seuene deuelis wenten out, and Jone, þe wyf of Chuse, procuratour of Eroude, and Susanne, and manye oþere, whiche mynystriden to him of her riches.\\ Here's Lord's Prayer in Old English, from about 1000 years ago: > Fæder ūre þū þe eart on heofonum, > Sī þīn nama ġehālgod. > Tōbecume þīn rīċe, > ġewurþe þīn willa, on eorðan swā swā on heofonum. > Ūre ġedæġhwāmlīcan hlāf syle ūs tō dæġ, > and forġyf ūs ūre gyltas, swā swā wē forġyfað ūrum gyltendum. > And ne ġelǣd þū ūs on costnunge, ac ālȳs ūs of yfele. > Sōþlīċe. The same read out loud: URL_0",
"All the responses you've gotten so far are addressing this from a (human) linguistics point of view, which is probably the most scientific approach. That being said, xenobiology is more fun because the entire field is made of speculation and magic. So, short answer: probably not. Long answer: the development of spoken language occurred, like all of human evolution, as a profound coincidence whose selective causes are still not certain. However, most animals - humans included - only accomplish a fraction of their communication through vocalizations, if any at all. Body language is the far more universal means of information transfer. Outside the animal kingdom, however, chemical secretions dominate almost every other form of life. Cells release chemicals to signal other cells in their population to divide or grow (or to avoid doing so). Plants and fungi communicate their health to their neighbors using airborne compounds. None of these forms of life use sound-based communication to any significant degree. Furthermore, while no forms of biological life that we know of use it, there is also electronic and radio communication, which humans use - by way of technology - to transmit vast sums of information. A different biosphere could potentially evolve this as a physiological capacity. Even ignoring the many, many theoretically possible means of information transfer that are supported by physics but did not evolve on Earth, there are clearly a lot of ways for organic beings to talk to each other, and most of them don't involve vibrating some chords in your throat and modulating the resulting noise with your lips and tongue. There is also the fact that human language contains universal features because it is a creation of the human brain, and all human brains have certain structural and functional similarities. An alien species that did not evolve abstract reasoning in the mostly relational form we did might have entirely different - or absent - notions of syntax, grammar, and meaning. Even if you could construct a vocabulary out of some alien language composed of pheromones or magnetic pulses, there's no guarantee the resulting translation would be meaningful to you at all. tl;dr- we have absolutely no idea how similar any hypothetical extraterrestrial life might be to us, but the possibility space is vast, so the likelihood of any human-like language is very slim."
],
"score": [
11,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[
"http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Faederureaudio2.ogg"
],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5rmbab | How could the POTUS acquire more power? | In the last weeks we've seen the POTUS issuing various controversial decretes and he's appointed people close to him on secretary and white house positions. How could he change laws or the constitution to acquire more power than the POTUS has now? For example: Erdogan came into power by election and is now trying to change the constitution to give more power to his position and remain in power for longer. | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dd8dkjc",
"dd8k9jz",
"dd8wd60"
],
"text": [
"IN the US the PUTUS cannot make laws. He is separated from the legislative branch of government. The only way he can accrue more power via laws is through the legislative branch (congress).",
"In theory, he can't acquire more power. In reality, he acquires more power by Congress letting him acquire more power. Declaration of War is a good example. Through World War II, the US couldn't fight a major war without the approval of Congress. Since then, the US has not declared war a single time, yet the US military has been involved in many different countries/conflicts. Just to name the big ones: [the Korean War]( URL_0 ), [the Vietnam War]( URL_2 ), [the Gulf War]( URL_3 ), and [the Iraq War]( URL_1 ) were never officially declared wars by Congress. In theory, Congress has the power to declare war. In reality, the President can and will initiate military actions whenever he wants. Congress could impeach the president for carrying out military actions without congressional approval. But it's been happening since the 1950s, so that's probably never going to happen. The other area this occurs is regulations. Congress passes a vague law and says that regulations will cover the details of the law. Who makes the regulations? The Executive branch. In essence, Congress is giving their law making power to the Executive branch when it does that.",
"I predict this answer will be heavily downvoted and people will reply by parroting things they learned in civics class, but this doesn't make it any less true, it just means people don't like to think about it this way. The US constitution is not very strong, which is why the Executive branch has been accumulating power ever since the time of George Washington. The way this happens is by politicking ─ the President does something, he tries exercising a new power, and sometimes Congress or the Supreme Court will rein him in. But sometimes they won't; sometimes Congress is gridlocked, sometimes there is a vacancy in the Supreme Court and the President appoints someone pliable to their interests, or [pressures the court some other way]( URL_0 ). Whatever little power one President gets, this is considered precedent, so future holders of the office will also have that power available and some will use it in innovative ways. To give a few concrete examples of this phenomenon of government power in general, and executive power in particular, growing over time: * the imprisonment of Japanese-Americans by Roosevelt, which was judged entirely fair and constitutional by his very pliable Supreme Court; * both making booze illegal and then reversing Prohibition required Constitutional amendments, while enacting the War on Drugs required only acts of Congress and \"rescheduling\" marijuana to make it less illegal would only take an executive act."
],
"score": [
8,
8,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_War",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_War"
],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_Procedures_Reform_Bill_of_1937"
]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
5rmg2u | How did Groundhogs Day become a thing, and why do we still celebrate it to its extent? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dd8dsu8",
"dd8xuvh"
],
"text": [
"Superstition is the obvious answer for how it became a thing. I'm sure someone will quote wikipedia history soon. Why it's still a thing: tourism.",
"Why is it that seeing a shadow from the not cloudy sun, predict more winter and not seeing a shadow, meaning the sun is covered with clouds, indicates that winter is over?"
],
"score": [
3,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5rmwrq | What is the 'antifa' and 'black bloc'? | Who are they? Militant protesters? Anarchist rioters? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dd8hbf3",
"dd8w54a"
],
"text": [
"**Antifa** is short for anti-fascist (or anti-fascist action). to my knowledge mostly active in the UK and Germany, but most likely not limited to those 2 countries. First established in Germany in the early 1930s (guess why ^ ^ ) They see it as their job to fight nazis and other perceived fascists by almost any means necessary, sometimes even resorting to physical violence. **the black bloc** is more of a tactic that an organisation, though one mostly used by left-wing extremists (but also by the extreme right). they wear roughly identical clothing, mask their faces and thus make it very hard for the police to identify them. hope this helps. edit: friggin autocorrect caused a spelling mistake > <",
"Something I think other commenters missed: the black blocs that we've been seeing have been vandalizing things they see as symbols of capitalism (Starbucks, Bank of America, ATMs) because they are communists. EDIT: Wow my thread sure brought out the know-it-alls, didn't it. I guess I assumed that my post wouldn't be the only one you read (since I said that I was adding on to the other comments). Yes, they are anarcho-communists. They are anarchists, so they believe in no government. But what nobody else mentioned is, they are communists, so they're destroying symbols of capitalism in their riots. Why did this turn into an argument about gender? Gender and sex are two different things. Gender is traditionalist identity control that says that if you have a vagina you get to wear dresses but can only play with Barbie dolls. There are two genders in traditional Western society, but it's oppressive and stupid."
],
"score": [
36,
5
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
5rmyrg | The difference between the Sherrif's Dept. and the Police Dept. | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dd8hcyz",
"dd8l7wb"
],
"text": [
"IN the US, the Sherrif's Dept is a county police agency that has an elected Sheriff, and hired deputies. They have countywide jurisdiction. They are responsible for providing security for the courts, holding suspects awaiting trial, holding convicts with a sentence of 1 year or less(jail), as well as providing police services for county residents. A police Dept is an incorporated municipality's police force. They only have jurisdiction in the city. They exist primarily, because residents of the city want better response time than the Sherrif's Dept can reasonably provide, so they create a police Dept. They do not typically have a jail, just a short term holding facility, until they can transfer suspects to the Sherrif's Dept.",
"In addition to what other said. Sheriff were created to bring law enforcement to the US in a time where cities were relatively small and most of the country was made of county with a bunch of small village in it. Today, in rural area their role stay the same because Village don't have enough people in it to be able to pay for a police department. In cities, they usually have a police department and the relation between the Sheriff and Police department can vary a lot. New York for example have five counties inside it's border, but only have one sheriff. It was incorporated into the New York Department of Finance and the Sheriff is appointed by the Mayor and not elected. It take care of the Civil law enforcement, meaning that they mostly take care of evictions, warrants of arrest, seizure, etc. But you also have the Los Angeles County Sheriff. There the county is huge. It have 153 unincorporated communities (fancy way to say village) and 88 cities. The Sheriff department is the biggest in the US and take care of all the law enforcement duties for all the 153 unincorporated communities and about half the cities. For the other half of the cities, they have police department. The Sheriff also take care of the county jail system, provide security for court, etc. In Los Angeles the Sheriff is pretty much like a traditional sheriff on steroid, but in New York is was completely transformed."
],
"score": [
11,
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.