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
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
5ro0in | Why did slave owners not want or punish slaves that were educated or could read? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dd8rc9h",
"dd8qduk",
"dd8rucy"
],
"text": [
"One of the fundamental problems with slavery is that the smarter and more educated the slave the more dangerous the slave becomes. Laws were passed forbidding the education of slaves. So the workforce remained uneducated and unskilled. A slave able to read was more capable than the typical overseer. Being able to read a map meant being able to escape slavery although just memorizing the song \"Follow the drinking gourd was often enough.\"",
"because they were (perceived to be) more rebellious due to their education. URL_0",
"Because it is easier to control/manipulate people when they lack education. This is something that tyrants of all stripes throughout history have known, and why the degree of anti-intellectualism in America today is concerning."
],
"score": [
6,
5,
4
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[
"http://hepg.org/her-home/issues/harvard-educational-review-volume-77-issue-3/herbooknote/self-taught_325"
],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5ronmg | Why are there so many homeless veterans from the Vietnam War? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dd8w4mi"
],
"text": [
"During World War II the average age of a soldier was 26. These were people with lives already established. Homes to return to. In Vietnam they were much younger (though not quite as young as the 19 myth). These were people just starting their lives. War is hell and will really mess with a person. Vietnam represents a combination of war being as terrible as it had ever been, the military having no plan to help people cope with those horrors, and the soldiers being too young to have established themselves in life yet. In World War 2, people went to war knowing who and what they were. They had skills, careers, life goals. In Vietnam we took many people during the time in which they'd be learning these skills. And when they returned they were treated worse by the general public than any other returning soldier before or since."
],
"score": [
5
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5rozsy | Why are so many books "number one best sellers" even though there should only be one "number one"? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dd8z3zo",
"dd8z8fx",
"dd8yxpk"
],
"text": [
"There are multiple lists -- fiction, non fiction, childrens, etc. It's like music. What's the #1 song right now? Well, that's going to depend on whether you're talking about pop, country, rock, R & B, and so on.",
"The most popular way to have this happen is with weekly lists, where the #1 can change each week. Then there are categories, where you can have the #1 bestseller of short novels, or paperbacks, or books with ninjas. Then there are locations, or popular publications, or blog lists, etc. Tons of ways to get #1.",
"Alike a \"Top 10 Hits\" list regarding music, the best seller list is constantly changing and the #1 spot is always different, like a race!"
],
"score": [
17,
8,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5rpct0 | Why would repealing The Johnson Amendment be bad for American politics? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dd937wl",
"dd9ist3",
"dd9609j"
],
"text": [
"The repeal of this amendment would allow tax-exempt organizations like churches and non profit charities to speak out for/against political candidates. Currently, by doing do they would risk losing their tax exempt status. Basically this would provide the religious right wing to influence elections more by allowing clergymen to endorse politicians from the pulpit. A repeal would signify a clear break of the separation of church and state.",
"It has little to do with religion and a lot to do with political donations and tax. A repeal of the law allows any non-profit org to contribute to politics. What this means is I can set up a non-profit org and put millions of dollars into that. That organisation can then donate to the political party. I can then claim I have donated millions of dollars to charity for tax deductions. The bill was introduced to close the loophole. For those saying separation of church and state, religious groups already can and do endorse and lobby (denying a group the ability to lobby based on religion would be unlawful). They lose tax benefits of being a charity in doing so though.",
"The US has a separation between church and state. The religion isn't supposed to get involved in politics, and politicians aren't supposed to make religious laws. And yet, there is a hugely powerful movement for Christian politics and Christian laws that consistently (and bafflingly) votes red called the \"Evangelical\" or \"Religious Right\" voters. Imagine what would happen if religious groups started buying their own political commercials or donating to politicians in exchange for influence. \"Real Christians vote for Bob! The Archbishop of Boston says if you don't vote for Bob, you are going to Hell.\" Yes, there are people that are that goddamned stupid that they absolutely would fall for this. And FWIW, this is exactly what Middle Eastern elections are like. And we've all seen how that works out."
],
"score": [
9,
5,
5
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5rpf4h | The situation at UC Berkeley | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dd92u1o",
"dd94whw"
],
"text": [
"Milo Yiannopolous is a conservative author and editor at Breitbart. UC Berkeley was set to host an event where Milo would speak to students and have a live stream on YouTube of his event. Protests were expected to happen, but when violence broke out Milo and his team had to be evacuated before the event. A woman was sprayed with mace or pepper spray and antifa protesters can be seen in videos beating bystanders with the butts of flags. The riots continued through the night, smashing coffee shop and bank windows and burning streetlights.",
"The main reason people hate him so much is because the media has done a terrible job at distinguishing what \"alt-right\" is. I can give you [examples] ( URL_0 ) of them trying to associate him with them which is ridiculous. Don't get me wrong, i'm a liberal and I disagree him on almost every point, but he's not alt-right in any sense whatsoever. He's gay, jewish, doesn't care for white nationalism, doesn't care about race mixing, these are all things the alt-right despises. Basically since the media has attached him to this group that completely hates Milo for being a gay jew, it makes anti-fa idiots who haven't actually looked into it think he stands for the things the alt-reich stands for (holocaust denial, ACTUAL fascism, genocide, white ethno-state, scientific racism, eugenics, etc.) **TLDR:** the media doesn't know shit so they blindly associate a conservative writer with actual nazis who consider him controlled opposition and a zionist shill"
],
"score": [
4,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[
"https://twitter.com/BuzzFeedNews/status/826966607347855360"
]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5rpl20 | Why do some bands release more songs on Japanese editions of their albums? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dd94pxa",
"dd9642x",
"dd94j79"
],
"text": [
"Japanese domestically produced CDs are relatively expensive and by law can not be discounted. They even cost more than equivalent imported ones, which can vary in price from exchange rates. To dissuade consumers from buying the cheaper imports, record companies add the extras.",
"TIL 85% of Music sold in Japan is made up of CD sales : [source]( URL_0 )",
"I think it's because cds are more expensive over there, so they add the tracks to offset the extra costs"
],
"score": [
31,
7,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[
"https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.forbes.com/sites/hughmcintyre/2014/09/21/85-percent-of-music-sales-in-japan-are-cds/#amph=1"
],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5rqkjo | Why are there literally millions of porn movies on the internet for completely free viewing, but so few regular movies? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dd9qils",
"dd9ev4z",
"dd9n4d9",
"dd9q2f5",
"dd9e1a8",
"dd9e5fp",
"dd9hhva",
"dd9hun8",
"dd9co3j",
"dd9id4x",
"dd9ie2t",
"dd9lv6l",
"dd9vx97",
"dd9h902",
"dd9sver",
"dd9vn5w",
"dd9t6o1",
"dd9hv0t",
"dd9h5la",
"dd9vym4",
"dd9rsl6",
"dd9libz"
],
"text": [
"A lot of the comments here focus on the fact that most of the free porn out there are either samplers or low quality amateur work. However, the proliferation of these tube sites with an indigestible mountain of freely available porn points towards other factors as well. Why doesn't the porn industry crack down on copyright issues as hard as Hollywood? To get to the root of this issue, we have to think about the role of a movie/film versus that of porn. Let's first agree that both pornos and blockbuster films are scarce goods. They are limited, and they have some value to consumers. The point I want to make is that porn is commoditized; movies are not. What I mean here is that, for an average consumer of porn, it doesn't matter if they are going to watch Lusty Milfs 5 or Busty Soccer Moms 7; they're just going to pick the one that's most easily available to them. On the other hand, movie goers definitely care if they are watching Star Wars versus Star Trek. There a variety of reasons for this, but the net result is the same: * Pornos are commodities, and they are priced at commodity prices. Within a certain porn genre, all else being equal, one film is more or less indistinguishable from another. * Movies are hard to commoditize. Even within the same genre, you'll be hard-pressed to convince someone bent on watching the new Star Wars movie to settle for Star Trek, and vice versa. Of course, there are certain exceptions: * Fans of a certain porn actor/actress will have a stickier (heh) preference towards certain films, and to them, they are not indistinguishable from other films. * Certain genres of movie films are nearly commoditized. For example, people who go for one rom-com probably wouldn't mind if they were told that they had to settle for another. Now, there are two sets of dynamics we need to look at. First, we need to discuss what the outcome of this type of market is; next, we need to discuss why this is the way things are. ### So what if Porn is a commodity good? Well, since porn (especially within a specific genre) is more or less indistinguishable from other porn, they undergo heavy competition. In particular, the competitive nature of the market tend to push their price down towards a nearly-optimal commodity price. That is, porn in its current form tend to be lowly-valued and directly selling porn (in the current state of affairs) is a low-margin affair. This can be seen not only by the proliferation of cheap studio access passes ($1 a month specials are pushing it these days), but also by the fact that most of the porn that are consumed costs absolutely nothing! Therefore, since porn is valued so cheaply, it's actually very inefficient to sell them directly. Instead, porn producers and distributors have realized that selling the attention of users of their pages to interested advertisers actually captures higher revenues. This is why you see some of the most clever ad-blocker workarounds on these porn sites; that's where they get most of their revenues from, even the more reputable sites. In addition, because producing porn is a low-margin affair itself, there's really no reason to spend a lot of money towards a high-production film. As a result, the porno landscape is dominated by near-amateur level work. On the other hand, because block-buster films cannot be commoditized, they: 1. Are much pricier, and they 2. Tend to be higher production value, because in order to price their films at a higher price, they need to give some justification that their goods are higher quality. Of course, companies like Hulu and Netflix are trying to create revenue by commoditizing the movie/film sector, so our perceptions may change in the future. Additionally, porn wasn't always a commodity. When distribution cost (the problem of getting a porn film to the hands of a consumer) was a significant bottle-neck, they couldn't be sold at a commodity price because their supply was much more limited than today. ### So what changed? The internet. Let's look at the major way in which porn and films were consumed before the rise of the internet. Blockbuster movies were usually viewed in a movie theater; porn usually in the comfort of your own home. Once internet speed and bandwidth were fast/large enough, it was able to \"commoditize\" (here, improve the efficiency, hence lowering the price of) the distribution of movies to your home. Porn was hit hard by this innovation, but movies were still more or less something that you still had to watch in theater. Because the porn industry was suddenly able to streamline their supply-chain, porn-sites started popping up. This lowered the barrier of entry into the porn industry, because now you don't have to negotiate deals with brick-n-mortar Adult XXX Videomax store fronts. You just need a website. With the main distribution bottle-neck solved, content started to flood the internet. As a result of the increase of the supply, its price dropped significantly. As a result, the internet commoditized porn and made it a relatively cheap (discounting opportunity cost) venture to go into. -------------------------------------- Anyways, other digitizable goods that were/are commoditized by the internet includes video games, music, news, journals, and to a certain extent, movies and television shows. For each one of these goods, you'll often find a similar content pathway. You have way more green-lit Steam games than what has been stocked at Game Stop; Spotify has more music than you can fit on an iPod; etc.",
"The short answer is that most of the free porn out there is either amateur porn (which costs almost nothing to make), free samples from a pay site, or pirated. Think about it this way. Literally anyone with a camera can make a serviceable porno for literally or almost nothing, but even a half-decent independent movie takes at least a couple hundred thousand dollars to make. Usually millions. So naturally, there are going to be more porno movies than regular movies to begin with. Since it costs so much less to make, you could potentially fill an ad-supported site with thousands of user-made videos, free samples from pay sites, or straight-up pirated porn (especially on sites that allow user uploads, since you get plausible deniability) for little or no cost, and then collect all that sweet ad revenue. To do that with a movie site, you'd have to either pay to make the movie, or pay to license the movie. Which could cost you more than it costs to upload thousands of amateur porno clips. But you'd still only have one movie! So it would be very hard to do it 100% on ad revenue. Since a movie is much longer (two hours +) than a typical porn clip (5-20 minutes), your bandwidth costs per user are also much higher. Especially if, you know, they finish browsing early. It's also the reason why YouTube is FULL of people talking about their opinions into their webcams but only has a handful of properly free ad-supported (not pirated) movies. Any moron with a mic and a camera can become a YouTuber, but making even a shitty movie requires a budget and at least basic film-making skills.",
"So the problem is you are comparing Pornhub with Hollywood when you should be comparing Pornhub with youtube. Youtube is full of free content made by people who just wanted to make something and put it out there or to rake in a little revenue from ads / merchandise / exposure. It's also a dumping ground of stuff that nobody owns the rights to anymore (or the people who do don't care to challenge anyone for it). Porn sites are the same thing: amatuer videos made by people who just wanted to make something, or companies uploading shortened clips of their professional stuff for exposure and advertising reasons. When you see professional stuff on these sites it's either a clip of a much larger video uploaded for the reasons I stated before, a movie made by a company that doesn't exist anymore (porn companies come and go like the tides) or doesn't have the resources to constantly challenge pirate uploads, or a pirate upload nobody has caught yet (many porn sites aren't as helpful with fulfilling take-down requests as youtube is).",
"Pornhub, youporn, redtube, and most other main porn websites are all owned by the same company, MindGeek, that owns major porn production cimpanies such as Babes, Brazzers, etc. It is basically a monopoly of producers and distributors, which means that the movies are uploaded directly as they are produced, since the views end up as revenue for the company either way. Many others producers also upload incomplete videos to these websites in hopes of attracting premium customers. it's the equivalent of handing out movie trailers to cinemas, but the trailers themselves are usually enough to satisfy most viewers. Since they can't stream in cinemas and the rental industry doesn't pay ad well, the production of online videos is prominent in the industry; that also makes it easier to pirate, and it is difficult to win lawsuits against a large company such as mindgeek so I doubt people would try. You also have a steady production of free videos like amateur porn. You can find many regular movies online for free, it's just that they are lower quality or not protected by copyright. The movies that are nkt readily available are the ones produced by huge distributors, who make their money off official sales in cinema and dvd stores. Also, With porn, the demand for higher quality is lower, and the production process is easier (budget and time wise) so there are a lot more movies being produced on a regular basis. You could probably make 100 movies in the time it takes to plan out and film a blockbuster, no bureaucracy to stop the process in its tracks, and the budget is minimal.",
"Mostly because the porn industry is much less aggressive about enforcing their copyright. Although it does occasionally happen, and it's pretty embarrassing to get sued for pirating Anal Adventures 12.",
"You'd be surprised at how much free, quality content can be found on the internet. Even non-porn.",
"A lot of free movies are online, such as short films, art projects, and amateur video. There are even free alternatives to Netflix/streaming services such as URL_0 and most TV channels offer some free tv shows. A lot of pron online is simply homemade, and this is analogous to the massive amount of homemade youtube videos (from reviews, rants, farting dogs, kinder eggs, whatever) Other porn is short clips released as promotional material for longer porn or exclusive content available behind a paywall; this is like a movie trailer or TV channel website that offer a limited amount of online TV show episodes. Then there's the glut of pirated porn videos, originally produced as paid content that then gets ripped and released on a free site, which is analogous to a movie torrent; however there's a lot less *streaming* pirated movies because they get targeted and taken down by the copyright holders defending their property.",
"Practically every movie ever made is available online for free. You just have to be willing to take it illegally. Thats just what I heard from some guys, Ive never actually done it myself...",
"Movie production companies make their money from the movies themselves, but free, for-profit sites make money from advertising to you. They need to offer something to make you want to use the site so that you will see the ads.",
"And why do I spend so much time watching it over movies? Oh that's right because porn gives me the feelings of women without the want for love like fucking movies and TV do. I want to die.",
"? Every movie is on the internet for free, you obviously just don't know where to look. It's not even that it's particularly well hidden. Porn is so prevalent because, well, sex is the most universally popular subject for humans. All animals, in fact, although most will deny it out of shame ;) Note to whoever said Porn companies do not enforce their copyrights - in fact they do and quite aggressively, especially on p2p networks.",
"There are literally millions of YouTube videos. You are talking *real* movies? Tell me a porno that has a hundred million dollar budget and I'll let you compare.",
"I hope this helps a little but I watched an interview with this crazy porn recruiter once. The man claimed to be Ron Jeremy's cousin and I feel that might have been one of his trust-inducing lines though he did look a bit like Jeremy. His 'job' was waiting at the Hollywood bus station and recruiting witless new 'actresses' into the porn business. Anyways, he explained porn in such ELI5 ways. He simply explained that in fact they are totally aware that 99% of porn viewers actually do not care about the topic, theme, fetish (or no fetish). Typical guy would just as easily watch \"Spanking Lesbians part 76\" as he'd watch 'Shaved Juggs' *and* that they (porn makers) they know full well 99% will pay the lowest price or watch free.. whatever is quickly available. But wait.. see, he explains, the money is totally in that tiny 1% fraction. All the money. 99% of the cash comes from a tiny little group. Obsessed, niche-market infatuated 'fetish' kink people. So what they do is make \"Lactating Jugs parts 1-110\" because they will barely make a penny from the 99% of viewers who are totally satisfied seeing ANY Jugs. They are a 'wash', a neutral, nothing either way. BUT holy hell.. whoever is the 1% (or.0001%) he explains are psychofans. Yes, they will watch the free episodes but more importantly if they are who signs up for the mailing lists, notifications of new episodes, the exclusive 'lactating jugs VIP memberships' and they will drive across LA in rush hour to be the very first to stand in line paying $59.99 for the new Blu-Ray release of Lac-Jugs 111. Oh and hoarding 110 previous DVDs and Blu-rays like they were made of gold. In a real way, they actually want to make 99% of their movies available for free HOPING that big free net catches 1% who will then gladly pay a lot of money for the 1% of movies they hold back as pay-only for a while.",
"You can find many free movies. Get a library card. Try Hoopla and Overdrive. Many movies are on Youtube.",
"\"I'll... I can tell you when you're older. Where did you hear about that kind of stuff anyway?\"",
"Several reasons, notably: - Porn is really cheap to make. Even for a full-blown pornographic 'movie', the production quality is usually a lot lower than what you see on the silver screen. This makes it easier to recoup the investment through advertising revenue alone. - Porn gets really high views. Often the same video will get many hits *even from the same viewer.* As compared to regular movies, which you watch once, or maybe once or twice a year if it's a movie you *really* like. This also makes it easier to recoup the investment through advertising revenue, because you simply get to show more ads. - Porn is really interchangeable. Unless you're into some very specific fetish, there's not *that* much difference between one porn video and the next. So you don't have this phenomenon of exclusivity like you do with regular movies (e.g. everyone needs to see the new Star Wars at some point because the franchise is big in pop culture, and no other movie will fill the Star Wars hole). As a result, porn publishers have to be much more competitive in how they make their material available- hence, free online videos. - Porn generally doesn't have access to the same media channels as regular movies. You can't watch porn at your local imax, you can't watch it on broadcast TV. So porn companies are basically relying on the Internet for the bulk of their distribution. They just don't have the same options open to them that other film publishers do.",
"Porn was made and monetized for the internet. Legacy movies are monetized around licensing and physical copies.",
"In my opinion, not a lot of people would want to/can sit around for 2 hours jerking it. Unless you can go that long.",
"How about comparing porn movies to youtube? Even though the things you're comparing both contain \"movies\" doesn't mean they're similar enough to be compared in that respect.",
"I don't know why, but could we all just pause for a moment to give thanks that there are literally millions of porn movies on the internet for completely free viewing? Amen.",
"It's harder to find full length porn productions than it is to find 15 minute edited versions. No one wants to watch a movie that is missing 80% of the film, but your genitals are less picky.",
"Hollywood is pretty good about enforcing their copyright. Porn can't do that. They either dont have the cash to throw lawsuits around, or they feel that courts won't be very friendly to porn. Without copyright enforcement, its copied everywhere."
],
"score": [
2215,
2061,
288,
181,
147,
123,
81,
28,
21,
18,
16,
14,
9,
6,
4,
4,
3,
3,
3,
3,
3,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"Crackle.com"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5rr75g | What are the roles of the King/Queen of the United Kingdom vs the Prime Minister in politics? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dd9hsq6",
"dd9hwt5"
],
"text": [
"The Queen has a large amount of theoretical power that the monarch hasn't actually exercised in a very long time that if she were to would cause a constitutional crisis. This includes, but is not limited to the power to veto any law passed by parliament with no way to override it. The power to dismiss the Prime Minister. The power to disband the military. The power to fire every Civil servant. The power to release all of \"Her Majesty's prisoners\". In practice she has a formal Head of State role welcoming foreign dignitaries while the Prime Minister actually runs the Government.",
"The monarch has a single political role. When the government is hopelessly gridlocked to the point of being useless, she dissolves the government, fires all of the politicians, and calls for another round of elections. By comparison, in America our government spent the 8 years of the Obama administration in a gridlock while the Republican Party basically did everything it could to shut down government whenever stuff was discussed that they didn't like. The Queen would have fired everyone, and asked the citizens to try again."
],
"score": [
10,
6
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5rsy5x | If we are "Innocent until proven guilty", then why is the verdict "Not Guilty" as opposed to "Innocent"? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dd9y80k",
"dd9xre2",
"dd9y7tw",
"dd9w5qi",
"dd9zc6n",
"dd9wvh5",
"dd9w9jj",
"dd9xru2",
"dd9z0rk",
"dd9ys8z",
"dd9z9ia",
"dda0l00",
"dda0q6c",
"dd9ygrr",
"dda10pn",
"dda1i4s",
"dda0zch"
],
"text": [
"Generally juries have two choices, Guilty or not guilty. There is an assumption that for you to be presented to the courts that an incident has taken place and it is generally taken that the jury needs to get **beyond reasonable doubt** of your guilt. There is no general definition of beyond reasonable doubt, because what is reasonable is different from one person to the next. For example, you're found in a room with a baseball bat and a broken vase. We are trying ascertaining whether you are guilty of breaking the vase. * Evidence is presented that you were in the room, witnesses say they saw you go in the room. They heard the bat swing, they heard the vase crash to the floor and smash. From this information, you could reasonably be found guilty, you had the means (baseball bat) and opportunity (you were in the room). To Joe Average, you hit or knocked the vase over when swinging the bat. At this stage, with this infomation, it could be reasonable to find you Guilty. You defence team comes along and add further information including:- * Your cat was also in the room and she is very scared of baseball bats swinging through the air, she tends to scramble when scared and it was the cat that knocked over the vase. Witnesses are able to confirm that the cat was present. Now in my mind, as the jury, I think you are guilty. And without the presentation of the defence I would find you guilty. But because of the evidence that the cat was in the room, I can't be completely sure that it wasn't the cat. Now because I now have reasonable doubt and I now can't move beyond that, I need to find you not guilty. I still think you did it, I don't think you are innocent. For all I know you either hit the vase or caused the cat to knock over the vase, so I don't think you are innocent so i find you 'Not Guilty', because I can't move beyond what's reasonable and find you guilty.",
"Because you're technically not trying to prove your innocence. They are trying to prove your guilt. You still might not be innocent but guilt hasn't been proven. So the verdict is in relation to whether or not the prosecution has managed to prove guilt or not.",
"It's precisely because you're presumed innocent until proven guilty that you're found not guilty. The burden of proof is on the prosecutor to prove you're guilty. If they fail to prove you're guilty, it doesn't mean you're innocent. It means **they could not prove you did it** which means you're not guilty. Let's pretend there's a oreo cookie jar in a room with 2 children Tom & Bob. Tom always does the right thing and doesn't like ores. Bob always lies and loves oreos. Let's pretend Bob ate the cookies while nobody was watching. If you came back into the room, you suspect Bob did it. Tom says Bob did it. Bob says Tom did it. It was probably Bob but you can't prove it. It's unlikely but possible that Tom lied (reasonable doubt). Since it's innocent until proven guilty, Bob would be found not guilty. He's not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, but he's also not innocent.",
"The spirt of the phrase \"Innocent until proven guilty\" is more \"You should be considered to be innocent until proven guilty\" The trial is not to prove that you are innocent, it's to prove whether you are guilty or not guilty. Being proven \"not guilty\" is not saying you've been proven innocent (even though you should be *considered* so) just that there is not enough evidence to prove guilt.",
"Food for thought: in Latin, guilty can be translated \"nocens\" and not guilty is: \"innocens\" The expression you are mentioning comes a French dude, Jean Lemoine, and he suggested: \"item quilibet praesumitur innocens nisi probetur nocens\": \"Anyone is presumed innocent if not approved to be guilty\" you see the problem there, the latin word \"innocens\" made it into English. The other, \"nocens\" not so much. English has its own version with \"guilt\" from Old English \"gylt\" In German, neither word made it. So, \"innocens\" is just \"unschuldig\" (literally: not guilty) and \"nocens\" would be \"schuldig\" (guilty). So, if you translate the same expression from Latin into German, and then from German into English, it would be \"Not guilty until proven guilty\" So, in conclusion, your question is just an English thing.",
"The burden of proof is that you are, or are not guilty. In some courts (Scotland) there's a third verdict \"not proven\"",
"There is a difference in your plea of being innocent or guilty, and the verdict of being guilty. And there is also the question of who has to convince the jury of what exactly. Does the prosecution have to convince the jury the defendant is guilty? Or, does the defendant have to prove his innocence? The jury and society at large is to assume the defendant is innocent until the state proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty. The defendant does not have to prove his innocence. One reason for this is the value that it would worse for innocent men to go to jail on a false claim than a guity man go free on a true claim. Both situations have pros and cons but in a society that does not want an abusive government (or other powerful people acting through the government) this is the arrangement we decided upon.",
"To add to the other answers, there is also a verdict of \"factual innocence\": URL_0 Sometimes a defendant will seek this verdict in order to have charges against them sealed and removed, or to seek damages against law enforcement.",
"\"Innocent until proven guilty\" is a formalistic principle, not a universal law or perception in all of society. It's treated as true in certain ways, but not at all in others. For example, Bob is arrested for theft. The only evidence against Bob is a video, which it turns out during the trial was illegally obtained. However, the video leaks to the public and shows extremely clearly that Bob did it. With no admissible evidence, he is found not guilty. Semi-famous B-movie actor Adam walks up on the stage during a public ceremony with many live cameras, says \"I am Adam and I'm going to kill you\" and starts shooting at the crowd. He is shot in the leg, and on him police find ID verifying that he is indeed Adam. However, the trial will only happen some weeks or months later. A video surfaces of Carl physically abusing a child - but it turns out during the trial it happened just so long ago that the statute of limitations has run out. Or, it happened recently in another country, when he was a citizen there, and that country has not yet pressed charges. Now, does people's minds work so that they are literally thinking of these as innocent until they are found guilty in a court of law? Like some kind of computer, finding guilt incomprehensible? If Carl wants to work in a kindergarten, must he be allowed that as he is completely innocent? Most people would describe those above as guilty - even before a trial. And rightfully so. The law recognizes this - it would be an absurdity if someone in cases of inadmissible evidence or an exceeded statute of limitations were \"found to be innocent\". A key characteristic of a legal system is that it must help maintain order and inspire confidence in the population, and people must accept having their dispute resolution outsourced to it - and if the pretense becomes too big, people lose faith in the courts. This is perhaps a bit above the ELI5 level, but: guilt is both a formal and a rational/moral concept. The formal concept is a pretense, something we act as if true, and we accept that the state operates in this way. But when the pretense becomes too much to bear - like Adam who declared his name and then started shooting - or when the cost of the pretense is too high - like someone known to have abused children but not found guilty of it applying to work with children - we drop it. edit: and to further illustrate this pretense - what if Adam is shot and killed? Must he then be described as innocent by all people everywhere, as he never stood trial, or does death erase that obligation? What if he dies from complications just before the trial - is he then innocent right until the point of death and then becomes guilty, as we accept that dead people are called guilty even without trials? What if he suffers brain damage, becomes a quadriplegic and falls into a coma and the state does not press charges - must he then be described as innocent? If he dies whilst in the coma 43 years later can we then call him guilty of the shooting?",
"Purpose of the defendant isn't to prove someone is innocent. It's to prove they are not guilty. I believe innocent to mean that you had nothing to do with an event, while you can take part in an event without being guilty. Take... a car runs over a pedestrian. If you're the driver you're guilty. If you're a passenger in the car or the driver high chances you're not guilty. If you're the shopkeeper from another town that don't know the people that were in the event nor communicated with them you're innocent.",
"Iirc, innocent until proven guilty simply means that the prosecution, not the defense, has the \"burden of proof\". Let's imagine we have two countries, Country A and Country B. Country A is like the US, innocent until proven guilty. The prosecution must produce sufficient evidence to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. If it wants, the defense can provide no testimony at all, if it believed the prosecution had a shoddy case. The defense simply needs to respond to/provide basis that the prosecution's case has holes. Obviously something like an alibi is huge in this case; if someone credible says the defendant wasn't where the prosecution says he was, then the prosecution's entire case may rest on disproving that alibi. In Country B, where you're guilty until proven innocent, the defense has the burden of proof. The defense needs to prove that the defendant didn't do it. All of the scenarios in the above paragraph are reversed. So, in Country B, the defense needs to *prove* you're innocent, unlike Country A, where the prosecution needs to *prove* you're guilty. \"Not Guilty\" simply means the prosecution's goal of providing proof without a reasonable doubt failed. It doesn't imply he was proven innocent, since the defense has no onus to actually prove that (though it really helps if they can). It's not always correct to say \"not guilty\" = innocent, espexially if there are multiple charges being brought before the court. You're \"not guilty\" of murder, but \"guilty\" of being an accessory after the fact, so saying \"innocent\" isn't true. Just not guilty of one charge. In Country B, all that would presumably be reversed.",
"I am a criminal defense attorney (edit: in the USA. Your country will vary). There are some good, detailed answers in here, but let me just add my own version of the short, simple, direct answer a five year old or juror should understand. * Lots of people hear the phrase \"innocent until proven guilty\" but it's just words at this point, what does it mean? * The prosecution is the one required to show evidence of guilt (what they say happened was a crime and it did happen) * The defense is not required to put on any evidence at all. * Because the Constitution only requires the prosecution to present evidence, there can't be a finding of \"Innocent\" * As a result, the only options a jury have when making a verdict are \"Guilty\" or \"Not Guilty\" Now there's a lot more I can go into about the reasoning behind why the founding fathers made it this way, and what the state's burden of proof \"beyond a reasonable doubt\" means, but I'll stick to the ELI5 about the question asked. I'm happy to answer additional questions when I have time later today.",
"In Scotland we also have a \"not proven\" verdict. It's basically the jury saying \"we think you're probably guilty but the prosecution hasn't quite made the case well enough so we can't convict you.\"",
"Hey, one I can answer. Because as much synonyms as they are, they are not the same in legalese. If you are found \"not guilty,\" it means the prosecution couldn't bring up enough evidence to find you \"guilty.\" They won't call you innocent, because that means 100% you didn't do it. The two words imply different things.",
"\"Found not guilty\" doesn't actually mean innocent in this context. They could still have committed the crime. It means the court could not establish they were guilty. The court does not try to prove people are innocent, so it would not be true to say the court found them innocent. The defense doesn't need to prove someone is innocent, they just stand in the way of the prosecution trying to prove guilt.",
"Logically, they both mean the same thing. The usage of one over the other derives from human perception which is highly subjective. Being \"innocent\" is absolute. Suspects, when pleading \"not guilty\", always use expressions like \"I'm innocent, your honor!\" because it bears more emotional weight than saying \"I'm not guilty, your honor!\". Being \"not guilty\", in human perception, somehow leaves open the possibility for the defendant to not be innocent, even though they both mean the same thing.",
"Let's say you were at a stop light. The light could be green or it could be not green. If it is not green, that doesn't mean it is red, it doesn't mean it is yellow. If it is not green, it means it is not green. Same thing in court. A finding of not guilty means just that, not you are innocent. You are presumed innocent. Not guilty means just that, not guilty, the prosecutor could not prove you were guilty. Nobody tried to prove you were innocent, you are already presumed that."
],
"score": [
3819,
2764,
438,
342,
90,
43,
32,
11,
10,
5,
5,
4,
3,
3,
3,
3,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/resources/criminal-defense/defendants-rights/factual-innocence.htm"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5rt7d3 | Why and how do YouTube ads work for the respective companies, since everyone seems to hate them? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dd9yg2i"
],
"text": [
"It's about seeing them. You don't have to have an opinion on them. What companies are trying to do is getting you \"familiar\" with the brand or product. The more you see it the greater possibility you will choose their brand or product on the off-chance you need or want something like that. It's a physiology thing. If you see a bunch of papa John's adds (even if you genuinely loath them), the next time you think about getting pizza papa John's will pop into your head regardless of whether or not you like their pizza or adds or either of them. It's a way to capture market share by forcing people's brains to associate pizza with papa John's by that familiarity."
],
"score": [
22
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5rtt8f | If the it's a ban on people from certain areas entering the United States. Why is it being called Muslim ban? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dda2umz",
"dda187z"
],
"text": [
"There's a lot of confusion over the issue, not least because Donald Trump himself promised a \"Muslim ban\" -- in exactly those words -- during his campaign. Also, all of the countries affected by the ban are Muslim-majority countries, and government sources consistently refer to 9/11 and the threat of Islamic terrorism. Also, there's a sneaky part to the Executive Order which says that people will be allowed to come to the US if they are a member of a minority religion in those countries. That is to say, a Muslim Syrian fleeing ISIS will likely not be allowed in, but a Christian Syrian would stand a better chance of being accepted. Of course, even if it is a deliberate \"Muslim ban\", the government will have to deny that it is, because such a ban would likely be illegal or even unconstitutional. Those who insist on calling it a \"Muslim ban\" probably fall into two groups: those who are perfectly happy for it to be a ban on Muslims; and those who simply disbelieve the government when they claim it's not a \"Muslim ban\".",
"He's talked for over a year about how his plan is to ban muslims from entering the country. Since that's unconstitutional, he's accomplishing his goal by saying, \"I'm banning people from x countries\" when they're majority muslim countries. Like when businesses have dress codes that prohibit \"do rags, sagging pants, baseball caps that aren't on straight forward, and muscle shirts\" and then claim that the dress code isn't racist. The motivations are transparent."
],
"score": [
18,
6
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5ru66l | Please explain to me the Bowling Green Massacre. | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dda44jr",
"dda3s5x",
"dda41ot"
],
"text": [
"[Kellyanne Conway]( URL_1 ), who acts as [Counselor to the President]( URL_0 ), justified the [Muslim ban]( URL_5 ) put in place by [President Donald Trump]( URL_3 ) by stating that two Iraqi refugees masterminded and carried out the _Bowling Green massacre_. However, this massacre does not exist. She made the claim in an interview with MSNBC's Chris Matthews, which aired on February the 2nd. During the interview, she makes another erroneous statement, saying that [President Barack Obama]( URL_2 ) instituted a 6-month ban on Iraqi refugees. She goes on to say that two of these refugees became radicalised, and supposedly carried out the massacre I mentioned above. **Neither of these things ever occured.** [Link to article]( URL_4 )",
"Here's [a good round-up of the facts]( URL_0 ). In short: some al Quaida supporters were found and arrested in Bowling Green, Kentucky. No deaths occurred in the event, although the event caused President Obama to review immigration policies. But, no, there was no massacre in Bowling Green.",
"[There was no massacre.]( URL_0 ) There is, however, a haunted house attraction in Bowling Green called \"The Massacre.\" Not only was there never a terrorist attack in Bowling Green, KY, there is no evidence to suggest that there was ever a plan to carry out a terrorist attack in Bowling Green, KY. The men [did plead guilty to federal terrorism charges,]( URL_1 ) but not to planning any attacks: > Alwan, whose fingerprints were found on an unexploded IED found in Iraq, pleaded guilty earlier in the case on Dec. 16, 2011, to all counts of a 23-count federal indictment. He pleaded guilty to conspiring to kill U.S. nationals abroad; conspiring to use a weapon of mass destruction (explosives) against U.S. nationals abroad; distributing information on the manufacture and use of IEDs; attempting to provide material support to terrorists and to AQI and conspiring to transfer, possess and export Stinger missiles. > Hammadi pleaded guilty on Aug. 21, 2012, to a 12-count superseding indictment. Charges against him included attempting to provide material support to terrorists and to AQI; conspiring to transfer, possess and export Stinger missiles; and making a false statement in an immigration application."
],
"score": [
20,
8,
7
],
"text_urls": [
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counselor_to_the_President",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kellyanne_Conway",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump",
"http://www.vox.com/world/2017/2/2/14494478/bowling-green-massacre",
"http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/01/29/everything-need-know-donald-trumps-muslim-ban/"
],
[
"http://www.wcpo.com/news/state/state-kentucky/what-on-earth-is-the-bowling-green-massacre"
],
[
"http://www.vox.com/world/2017/2/2/14494478/bowling-green-massacre",
"https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/former-iraqi-terrorists-living-kentucky-sentenced-terrorist-activities"
]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5ruegv | Why does the public toilet have a bite out of it and the one at home doesn't? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dda604t",
"ddaaugm"
],
"text": [
"If your dick touches the lip in your own home, it's not the end of the world. If your dick touches where 50 dicks have already touched, it's gross. So they remove the high-traffic dick touching area.",
"Once again this comes up and the answers are wrong. It's a requirement of the ADA, and the justification is to allow caregivers to wipe the ass of a disabled person. It is not about dick germs."
],
"score": [
27,
7
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5rvo44 | Why do people like historic buildings with dated systems rather than new developments that would have new systems and green technology? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ddaw58q"
],
"text": [
"You'd be surprised how \"not-green\" many modern buildings are. It depends on the building but many new ones are far more expensive to maintain and have higher energy consumption per unit area than their older counterparts. What \"new systems and green technology\" do you think old buildings are sorely lacking? Lighting has seen probably the greatest advances in technology, but this is not something confined to new buildings: it's easy to replace old light bulbs with new LEDs. Plumbing fixtures too: an old building can use as little water as a new one if the old fixtures are replaced with new. There's nothing special about new buildings in this respect."
],
"score": [
3
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5rvokz | Why was Marihuana banned in the first place? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ddahm08",
"ddakl3r",
"ddah49k",
"ddaqkkz"
],
"text": [
"It was originally banned because one guy was worried that hemp was gonna start to I danger his paper company. So he lobbied a ton of money and got it banned to not risk his bottom line. Later Nixon became president and was super paranoid of his opposition . The vast majority of which where the leftist \"hippies\", blacks, and Mexicans. So he increased the penalty for marijuana as a way to hurt his opposition.",
"[Adam Ruins Everything]( URL_0 ) did a fun segment on this. Basically, [Harry Anslinger]( URL_1 ), who was the first commissioner of the U.S. Treasury Department's Federal Bureau of Narcotics (FBN) didn't want to lose funding after prohibition. He was a staunch supporter of prohibition and the criminalization of drugs. So he used the xenophobia of Mexicans to get Marijuana illegal. I mean, the racism behind illegalization is blatant in the fact that we changed the name from Cannabis (English/Latin) to Marijuana (Spanish) in order to make it sound more foreign. Edit: Added Latin. Edit 2: The term, originally spelled variously as \"marihuana\", \"mariguana\", etc., originated in Mexican Spanish. *American Heritage Dictionaries* (2007). Spanish Word Histories and Mysteries: English Words That Come From Spanish. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. pp. 142–143. ISBN 0-618-91054-9.",
"It was snuck in by lobbyists of the petrol and paper companies to kill off competition. It was snuck in with the law to ban opium. Early 20's i think.... Edit hemp oil was the fuel used for the model T ford. I believe Henry Ford had his own hemp fields. Hemp plastic was also thought of for making the panels",
"Hearst, Anslinger, DuPont Hearst was a newspaper mogul who published \"Enquirer\" type newspapers featuring what we now call \"fake news.\" He hated Mexicans especially after famous freedom fighter Pancho Villa liberated land Hearst owned in Northern Mexico. It was Pancho Villa's men who called it \"marijuana.\" The song \"La Cucaracha\" contains the oldest reference to \"marijuana\" as it mentions Pancho Villa's men looking for \"marijuana por fumar\" that is, marijuana to smoke. Hearst started publishing articles about how Mexicans smoked marijuana and became lazy and criminal. He also published articles about how marijuana made black men rape white women. No Americans realized that Marijuana was Hemp, a popular crop. Anslinger was head of DEA (appointed by his uncle) and hated blacks. He especially hated Jazz and believed it was devils music. Since jazz was invented by blacks smoking pot, Anslinger hated pot. Many Americans were afraid of blacks and jazz. DuPont had just got a bunch of petro-based patents from Germany but they weren't that useful because hemp oil products were better. So DuPont wanted a tax on hemp to make their petrol patents more valuable. DuPont funded and Anslinger wrote the marijuana tax act of 1937. No Americans knew marijuana was hemp. At the congressional hearings for the 1937 marijuana tax act, the American Medical Association testified that after years of supporting anti-marijuana propaganda, they had just found out the day before that marijuana was actually hemp! They testified that hemp was the safest substance and medicine known to man. Anslinger had thousands of American Medical Association arrested over the next 2 years until the AMA agreed to be anti-pot. First they just went after blacks and Mexicans. Later they started raiding other ethnic minorities. Eventually even poor white people started getting arrested."
],
"score": [
20,
9,
8,
6
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJlqsdezhhk",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_J._Anslinger"
],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5rvwlz | Why is it illegal to deface US currency, but there are coin smashing machines at every zoo/museum? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ddaiw45"
],
"text": [
"It is only illegal if you intend to destroy the note / coin, or if you plan on changing its value (such turning a $1 into a $1 bill). **Edit:** To add some more information: > According to Title 18, U. S. C. section 331, it is illegal to \"fraudulently alter, deface, mutilate, impair, diminish, falsify, scale, or lighten any of the coins coined at the mints of the United States, or any foreign coins which are by law made current or are in actual use or circulation as money within the United States\"."
],
"score": [
3
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5rweq6 | What makes fascism a far-right ideology | A lot of definitions call it a far-right political ideology, but I thought about it and I was curious what about fascism actually puts it there. I would assume it's more statist (on the vertical spectrum), but what actually puts it off to the right? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ddaol7z",
"ddanwba",
"ddavxfc"
],
"text": [
"The left/right divide in politics is also called the progressive/conservative divide. A **progress**ive is someone who believes in pursuing ever-increasing **progress**, that society can analyse its past mistakes and constantly improve on them to become better, fairer, freer, etc with every new generation; they often look to the past with a more critical eye and assess it in terms of how it can be improved on. A **conserv**ative is someone who believes in **conserv**ing the idea, systems, policies, and traditions of the past; they perceive the changes taking place over their lifetime as being negative, and wish to return society to the way it was when they were young, or to even earlier, to a more idyllic past before modernity corrupted the good values. They often look to the past as being a period in which ideals were embraced that have been lost now and emphasise what national fathers/founders would have wanted, what religious fathers/founders would have wanted, etc, and see tradition as something valuable in itself. Related to these attitudes, left-wing politics tends to be heavily internationalistic; the old socialist slogan is \"The workers of Britain have more in common with the workers of France than the aristocrats of Britain.\" Many left-wing organisations are international and care little for national boundaries or borders, and harder left ideologies like socialism often involve the belief that national boundaries will eventually dissolve. Right-wing politics tends to be heavily nationalistic; the traditions of the nation form a major part of the worldview, they're the big things the conservative wants to conserve, and there's a much stronger idea of an inherent national character. The terms have their roots in both of these things: during the French Revolution, those who patriotically supported the King sat on the right side of the hall, and those who advocated progress regardless of national tradition by abolishing monarchy and him with a President sat on the left. That's where the terms come from. Think of the core tenets of fascism: they're mostly extreme embodiments of the right-wing view. Fascism says that the nation is the *most important thing*, that all people should serve their country and know their place in it, that every nations has an inherent character it should preserve and defend, which makes it better than other nations, and gives it the right to dominate those other nations if it can. Fascism emphasises rejection of modern social decay and promises a return to the glorious and romanticised history of the nation it appears in. Fascism rejects the leftist drive towards abolishment of hierarchy (through communalism, anarchism, stateless ideologies like Marxism, etc) and favours a strong militaristic leader; likewise it rejects the leftist drive towards gender equality, racial equality, etc and favours a traditionalist strong father/husband figure leading the home, ethnic superiority for *insert your race here*, and so on. Another core tenet of fascism is autarky; that is, downplaying the idea of participating in a global community and focusing on being a self-sufficient isolated nation, which is very much against the [left internationalist idea]( URL_1 ). Fascism was established in direct opposition to left-wing movements and Marxist movements in particular, and its most famous proponents (Mussolini and Hitler) filled their writing with anti-socialist rhetoric (Hitler's ideology was dominated by the idea of [Judeobolshevism]( URL_0 ), the idea that socialism and left-wing politics were Jewish conspiracies to destabilise and destroy the traditional European order; Marx, Trotsky and Luxemburg were Jewish, so that *proved* it! /s).",
"It has to do with the way the economy is organized as well as how people are socially organized. Fascism is Hierarchical, which makes it intrinsically right wing, and its statist, which makes it authoritarian. What makes it different from far left authoritarianism is the fact that its a capitalist ideology. Out of curiosity I did a quick google search just to make sure my assessment was not too far off base and I found this quote on the wiki page for Fascism which puts it into perspective a bit: 'Roderick Stackelberg places fascism—including Nazism, which he says is \"a radical variant of fascism\"—on the political right, explaining that, \"The more a person deems absolute equality among all people to be a desirable condition, the further left he or she will be on the ideological spectrum. The more a person considers inequality to be unavoidable or even desirable, the further to the right he or she will be.\"' I am by no means an expert on fascism but I hope that helps.",
"The terms right-wing and left-wing have become synonymous with liberal vs conservative in America so it can be confusing when you then place the labels onto political philosophies. The term left and right comes from the French in the late 1700s. At the National Assembly those who supported the King sat on the right side and those who supported change sat on the left side. Thus, right-wing generally means \"for the crown\" and left wing means \"against the crown.\" We don't really live in a world with Kings in power any longer, what we do have are political leaders/and heads of state. When we think of liberals in America their ideology is maximizing the centralization of power within the Federal Government/Head of State. When we think of conservatives in America their ideology is limited federal government, and empowering the States and local governments to govern the masses rather than an all powerful centralized state. This is the inverse of the traditional definition of right wing and left wing. Fascism by definition is an authoritarian and nationalistic \"right-wing\" system of government. Meaning it favors a centralizing power within a national government with a powerful/authoritarian head of state. By American standards this is essentially liberalism led by a dictator. And if you look at nearly every modern example of fascism the world has ever seen it is the leftist political ideology socialism/communism evolving into a dictatorship at head of state. If you look at people like Mussolini, Hitler, and to some extent Chavez, Castro, etc you'll notice this pattern. If you look at the stereotypical example of Fascism you go to the German NAZI party. NAZI stands for the National Socialist German Workers' Party... or essentially national socialism. Hitler was always a socialist and supported socialism, however, after WWI he believed that socialism was a failed political ideology and the only way to move forward with the principles of socialism was to create a system of government with a dictatorship at head of state... and thus it turned into a \"right-wing\" ideology."
],
"score": [
38,
7,
4
],
"text_urls": [
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_Bolshevism",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internationalism_\\(politics\\)"
],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
5rx4rk | Why do most societies associate sex with shame if it feels so good? And why not other "feel good" stuff? | This post is assuming religion is human-made. | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ddauz2h",
"ddavr9n"
],
"text": [
"Prior to the development of reliable birth control, there were some pretty major consequences associated with sex (stds, kids, etc). It was beneficial to discourage recreational sex, and shame is a good way achieve that. Nowadays sex is mostly safe, but society is slow to change and so those shameful attitudes still exist.",
"The short answer is STDs, once STDs become a major public health challenge then sexual activity must be curtailed and the use of shame is one of the best ways to control this. The best examples of this are isolated tribal people such Polynesian islanders. Until European sailors arrived they had a very open and accepting attitude to sexual activity. Once the STDs spread then that stopped. The second part is societies based on property and inheritance of that property. If you were going to spend many years raising a child then pass on your accumulated wealth then you want to be sure that it is your genetic off spring that is receiving this bounty. Hence the need for monogamous relationships, or the need for one brother to take care of the widow of a dead sibling. Untill the advent of birth control it became increasingly expensive to raise children, so stable families were required, as single women would struggle to meet the costs. It gets real interesting if you look at early medieval civilizations as they swarmed across Europe, the Saxons and later the Vikings practiced a from of genocide in conquered territory, all existing men and male children would be slaughtered, he women became chattel slaves but the offspring were considered the sons of the conquerors and could inherit. So another answer to you question might be that it helps to establish the patriarchy."
],
"score": [
32,
7
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
5ry8iw | Why do most people talk to pets with a higher pitched voice? | Most people that I've met talk to their pets, or animals in general, with a higher pitched voice. Why is that? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ddb39k3",
"ddbh4gj"
],
"text": [
"Habit and social convention mainly But pets (especially dogs) tend to respond more positively to higher pitched sounds than lower pitches. Most likely it has to do with the lower pitched sounds (like growls and deep barks) being more aggressive/negative then higher pitcher sounds (yelps, howls, playful barks) etc in the wild. But mainly just because it's a habit people have gotten into.",
"In a developmental psychology lecture one of my professors said it's probably related to infant-directed speech - we have an instinct to talk to babies in a high pitched, melodic way, which captures their attention and makes it easier for them to learn language. We probably do it with cute animals too because some of their characteristicts trigger the same caretaking instincts."
],
"score": [
10,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
5ryfge | Movie release dates vs air dates | So how does it work when movies are released in say 2014 but aren't aired until 2017. For example Netflix Original: Imperial D(didn't spell the second word because post gets removed) aired today but was released in 2014 at Sundance. | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ddb7dx2",
"ddb6f5d"
],
"text": [
"The release date is the date it first premiered. The film you mentioned premiered at the Sundance film festival in 2014. At that point, Netflix didn't own it (they don't make all of their Originals) - the creators were looking for a company to purchase the distribution rights. Films need a company to distribute it, by getting movie theaters to show it, selling DVD copies, or streaming it. After the actor John Boyega became well-known due to his role in Star Wars (in December 2015), Netflix decided they would purchase the rights to the film. These deals take some time, so the purchase presumably happened in 2016, which is why it didn't actually air on Netflix until 2017.",
"Some movies just take a long time to get a distribution deal. (probably the case with this film - something that didn't seem widely appealing in 2014 may seem like a better deal now, and John Boyega is a much bigger draw now than then) Sometime legal disputes have to be resolved before a film can be released. Recently, Relativity Media went through bankruptcy, holding up the release of several completed films that were in their inventory, like Masterminds."
],
"score": [
6,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
5ryh97 | Why do so many Disney princesses have dead mothers? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ddb5onf",
"ddb895o",
"ddb822x"
],
"text": [
"The Disney princesses are going to undergo conflict and hardship which they must overcome through the story. If their mothers are around to give advice and help out then it sort of spoils the entire arc of the plot, so they need to be out of the picture. The only way that makes it not look like their mother abandoned them is to have them be dead before the movie starts.",
"It's actually because Walt Disney bought his parents a house and they died in that house in a freak accident. He felt guilty about it for the rest of his life and it translated into a lot of his animated features.",
"Many adventure stories involve characters with either one or two deceased parents, and they rarely have siblings unless they're involved in the story too. It works better for the story if they don't have family obligations that come before their adventuring. As /u/Phage0070 pointed out, if the Disney princesses had their mother around giving them reasonable advice, the stories wouldn't have happened. Think of Beauty and the Beast - the story begins when Belle's father is captured by the Beast, and she goes to his castle and offers to take her father's place. If her mother was around, she would have pointed out that Belle's father would never want her to put herself in danger by going to the castle alone, and Belle wouldn't have risked abandoning her mother like that. There wouldn't have been a story that way. Instead, Belle goes to save the only family she has left, and no one is there to talk her out of it. The male heroes fit the same pattern. If Aladdin had parents and siblings living in poverty in Agrabah, his first wish wouldn't have been to be a prince just to get close to Jasmine - it would have been something to help his family. The stories only work if the heroes and heroines don't have to worry about their families. Even the Disney princesses with families usually don't need to worry about them - their fathers are often kings or otherwise well-off, so they don't have to worry about their well-being while they're gone."
],
"score": [
16,
6,
6
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5rzm0f | Holocaust denial | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ddbgf5d",
"ddbe7fw",
"ddblw1i",
"ddbf4go",
"ddbebvy",
"ddbe7qq"
],
"text": [
"I think everyone is missing the point here. The majority of holocaust deniers do not flat out disbelieve in the holocaust; they believe that the numbers/events have been exaggerated. For instance, some 'holocaust deniers' will claim that the number of jewish people killed is vastly overestimated and that the labor camps couldn't have feasibly killed the 6 million estimated jews. Of course, it isn't just orthodox history vs. revisionist history; adamant holocaust deniers will claim that Jewish people have intentionally mislead the public about the holocaust for personal gain like garnering public support for establishing Israel. 'Holocaust denier' is basically a mislabel. I'm sure some people literally do not believe that the holocaust occurred, but in general it is more subtle/sinister than that and related to technicalities. EDIT: These people will generally claim that the holocaust wasn't designed and that Hitler and co. didn't have a plan in place to intentionally rid the world of jews, gypsies, mentally challenged persons etc.",
"Once you accept the idea that people are both willing and capable of engaging in vast conspiracies, then it's easy to extend this to rewriting history in order to make one group look bad. This is helped by the fact that this is not uncommon - history is written by the winners and 'official' histories are quite often distorted.",
"It isn't that they deny the event of the holocaust happened. I talked to one extensively about this issue. Their arguments are usually... 1. They believe the numbers were greatly exaggerated by neo-leftists to justify a cultural disdain toward antisemitic people. 2. They believe the act itself was justified. Because they believe the Hitler rubbish about how all the bad Jews were taking things over. 3. They believe most of the jews killed were enemy combatants, not innocents who were duped into \"labor camp\" train rides. 4. They point out nobody really cried foul about war cruelties until the holocaust. They question the motive of \"why complain now?\". 5. They believe the holocaust events were the business of Germany, not the United States. They also point out Russia and China have both killed more people than died in the entire holocaust - and they ask why we all demonize Hitler but not Mao or Stalin for doing much worse. They will downplay the events, the acts, and up-play the militant jewish resistance and claim the jews were involved in international conspiracies and war crimes - and say we shouldn't pity people who died almost 100 years ago. Because they aren't actually denying it happened, but they are self-coddling their hate for others.",
"Okay, since apparently a longer text is needed: Evidence doesn't matter. History doesn't matter. This is all about the effect a holocaust would have. In short: Because it would be bad for their argument/world view if it happened. So it didn't.",
"One of the arguments is that there is no evidence, that Hitler signed any documents authorizing Holocaust. As someone would say, it's an alternative fact",
"It's based on the point that the Jewish community is using the holocaust. To benefit from the publicity that comes with such an outrageous and inhuman act. It then that people go to great lengths to disprove and defame the events that took place by stating facts that are not widely believed such as the fact that the death toll was over exaggerated or that the nazis didn't kill the jew but simply tried to remove them for Germany. all this can be found on the wiki page."
],
"score": [
61,
13,
10,
6,
3,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5s1byv | How do people chug entire bottles of alcohol (750ml) without overdosing or getting alcohol poisoning? | I've seen plenty of videos online of a person opening the top to a brand new bottle and chugging the entire bottle in less than a minute. They visibly look phased but usually the videos will cut off before you see them recover. | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ddbolr3",
"ddby659",
"ddbuufn",
"ddc8ub6",
"ddbsvjs",
"ddboixh",
"ddbyjf2",
"ddc8tcc",
"ddbtitj",
"ddbxseb",
"ddc32ca",
"ddcbkwe",
"ddbtcbb",
"ddclc7e"
],
"text": [
"Most people you see doing that end up in bad shape. They likely start vomiting and pass out. The ones who dont get alcohol poisoning have made it to that level of \"ability\" have done so through practice. A person develops a tolerance to alcohol just like anything else. Edit: body mass and fat do have a lot to do with it but mostly only as a beginner. Ive seen thin/low body fat people drink like a pro and larger people get stupid with a couple drinks. I was a \"power drinker\" at 6'1 165 lbs. I quit drinking many years ago and now at 225 lbs, i would bet 2 beers would severely impair my motor skills. Practice and tolerance.",
"Like some others said, size has a lot to do with it. Also, so does your enzyme balance. Alcohol gets broken down in your body by enzymes and eventually is used to make or store energy (as fat cells or for production of ATP). Someone who's body regularly deals with larger quantities of alcohol has their cells making more of those enzymes so that they can break the alcohol down faster. That doesn't mean it's healthier for them though, because all that effort is a huge strain on the liver, which not only filters impurities but also plays an important role in metabolism regulation.",
"shoenice checks into the hospital and gets his stomach pumped after serious chugging videos so he doesn't die. i just have a feeling that's who this question is about.",
"Tolerance. Size in both height and weight do factor into it, but in most cases it's all just a matter of tolerance. Normal people don't need to hit around the 8-10 standard drinks mark just to feel an effect. If a normal person that hasn't got a daily or even weekly drinking habit tried to skull a bottle of spirits(hard liquor) it will very likely kill them, because it's just too much too fast. Think of it like running a marathon. If you practice everyday your tolerance for pain increases. Meaning you can push yourself further before you feel like you are on the edge of dying. If you have ever tried running long distances without that training you would know very well that simply a few hundred meters can be enough for your body to give out. Tolerance in this sense is a form of conditioning. In a way alcoholics condition themselves to ingest larger quantities of alcohol.",
"Those people will end up throwing up. When they throw up they will be losing much of the alcohol they just drank. 750ml of 40% will get a 180lb male to a BAC of about 0.47. At this point they are certainly passed out and could possibly die. 600ml of 40% gets the same person to 0.37. Here they are close to passing out or already are. There is still a chance of death. A large danger with alcohol is that you can stumble and fall then hit your head. Or you could pass out and hit your head. Or once you are passed out you could throw up and drown. Or the alcohol can cause liver damage. Going past .2 BAC is definitely stupid. I'd argue that going past .1 is stupid. You have all the positive effects by .1 and you only pick up more and more negatives as you get drunker.",
"Alcohol does not hit your system immediately. So unless the videos you are watching are a half hour or longer you will not be seeing them at the point that alcohol poisoning would be noticeable.",
"Well, I've only seen this happen two times. once was at a drinking party where a friend of mine was trying to prove she was a better drinker than a guy from Saskatchewan, she won but we immediately took her to the bathroom to make her throw up so that we wouldn't have to take her to the hospital an hour later. the second time was while watching Archer. The various individuals seemed to managed to keep the alcohol down seemingly due to high tolerance to alcohol and by being cartoons",
"I absolutely hate having to argue with the people who say this amount will make you vomit etc... I hate it because to my alcoholic husband this is just the opener for his day. He will tell me he's going to be sober, go out to \"smoke\" and another 750ml of vodka is gone. Yes he will pass out eventually but the only time he gets sick is if he is detoxing (which never lasts more than a day or so, why put your body through that?) if you have the tolerance, and a serious problem, you can easily consume this much alcohol and go back for more. It breaks my heart...",
"A lot do it just takes a little time after said chugging. I knew a kid in high school who chugged 1/2 of a 40 of vanilla vodka, got alcohol poisoning within about 40 minutes and was rushed to the hospital. I also went on a school trip and one of the kids chugged a mickey, he threw up with an hour and was down the rest of the day. Some people drink daily so their body has an immunity to making them feel sick of it, they are still trashing their bodies but they can maintain themselves enough to not throw up. TL:DR Normal people would, alcoholics don't throw up as easily as normal folk, they are the ones who chug and stay awake.",
"From personal experience...I did when I was 20 under peer pressure. It's all fun and games, but it smacks you over the face after about 30-40 minutes, which is what you don't see on video. It is one of the worst things I've ever experienced and recommend that if anyone sees someone doing it, make them stop. I shit and threw up green for about 2 days. I wasn't back to normal for a few weeks because of how sensitive my stomach was. I would say majority of people who do it have some ill effects in one or another; some don't simply because of built up tolerance over a long period of time, as another poster has said.",
"I'm 6'6\" and close to 400 pounds and a pure bred alcoholic. Anything less than a-bottle-of-rum/hour and I won't get drunk",
"I guy I knew in high school beer bonged a 26 of jack Daniels. He left the party in his truck, crashed it and walked back hours later. He was visibly drunk but had been known to have a drinking problem. It was stupid, but to him not even enough to knock him off his feet. He unfortunately died shortly after high school....",
"I usually will leave a comment on those videos: whoever this is, they either puked or died. There's few other outcomes",
"Tolerance, weight of the person, what they ate before hand and what u dont see most of the time is them puking all the alcohol out...bodys first defence mechanism"
],
"score": [
190,
137,
48,
48,
47,
38,
28,
22,
14,
6,
4,
4,
3,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
5s1w9c | What law guides the confessions in a R.Catholic confessional?Suppose a Catholic priest decides to give data on a penitent to the CIA?Or the FBI puts its staff in the seminary? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ddbteao"
],
"text": [
"*Canon law*- the religious law of the Catholic Church (the Orthodox and Anglican churches have their own Canon law, too, I think)- provides for the immediate and automatic excommunication, which can only be lifted by the Pope, of any priest who reveals information obtained through confession. In parallel to that, in the United States, there's a legal principle called *confessional privilege,* according to which priests (and officers of other religions with a role similar to priests) can't be forced to testify about what they know through confession or other private religious communications. The details of how this rule is applied are, unfortunately not ELI5 material: they're technical, and vary from state to state, because each state writes the Rules of Evidence for its own courts. As for the last part of your question, *what if the government planted its own agent to pose as a priest,* well, all I can say is that there would be a spectacular legal fight about it that the government would almost certainly lose, either because of the First Amendment's establishment clause, or because of confessional privilege."
],
"score": [
9
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5s2avq | Why is "Which came first: the chicken, or the egg?" a "debate" or a way of saying something has no definite beginning? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ddbxzd3",
"ddbwb70"
],
"text": [
"For science, the egg came first since it predates birds and for \"chicken eggs\", only chickens can produce them. But your question implies another train of ideas :P. The \"chicken an the egg\" question was born with Aristotle. Greek philosophers were always thinking about the origins of the world and all there was in it, that's why Aristotle came with this question. His main point was not to solve how chickens originated, but to understand how the things that exist came to be. For his concept of nature, the idea of a \"first bird\" or \"first egg\" was impossible for it would be repugnant for nature -keep in mind he had no idea something like evolution existed-. In his train of thought a \"first bird\" would have popped out of nothingness -since eggs wouldn't have existed before-, the same as the \"first egg\" -since chickens wouldn't have existed prior to that egg-. For his conception of the world, the right answer was that both have always existed -which is really not an answer-. His question then became what it's known as a causality dilemma -in which you can't clearly spot which of the elements is the cause and which the effect-. Since then, many philosophers have tackled the question -always in the field of thought, more than in the one of evolution-. The question has created answers quite simple (based, for example, in what the Bible says); to very complex ones that conclude it's an error to narrow the answer down to a linear \"cause-effect\" point of view. In short, for science the \"dilemma\" is over. For philosophy, it's still a challenge that goes beyond the chickens. Source: URL_0",
"IIRC I read something a while ago that some people doing a study found that the genes that produce the stuff chicken eggs are made of only come from chickens. So the chicken came first,I guess it was a pre-cursor to chickens that made chickens?"
],
"score": [
10,
4
],
"text_urls": [
[
"http://time.com/4475048/which-came-first-chicken-egg/"
],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5s2c67 | If there are multi billionaires in this world why are there still billions of people starving to death everyday? Are humans really this selfish? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ddby0cj",
"ddbwwp7",
"ddbxav0",
"ddbz0y1"
],
"text": [
"You have made a number of incorrect assumptions. First of course is that there are not billions of people starving in the world every day, that would gut the entire population of the planet in a week. The second is the assumption that starvation is due to a lack of food being donated to hungry people. Of course starvation is due to a lack of food but you may be surprised to know that there is more than enough donated food to feed all the hungry people in the world who can't feed themselves. Having rich people donate money for more food is pointless because there is already plenty. So why do people still starve? Mainly this is a problem of distribution, an issue which you completely ignored. Food is available at point A and hungry people are at point B, and the journey between the two is not possible to complete. For example those people might be within North Korea and just driving over to hand out food is impossible. Or maybe they are in an active war zone and getting food in would involve being shot at, even if the opposing forces would allow entry with supplies that would likely be seized to feed their enemy. Or perhaps the food is simply stolen and sold to fund the goals of the local government or warlord. And of course there is the issue of transportation infrastructure simply not existing to get the food to people way out in the middle of nowhere. In summary, don't shake your fist at Bill Gates and demand that he buy more rice because that isn't why people starve.",
"1.) There aren't billions of people starving to death every day. Billions implies at minimum 2 billion. There's only 7 billion people on Earth right now. If 2 billion people were dying from starvation every day, we'd be extinct as a species by Tuesday. 2.) As to your other question. Yes.",
"Some people are that selfish, but it usually isn't the billionaires. People in developing nations find themselves in poverty not because of lack of money, but because of political instability. A farmer in New Zealand can be pretty sure that after spending months planting, tending, and harvesting a crop, they can sell it without armed men showing up to take it away. A farmer in Somalia, not so such much. They are going to focus on short-term survival instead of long-term growth, and the economy is going to be weaker as a result. Bill Gates and Warren Buffet and the Koch brothers could dump all their money into Somalia, and instead of helping the poor, you'd just wind up with richer guys with guns.",
"Because the issue isn't lack of money. It's lack of initiative and willpower, and general indifference. There are plenty of resources to fix the issue already, and we have the technology to do it. We also have people who can go there and help dismantle the systems that perpetuate the issue. What we don't have is the culture and politics to do it, or even care sufficiently about it. If anything, the existence of money is stopping these problems from being addressed because unless it is profitable to do so you don't have enough people investing time and resources on addressing these problems. This is, fundamentally, a problem with capitalism. Humans do not enter the utility equation of capitalism. It is assumed that people will work this stuff out by market forces, while people act in their own interests, which is how humans influence the system. But this is clearly not applicable to such situations. Starving people are not players in the market and there's no consideration for them. So it's an invisible problem outside of the scope of capitalism. Forcing rich people to pay the bill doesn't really address the real issue, that the bill exists and takes precedence over human life, that is, that we are even discussing it on that level. The fact \"someone has to pay for it, and it better not be me\" is what causes the problem to persist. So we give priority in maintaining the abstract, meaningless notions of wealth our society revolves around, and chalk this issue as an \"inevitable collateral damage\" of modern civilization, even though the *entire purpose* of civilization (which started with agriculture) was for people to not worry about food. It's easy to shrug it off as a non-problem when you convince yourself the problem is unsolvable or not of your concern. This is what our culture does right now. Just look at the other comments. People flip this into a personal property issue, which really is how far the rationale of our society can take us when tackling this type of situation. So in short: the problem isn't rich people. The problem is \"me vs you\", \"us vs them\", \"mine vs theirs\", and a global society that promotes those values. This is the best capitalism and our current culture can do."
],
"score": [
17,
16,
4,
4
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5s2gdp | How the system of Checks and Balances works in the USA, is the president ultimately powerless? | As a Canadian I want to learn more. | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ddbxix0",
"ddby5k1",
"ddbxr8f"
],
"text": [
"No, the President is not ultimately powerless. The idea of checks and balances is that power is divided so that each branch of government is pitted against each other. For example, Congress writes the laws, but the President can veto them. The President can carry out and interpret the laws, but only in the context of what Congress lets him. The President is the Commander in Chief of the military, but only Congress can fund military operations or declare war. The President appoints judges, but the Senate has to approve and the judges then serve for life with the power to determine what laws are constitutional or not, so they don't have to bend to the President's will. The ultimate idea is that the branches are designed to fight each other, meaning that only something good ultimately survives because it survived all the checks and balances.",
"As Lpz said, no, the President isn't powerless. The government is constructed such that there's essentially a three-way Mexican standoff between the three branches of government: the President exists to control Congress and the Supreme Court, Congress exists to control the President and the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court exists to control Congress and the President. As for the exact checks and balances: Executive vs. Legislative: the President can veto Congress' laws, but Congress can override the President's veto with a 2/3 supermajority. Congress can also impeach the President and attempt to remove him from office with a 2/3 supermajority vote. (Only two presidents have so far been impeached, but neither was removed from office.) Judicial vs. Legislative: the Supreme Court can declare laws passed by Congress to be null and void on the basis of unconstitutionality, but Congress decides whether or not a Supreme Court appointee gets the job to begin with. Congress can also impeach Supreme Court justices and attempt to remove them from office with a 2/3 supermajority vote. (Only one Supreme Court justice has so far been impeached, but was not removed from office.) Executive vs. Judicial: the Supreme Court can declare executive orders to be null and void on the basis of unconstitutionality, but the President appoints new Supreme Court justices, who then must be approved by Congress. In short, because any given branch of the government is monitored and limited by the other two, it's easy to conclude that that branch is powerless, when not taking into account the checks and balances poised against its opponents. In theory, this is supposed to encourage laws/executive orders/court rulings that everyone can agree on and therefore make it through the process alive. In practice, it leads to deadlock.",
"Checks and Balances was invented by the founding fathers to basically ensure that none of the three branches of the US government can overpower the other two. The Executive branch approves or vetoes any legislation the Legislative Branch throws his way, and the Judicial Branch determines whether it's constitutional. Each branch checks on the other and they balance out the power among themselves."
],
"score": [
17,
5,
4
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
5s337a | Why are Spanish, and Portuguese colonies in the Americas so poor in comparison to the English/French ones? | From my knowledge on geography, and natural resources, shouldn't South/Central America have a step up on a country like Canada that is 99% ice (hyperbole). Also wasn't Spain and Portugal fairly rich as well? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ddc1ort",
"ddc1wpq",
"ddc95ac"
],
"text": [
"The Spanish and Portuguese were not colonialists. Their intent was never to establish permanent colonies and expand their empires, but to *exploit* the natural resources of these lands, and bring it back to Europe so they could rise above the rest of European countries. This means Spain and Portugal fought really hard to keep these settlements underdeveloped and dependent on them. This approach is what set those places back. There are other cultural aspects you could blame here, but this is the main reason.",
"Well Haiti is actually the poorest country in the Western Hemisphere, and it's a former French colony, but I get your underlying point. The Spanish and Portuguese goals for colonization were primarily to export resources to Spain, and to a lesser extent convert the natives to Catholicism. The English were interested in settling the new colonies with their own people, creating a United Kingdom West in the process. The mostly just forcibly removed or exterminated the native population.",
"Basically, you have two types of colonies; settlements and extraction sites. The settlement types tend to be based in places with low mortality rates and favorable land upon to live, whereas extraction sites tend to be associated with higher mortality rates (i.e diseases associated with the tropics). We also have too look at the factor endowments; resources upon which one could take advantage of as having an effect as well. This has initial effect on the quality of institutions developed (schools, hospitals, judiciary) at the start, which in turn controls the ability of the country in the future to efficiently organize its economy for high and stable growth. To also note there are statistics that can help interpret this such as (to roughly quote, one could research further); 1920,1940 voting percentages and 1900 literacy rates respectively; Argentina 9,15,52%, Bolivia n/a,4,17% Canada 21,41,97 > % USA 25,38,92%."
],
"score": [
26,
4,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
5s34lc | Why do most artists, actors, musicians and comedians tend to be left leaning? What is it about being on the right that makes you less inclined to create art? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ddc5n5u"
],
"text": [
"Think of it this way: When you do your taxes or you fill in your name on some form, you're technically creating something that wasn't there before. But we don't call *that* kind of thing \"creative,\" because you're not doing anything *new and different.* \"Creative\" people are people who naturally like to do things differently than others. And that usually means they're naturally more comfortable with the changes that *result* from doing things differently...and also that they're more comfortable with other people who are openly different, just like *they're* being \"openly different\" every time they do or make something that's creative and new. And by contrast: If someone is \"right-leaning,\" that means they're (typically) politically *conservative.* And if someone is more \"conservative\" and more comfortable with things staying the way they are, then they usually won't become \"a creative person\" who does things differently. (Although they might, of course, still become a *traditional* artist who \"follows the [old] rules\". But we don't hear about those artists as much.)"
],
"score": [
7
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5s3spx | What does it mean when a album is "perfectly Mixed"? | I know what poorly mixed music sounds like because I film wedding videos and some bands are terrible. I know what a well mixed recording sounds like because I still listen to some of my music on all my old records. But what makes something perfectly mixed? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ddc92po",
"ddc5wl4"
],
"text": [
"When recording music, the sounds are stored on different channels. This could mean that they are recorded one at a time in a studio or through multiple microphones during a performance. The key point is that after recording, you generally have multiple audio files, each containing a different portion of audio sources. You may have the lead vocalist, backup singers, drums, keys, guitars, etc. They can be broken up in anyway you like. In order to combine these files into one recording for the consumption of a listener, these files need to be *mixed* together. One way to ensure that you'll have a \"bad mix\" would just be to combine all of the files into one without modifying the inputs. It will sound like crap, for multiple reasons. The first, and easiest, thing to consider is volume. If you record each portion of the song, one instrument at a time, it's important to make sure that they come together in a balanced way. To get a good overall sound, you need to make sure no one instrument is too overpowering, or that anything is getting drowned out. If you've ever seen someone with a mixing board at a live show, it's safe to say that they most likely set all of the volume levels to where they wanted them during a \"sound check\" before the show. Same concept for recording, but you can go back and adjust this balance at any time, and you can adjust them dynamically throughout the course of a song. The second part is a little more complicated, and much more technical. An important part of mixing is managing the frequency of the sound. When each sound is recorded, it generally is going to cover a wide portion of the frequency spectrum - bass, mids, treble, etc. The recording will have a full, natural sound. Unfortunately, if you combine these separate recordings without modification, you're going to get a lot of clashing between audio files. When multiple audio sources are competing for the same frequency, they usually don't play nice, and can make your mix sound \"muddy.\" A huge part of professional mixing is working with each channel to make sure your sources aren't fighting with eachother. This can be done through a HUGE number of ways, but a common one is equalization, which is changing volume levels for different portions of the frequency range. This can easily change your sound, so it's important to try to preserve the quality of sound of that sound within the context of the overall mix. There are so many other techniques that go into mixing; too many to list. Some other key ones are compression and the application of effects. Mixing is a bit subjective, but a \"perfect\" mix would be one that has great balance, dynamic range (depending on the genre), and a full, *clean* sound. It's somewhat hard to describe, but every sound is just crisp and clean. Some professional mixes can just be so clean sounding that it's beyond my understanding. There are people that devote their entire lives to the craft of mixing, and their skill and hard work definitely shine through on the final track. TL;DR - Mixing is the act of combining multiple audio files, and a \"perfect mix\" is one that does so with extreme technical precision and results in a insanely clean, yet full and balanced sound.",
"> But what makes something perfectly mixed? A really good sound engineer. It's all about balancing the everything to achieve exactly the right sound from the performers. To do it you need to know the band, the instruments, the room, and all the little quirks of your equipment."
],
"score": [
6,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
5s3vbp | If the President of the USA makes appointments to the Supreme Court, how do "Checks and Balances" work in practice ? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ddc79g2",
"ddc8363",
"ddc6b9k"
],
"text": [
"Checks and balances arent for balancing the power of on party. Theyre to balance branches of government. Writing, interpreting, enforcing laws. It does not matter that one party controls the senate, house, and presidency. That has nothing to do with checks and balances.",
"Reading your other responses OP, there seems to be some confusion. The Supreme Court does not exist to keep a check on the President. Furthermore the concept of Checks and Balances is *not* that everyone in government has someone that can override their decisions, it's that no one person or group has all the power. I already know you are thinking, but there is a current party that has all the power But that is not what checks and balances means. Here is an example. If people want to pass a law, it has to be passed by Congress. But the president can choose to veto that law and prevent it from happening (a check and balance). But Congress can actually override a president's veto with enough votes (a check and balance). However the Supreme Court can rule on this law and say that it is unconstitutional thus striking it down (a check and balance). But Congress can pass a new law with changes that make it no longer in violation of the Supreme Court's ruling (a check and balance). Government is full of this kinds things to keep the Executive, the Legislative, and the Judaical branches in a balance. However people can absolutely vote in members of the three branches that result in a single political party or ideology controlling all three branches. The check and balance against that is people can vote out those in power every 2/4/6 years during elections.",
"The president nominates a candidate for the Supreme Court, but they must be approved by congress."
],
"score": [
5,
5,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5s4jj7 | Modern art. How do people judge, let's say, a Jackson Pollock painting a masterpiece when to me it looks like chicken scratch? Why is the Malevich square such a big deal? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ddcaqhh",
"ddclhc6",
"ddcou14"
],
"text": [
"Most of us only know these paintings from pictures in books or a computer. I haven't even had the pleasure of seeing a masterpiece apart from when I went to the Smithsonian when I was like 9. I had someone once tell me that you won't understand what makes these seemingly abstract or \"plain\" (like those paintings that look like a single shade of color) pieces so awe inspiring until you stand before them, where the true scale of work is before you. Colors, shapes and patterns can stir strong emotions and feelings, but I think they don't translate well when reproduced on a smaller scale. I hope this helps in some way at least explain why its hard to understand why we are fascinated by what seems to be chicken scratch",
"Disclaimer: I am not a modern art fan. A lot of Modern Art is considered important because of the context of the time. Originality and creativity in the context of their time are valued, and become historically important. This particularly includes artists who influence others by expanding the range of styles.",
"Most modern art has less to do with the aesthetics of the work and more to do with the cultural context of it at the time. It can be a reflection on cultural values, or it could be something related to the techniques used. I recall learning about a painting in college that was basically a full field of blue. The big deal about it, though, was that getting that shade of blue in a stable, constant quality to make an entire field of it was *astronomically* difficult and expensive at the time - so it was reflective of the skill of the painter to acquire, use, and make that blue so even back in a time when it would have been incredibly difficult to do so. A lot of modern art tends to have (or at least *tries* to have) some kind of context or message through it, rather than the more concrete works we're used to seeing that are of a certain setting or design. It varies on how successful it is - there's a school of thought that the intent or context around a work shouldn't matter and that the work should stand on its own, so with that metric it can be hard to really gauge modern art without doing some manner of research of intent. As for the Square, I did a little digging, and the big deal there is that it was one of the first instances of an abstract painting. It was one of the first times someone had come forth with a piece of art that wasn't a painting *of* something, and was starting the bridge into modern abstract art rather than more traditional painting. The fact that a fairly well known painter put actual *effort* into something like this got some attention, and got people thinking. Sadly, getting people thinking caused Malevich to fall on the wrong side of a fellow by the name of Stalin. It didn't end well."
],
"score": [
6,
3,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5s4lw5 | Do AD and BC timelines literally line up with the real-life birth of Jesus of Nazareth? If so, why do so many non-Christians use the birth of some random guy as their way to tell the year? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ddcb2f7",
"ddcc59c"
],
"text": [
"> Do AD and BC timelines literally line up with the real-life birth of Jesus of Nazareth? No they don't. They are likely off by 4 to 6 years. > If so, why do so many non-Christians use the birth of some random guy as their way to tell the year? Because it was the calendar which the Western cultures settled upon and it is much more useful to be able to agree on dates than not. Also don't imagine that Gregorian calendar is the only one to exist or be used, it is just the one you are familiar with.",
"All calenders throughout time have been based of the birth of a key figure, beginning of a monarchical reign or a unique event. Our estimation of dates to our calender uses these millions of different calenders to attempt to calculate simultaneous events around the world. The key BENEFIT to continuing to use the Gregorian calendar is its longevity. We can know precise dates for key historical events going back nearly 2 millenia because all the legwork for date correlation has already been done for the majority of Europe & the Middle East. Thus the calender has become the global dating system & de facto default of all Western civilization. Non-Christians (esp militant atheists) are trying to change the nomenclature from Anno Domini (Year of Our Lord) to CE (Current Era) & BC (Before Christ) to BCE (Before Current Era)."
],
"score": [
6,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5s5ds3 | Why do Koreans ferment so many of their foods? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ddcjhli"
],
"text": [
"Korea has had a troubled history in relation to food, which extended the use of fermentation as other countries switched to other preservation methods, both to increase the amount of food available and to act as a flavoring for other foods. The Japanese occupation in WWII and the Korean war put serious pressure on food availability and access to spices, which led to more reliance on traditional foods. Modern agricultural practices didn't really take hold until reforms in the 1960s, which meant most frozen and prepackaged food wasn't readily available until the 70s."
],
"score": [
3
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5s5rcq | What are the nations of power today? Which are our allies, neutral, our enemies, with a brief 1 or 2 sentence description as to why? (Non political) | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ddcm0q3",
"ddcmc5p",
"ddcrs13",
"ddcmx1c"
],
"text": [
"We have no allies. We are the greatest nation. All other nations learn from us how to be perfectly efficient and good to citizens. Our great and powerful leader is the only ally we need. Long live Kim, glory to Korea.",
"Are you trying to get reddit to do your Social Studies homework?",
"It's hard to give a comprehensive list, but in terms of power: US > china > russia > germany > uk > japan > france > India > Italy > Brazil If you combine the EU, i would probably put them in 3rd (also, disclaimer that it gets really subjective in the region from germany to india) With a very big drop between US to china, and a decent drop from China to Russia, and a decent but smaller drop to Germany. After Germany, it's really iffy. In terms of allies/enemies etc: **China**- they don't hate us, but they don't believe in democracy like we do, and we know they'll almost definitely surpass us as the dominant power at some point, so it makes things super awkward. They don't like us telling them what to do, we don't like the idea of not being first. They're also a bit grabby in terms of wanting to apply political pressure to smaller asian nations, which we're not keen on **Russia**-Still heavily disliked, although that's hard to say how much of that will live on after Putin(Putin kind of derailed the transition by taking a 3rd office). He's used the US as a boogeyman to rally the country, so they kind of hate us. We don't hate them, but we don't trust them, especially with someone like Putin in power(mostly because they weren't really considered a threat). There's still a lot of resentment over the cold war. (i'm not going to comment on trump/putin ties, because honestly no one has a fucking clue what's going on there). Again, they aren't super big on the democracy/progressive values thing, but that might pass post-Putin **EU**-we're pretty chummy. Very similar values on most things, we're NATO allies, so we're sworn to protect each other if any NATO member gets attacked. **Japan**- also pretty chummy. not too much to say **India/Brazil**- fairly neutral. their populations are huge, so we really want to increase trade, but other than that, they aren't big players on the global politics stage yet, they're still kinda developing. **Honorable mentions:** Canada (not sure, but I'd probably put them about where the uk is, in terms of power), Mexico (too small to be on the list, but our neighbor),and Australia (honestly, no fucking clue where to put them, but somewhere behind japan). They're all pretty friendly. Mexico is still trying to develop and has issues with gangs/cartels etc, but it's getting there. edit: Forgot the middle east. **Iran**-heavily dislikes us. Kind of our fault,we put in a shitty ruler because he was US friendly. They had a revolution (that's when they went extreme with the state religion stuff). They still hold a grudge. they're very vocal about said grudge, so we don't really trust them, although they *probably* wouldn't do anything insane. **Saudi Arabia**- kind of dislike, but we work together because we have to. They don't like our western values We like their oil, and having a (very very strong) ally in the Middle east, basically the only one. They like our money/weapons. The also really really hate Iran, so we work together on that. **Israel**- very close allies. Things have been a little strained lately because they keep building new settlements, but they're one of our number one allies (and vice versa). they aren't very big, but a very modern/developed economy It's hard to rate them in terms of power. Israel is pretty low, probably Italy range or lower. SA and Iran are both pretty powerful, but they're so busy fighting each other and focused on the middle east.Iran really doesn't get around to much else. SA doesn't do much, but it has some punch with the UN and stuff, but not as much as it should, probably, if it ever develops. disclaimer: This is a brutally short list, so keep in mind a lot of nuance is lost.",
"Let's make this like a high school. NATO is essentially one clique. Russia china and other powerful nations aside from the Middle East are another. America and Russia are the two most popular and passive aggressively compete. China and the us are on the same team for football so they have common interests but they're still competing against each other for the captain spot on the team. The Middle East is the freshman that both groups are trying to mold in their own image but it is quite ready for either one"
],
"score": [
57,
23,
16,
11
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5s5ul0 | How did we decide that Saturday and Sunday would be our weekends and not any other days? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ddcmqlz",
"ddcnsov"
],
"text": [
"In the Judaism religion the Sabbath is the day of rest and seventh day of the week. Since Judaism was the precursor of Christianity they took that over. And since the European civilization was mostly formed around the Christian traditions and their colonies in the Americas, Australia and Africa as well, they all took the Sunday as the resting day. It isn't until earlier in the 20th century that the Saturday wasn't a normal working day any more and as such Saturday and Sunday became the weekend.",
"Muslims work Sunday - Thursday with Friday being their main day off. Jews observe the sabbath on Saturday. Christians have Sunday."
],
"score": [
20,
10
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5s6on9 | Garry Kasparov twitted this "The point of modern propaganda isn't only to misinform or push an agenda. It is to exhaust your critical thinking, to annihilate truth." is hard to deny that this is the new normal, why can't people put a stop on it? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ddctgpi",
"ddcsv02",
"ddctx8m",
"ddctrxd"
],
"text": [
"In the old days, you could stop foreign propaganda by blocking (or seriously limiting) its distribution. You could refuse to broadcast it on TV or print it in the newspapers. Access to mass media was limited. These days, the Internet lets everyone put everything up where people can find it. Anyone with a few bucks can host a website. A few thousand dollars on a botnet can ensure that it trends on social media. There's no way to tell what's legitimate reporting & what's propaganda. To make things worse, when the whole \"fake news\" thing got out, it quickly transitioned from a criticism of this blatantly false reporting to an insult lobbed at any news source that disagrees with your preconceptions. We've become so polarized & compartmentalized in our own little filter bubbles that people start *choosing* their own \"reality\" that doesn't challenge them. The end result is that people have no faith in *any* media nor do they have any faith in *any* politicians. When they think that everyone is equally corrupt & there's no hope to change things, they disengage from politics. When they don't vote, the more motivated party with more solidarity wins. People with hardcore party allegiances take control.",
"have you ever had an argument with a child where they just kept going, \"nuh uh! nuh uh! nuh uh! nuh uh!\" they know they're wrong, they just want to win the argument by making you give up. or with someone who just straight up would not admit that they were wrong about a fact, even when you pull up the wikipedia page on your phone and show them? the most they'll admit is \"that's your opinion\" or \"well, that's not what i read\" or \"let's agree to disagree\"? refusing to acknowledge that they've lost the argument means they don't have to admit that they did. they might know they're wrong and just not want to admit it, or they might cling to their genuine ignorance because they don't want to be challenged and being corrected in an argument is uncomfortable emotionally. frustrating and exhausting, right? now imagine you're at a party where this guy has already told everybody else this wrong fact, and they all like him personally and think he sounds like he knows what he's talking about. you tell a couple people the real truth but they seem disinterested because they think you're just stirring the pot. you maybe convince one or two. the rest go out and repeat the wrong fact ad nauseum until it's time to vote for the president and everyone thinks hilary clinton runs a child sex ring out of a pizza parlour.",
"To think rationally you always should assume that you can be wrong, your previous knowledge can be wrong, people giving you information can be mislead themselves or actively trying to mislead you. That's pretty damn hard. Moreover, all too often there aren't enough facts available to prove any side of the story. Rational thing to do here would be to accept that *you just don't know* (yet) who's really right, to take note of both opposing views and stay alert for new evidence. But **people are afraid of not knowing things** and therefore often choose the side that looks *more probable*. Now if there isn't enough evidence then you can't really assign any percentage to probabilities of different scenarios, so instead of being critical people just choose the side they have more interaction with. Once you have (subconsciously) chosen the side, you don't really examine it critically any more. When some new information comes in you just examine whether it undermines integrity of your previous beliefs. If it does - the rational thing to do would be to *rethink your position*, but much easier (and much more common) thing to do is to look for ways to dismiss/undermine the new evidence. **tl;dr:** it is hard and time-consuming to evaluate everything critically, often you'll have to admit you just don't know stuff (whether because there are not enough facts available or because you didn't spend enough time researching the problem) and sometimes you'll need to reevaluate everything you know and to change your position.",
"How do you propose stopping it? Take, for example, the situation Germany is in at the moment. It's election year in Germany, and the authorities have observed with growing concern the way the Brexit referundum and the US presidential election have unfolded, and have identified as a major problem \"fake news\". \"Fake news\" is fictitious news stories, or at least wildly distorted and exaggerated news stories, which circulates primarily via social media and has a political objective. Some of that comes from obvious sources of propaganda, like the blatantly white supremecist Breitbart News; some of it comes from sources like Russia Today, a TV network that is funded by the Russian government itself. Their stories, along with stories from more obscure sources, are spread partly by ordinary people on social media reading them, believing them to be true, and sharing or liking them, and partly by bots. In an era when more than half the people in the western world say they get their news from Facebook, this is very troubling. In view of this, the German authorities are looking into ways of preventing the spread of \"fake news\" on social media, and have got agreements from the likes of Facebook and Twitter to help them. But how are they supposed to do that? Do you fine people for failing to fact-check stories they \"like\" on Facebook? Do you outlaw memes? Do you write algorithms to detect the Russia Today logo in videos so they can be blocked? In some cases the truth can be hard to ascertain: who is the final authority on what is true and what isn't? In many cases, the truth is misrepresented: it's still true, but taken out of context it's misleading. For example, it is entirely true that birth rates among certain immigrant populations are higher than the average German birth rate, and if you do the calculations on that basis you conclude that within a decade ethnic Germans will be outnumbered by other ethnicities. But that omits a lot of important information (the average age of immigrants, the lack of birth control in their home countries, that kind of thing), and in reality immigrant birth rates drop to the same level as native birth rates within one generation. So, should it be made law that you're not allowed to mention immigrant birth rates unless you cite *all* of the information? Does this mean that you shouldn't be allowed to make any kind of assertion unless you also present all of the counter-arguments? If you want to say, \"Angela Merkel's policies will lead to economic ruin within ten years\" you must, by law, add, \"according to some leading experts, while other experts say that her policies can only make Germany's economy stronger\"? The more you delve into the complexities of this issue, the worse it gets -- and I haven't even started to mention the obvious pitfalls of government censorship. At a basic level, you have millions of well-meaning people who don't all have a college education, who aren't experts in economics, politics, statistical analysis, science or journalism, and who therefore just share stuff they feel is important and which seems credible to them because they have no way of judging its authenticity. If you know of a way of putting a stop to that before the German elections this autumn without violating anyone's human rights, the German government would love to hear from you."
],
"score": [
87,
35,
20,
10
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5s6yia | In an increasingly globalised and technologically advancing world, with increasing media freedom (social and organised), how do some countries remain so closed-off? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ddcu3f2"
],
"text": [
"How do you access the internet? Do you own your own satellite, or cables, or wi-fi towers? Or do you pay an ISP that owns them to access the internet? Countries that want to remain closed off simply don't allow anybody but the government to build the infrastructure required to access the internet (or TV, or phones, etc) and because they own the infrastructure they can control what it is and isn't able to access."
],
"score": [
3
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5s7q0v | Does Liberal government mean 'hands off from government' or 'human rights' or both? | ELI5: Does Liberal government mean 'hands off from government' or 'human rights' or both? I often see Liberal vs. Conservative. Socialist vs. Capitalist. While I understand the basic ideas, I still have the question about liberal governments. Are they non-interventionist, as in free markets, like Capitalists? Or, are they more socialist, improving social programs and the lives of citizens? Edit: Thank you to everyone for your responses. I definitely have a clearer understanding now. Much appreciated! | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ddd006l",
"ddcz173",
"ddd6ija",
"ddcz2of",
"ddcyw11",
"dddyt74"
],
"text": [
"The term \"Liberal\" basically means \"pro freedom\". The challenge is that there are a couple of different kinds of freedoms. Classical liberals, like John Locke, Adam Smith, and the founders of the United States, were big on what we sometimes call \"negative freedoms\" - guarantees that the government can't stop you from doing certain things. These usually include things like freedom of speech, religious freedom, and the right to do whatever you want with your own property. There are also \"positive freedoms\", things which the government has to provide to you in order to make the other freedoms secure and meaningful. For example, the right to vote, the right to a fair trial, and so on. Over time, as the negative freedoms became accepted as a given, liberal thinkers became more concerned with adding more of the positive freedoms. It's important to remember that the meaning of \"conservative\" has changed even more than \"liberal\" over this time period. Classical conservatives were mostly monarchists, believing that society should be controlled by elites because most people were too uneducated or biased to make good decisions about government. As classical liberalism became more and more widely accepted, later conservatives became more concerned that some of the positive rights were interfering with the negative rights. A simple example is with taxation and infrastructure - using taxpayer money to build extensive roads, dams, and so on is a modern liberal idea, based on the argument that everyone in society benefits from these things. Classical liberals and some modern conservatives would argue that taxing people more than the bare minimum to maintain a functioning government, legal system, and national defence force is an excessive infringement on people's right to do what they want with their money.",
"In Europe, liberal means non-intervention, pro-free market policies, kind of like conservatives in America, but there are conservatives over there too so it's not exactly the same. European liberal parties are kind of like *much* more moderate American libertarians. In America, liberal means more social programs and regulation. In Europe, parties with these policies are usually described as \"labor\" or \"social democracy\" parties. So your confusion probably comes from seeing \"liberal\" used in both the European and American ways, which are different.",
"As /u/Ddogwood says liberal basically means pro freedom, but just to simplify the rest of the answer: You can take pro-freedom to mean having as few rules as possible. This means making the state as small as possible, in Europe this is known as classic liberalism and in America as libertarianism. It tends to be associated with right wing economic policy. Or you can take pro-freedom to mean being anti-authoritarian. So you're pro people having rights, particularly those who traditionally don't (gay people, women with unwanted pregnancies etc...). This is known as social liberalism and, although there's no particular reason why any particular economic policy should be associated with these views on social issues, it has tended to usually be linked to people from the economic left, particularly in America, so in America some people incorrectly use liberal to mean left wing. Then finally there's a small minority of left-liberals, mostly academics like Sen and Rawls, but also some people in mainstream left politics ( and also some non mainstream (some left communists and anarcho syndicalists are left liberals). Left liberals are pro freedom, but believe you cannot be free without being equal because your economic state limits your freedom. So they are pro-government intervention, but with the idea that the purpose of the intervention should be to make you more free.",
"Two hundred year ago to liberalize meant to get the gov out of the issue. For example, Capitalism is a liberalization from the previous method of Mercantilism. Merchantalism was the gov picking the economic winners and losers by gov favor or disfavor. Capitalism got the gov out of the economy, and let the people be free from gov interference The word 'liberal' is derived from a Latin word meaning 'free person' What they are free of is the gov. But 100 years ago the progressives usurped the term for themselves. In Europe, the Liberal Party is conservative. In the US, the liberals are on the left, closer to socialism than capitalism. The classical liberalism is more like what Libertarianism is today. They want the freedom to choose their actions, free from unwarranted gov interference. So, it depends on where you are as to what the word 'liberal; means in a political sense. It either means you favor capitalism (old school meaning) or you favor socialism (new school meaning) No wonder you are a bit confused about it all.",
"There is in current American politics a distinction between liberal and libertarian. Liberal combines the libertarian ideals of \"negative liberty\" - lack of official tyranny - with progressive ideals of \"positive liberty\" that seeks to actively enable options through government support. The libertarian viewpoint is skeptical of positive modes of liberty because they may be subject to manipulation or control by government forces. The liberal viewpoint regards negative modes of liberty as insufficient as they may fail to prevent private forces from exerting an oppressive influence without the checks and balances of a government, but they do support the negative mode as *part* of liberty. However, \"liberal\" in European politics tends to mean something similar to what libertarian means in American politics.",
"tl;dr it can mean either or both of those or a whole bunch of things, judge politics on actual positions and not labels because they're very vague Liberalism evolved in the 18th century from the ideals of the enlightenment. It developed from ideas about individual freedom in the wake of the end of feudalism and rise of private enterprise. In modern political discourse, it has a few different meanings. In the US, it means anything left of the relative center. In Australia, the Liberal party is the conservative party. Historically, most liberal positions have ostensibly been about loose restrictions on enterprise, personal freedoms, and things like that. > I often see Liberal vs. Conservative This is the US political paradigm and I think it sucks. It's so labelled at this point that nobody really disparate positions get lumped into a label. Especially since in straight terms, both political parties are liberal. The Republican party is more in line with classical liberalism, while the Democratic party has elements of progressive liberalism. So much political thought gets constrained between these two vague positions that I think it leads to a really stunted political culture. > Socialist vs. Capitalist These are economic systems that differ based on how industry is structured. People will set up a contrast that socialism is government intervention while capitalism is... not government intervention. This is a uniquely American thing and pretty much disregards any real truth to what either of the terms actually mean. > Are they non-interventionist, as in free markets, like Capitalists? It depends on *which* liberal government you're talking about. A classically liberal position is laissez-faire, while progressive or social liberalism would be interventionist."
],
"score": [
46,
17,
7,
6,
4,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
5s8jba | How does a Supreme Court case flow? | I get that generally it has to go through several of the lower courts first, but what about when it finally gets to the top? Do the justices talk amongst each other, like a jury? Or do they all just make their decisions on their own? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ddd5pv2",
"ddd4pkx"
],
"text": [
"So first the parties brief their positions and then oral argument happens. After oral argument, the Justices sit in conference together. The Chief Justice has them go around the table and each one explains how they feel about it and why. After which, they ask each other some questions for a bit to get a sense of how they're feeling. Once they see who is on what side, the opinions get distributed. The Chief Justice assigns the opinion for the side he is on and the most senior justice on the other side assigns the opinion for that side. Once the opinions start getting drafted, they get circulated. For example, the dissent writer will share his or her opinion with the majority so they can respond to each other's arguments a bit. Rarely, a justice on one side will see the other side's opinion and be persuaded to change their vote. After all the opinions are finalized, they get announced by the Court.",
"Supreme court cases are decided by all the justices. It's not like any other court where one justice presides over one case. They essentially do function like a jury. After hearing a case, they can argue among themselves and then vote on it."
],
"score": [
7,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
5s9bla | Why do winners of American sports leagues call themselves World Champions? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ddda189",
"dddagss",
"dddcbq5",
"dddacc2",
"dddfx47"
],
"text": [
"With football, they're the best in the world at American football because nobody else plays it",
"I think that's because that name has no value. They could call themselves universe champions, who would come to contradict them? And if you can call yourself the world champion, then why wouldn't you? It makes it seems much bigger than it is, and everybody is happy. It's just marketing ;)",
"They usually don't. If they have a world championships, like in baseball, there are foreign teams, mainly Japan.",
"Probably because nobody else in the world cared enough to show up. Soccer and tennis are probably different.",
"It's only in sports like baseball, basketball, and American football that are only or mostly played in the USA. Yes, there are basketball leagues in other parts of the world, but they are nowhere close to the NBA talent-wise because all of the most talented players from around the world play in the NBA. Same with baseball and American football. Also, remember that both baseball and basketball were invent in the USA, so when the first championship games were played, the USA league was the only one in the world, hence the winners were effectively World Champions. You notice that the winner of the MLS are not called world champs, because that would be laughable at best."
],
"score": [
18,
8,
4,
3,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5s9i2c | What stops the National Anthem singer from intentionally lengthening or shortening their performance based on over / under bet? | If I'm Luke Bryan - I'd tell my friend how long it is and have him put a lot of money on it. Is there anything in place that stops this from happening? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ddddvwd"
],
"text": [
"Probably the best fail safe would be with the sportsbook taking the bet. Typically these prop bets are considered fun bets and the amount gambled is small. In the event that a huge bet was placed, the book would be suspicious and can simply take the prop off the board. Anyone who made the bet previously would simply get a refund."
],
"score": [
7
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
5sa08e | What's the point of having country-specific internet content? | In the past 24 hours, I have seen two front posts featuring SNL, but when I go to click on them, they're not available in Canada. What gives? Wouldn't it be more fiscally sensible to have a viewer base of 35 million more people? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dddfgnx"
],
"text": [
"Typically, it means that some channel in Canada (or wherever) has bought the rights to broadcast the show there. That contract includes the rights to online streaming for viewers in that country. The original content owner judges that they can make more money that way than keeping the worldwide online rights for themselves. Sometimes they'll compromise and keep the rights, but only make content available in a country after the show has been broadcast there."
],
"score": [
3
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
5sa0qz | Can someone honestly explain how a war with two countries with nuclear capabilities could ever be conducted? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dddopii",
"dddfpxu",
"dddh3rs",
"dddq56d",
"dddfd36",
"ddds7em"
],
"text": [
"There are many different policies for the usage of nuclear weapons, and most countries have numerous different attack plans within those policies, so there's a lot of possible variation. It's very difficult to say how any war would go without actually having it happen. The best way a nuclear war could go, and arguably the only way one could possibly be won, would be if somehow you could use your bombs but the enemies couldn't use their bombs. There's a lot of ways to go about this, but the simplest is to just blow up your enemy's missiles and bombers while they are still on the ground. Once they get in the air they're a lot more difficult to destroy. Because of this, in a nuclear war, the side that shoots first has a big advantage- they start with all their bombs in the air, while the enemy's would all be on the ground scrambling to launch before they're destroyed. This was a big headache during the cold war- there was a lot of speculation that whoever shot first would 'win', insomuch as the war could be won, but nobody wanted to be the one to start it. That's also the major reason why the US has been hesitant to go to a no first use policy. Think of nukes like guns- you have a big advantage if you can shoot the other guy first. Another type of Preemptive Strike is a Decapitation strike- basically trying to kill everybody who has the authorization to launch a nuke before they get a chance to launch said nukes. The counterpoint to this is Launch On Warning. Basically, when you see a bunch of nukes in the air coming towards you, you go ahead and launch everything you have before it gets destroyed on the ground. This has a lot of safety issues- there have been tons of false alarms where we thought attacks were incoming when they weren't. The backup is a second strike, using hardened assets to retaliate against the enemy. While a lot of missiles and bombs are not able to withstand a nuclear strike, some silos are hardened enough, and there's still the third arm of the nuclear triad- submarines. Even with our technology today, nuclear submarines are very difficult to track and destroy. Even if a nation is turned to ash, their submarines can emerge days or weeks later to retaliate. Today, if two nuclear powers went to war, there are many ways it could go. It could have a bit of a leadup with conventional warfare followed by the usage of a tactical nuke or two on the battlefield. But eventually one side would launch the first strike. The first strike would probably be a wave of ground-launched missiles, aimed at enemy missile silos, airbases, centers of government and military control, and anti-aircraft installations, with the principal aim of blunting the enemy's ability to retaliate and block the second wave, made of bombers. From that point on the targets depend on what the aggressor nation is targeting. Many plans only list military installations, but if a longer conflict is presumed other targets would also be included. First Industrial targets, then population centers. Important targets would be struck multiple times. I believe Moscow in the cold war was the target of as many as 60 bombs. If the enemy possesses nuclear submarines, what would follow would be a period of high alert as they are hunted down. It's not impossible that a small number of sub-based missiles could be dealt with through missile defense systems, assuming that the enemy didn't get their ground based missiles into the air to destroy those defense systems. The initial exchange would take less than an hour. The whole thing would be over in a day or so.",
"Most countries have a No First Use policy. From Wikipedia: > No first use (NFU) refers to a pledge or a policy by a nuclear power not to use nuclear weapons as a means of warfare unless first attacked by an adversary using nuclear weapons. Earlier, the concept had also been applied to chemical and biological warfare. > China declared its NFU policy in 1964, and has since maintained this policy. India articulated its policy of no first use of nuclear weapons in 2003. > NATO has repeatedly rejected calls for adopting NFU policy, arguing that pre-emptive nuclear strike is a key option, in order to have a credible deterrent that could compensate for the overwhelming conventional weapon superiority enjoyed by the Soviet Army in the Eurasian land mass. In 1993, Russia dropped a pledge against first use of nuclear weapons made in 1982 by Leonid Brezhnev. In 2000, a Russian military doctrine stated that Russia reserves the right to use nuclear weapons \"in response to a large-scale conventional aggression\".This is because the balance of forces was reversed — NATO is now enjoying a clear superiority in conventional weapons.",
"At first by proxy, this is what syria basically is, sides are involved but mostly with funding and not outright their armies. It can escalate to minor skirmishes that do not threaten much. But the common theory is they really couldn't go to war. Not conflict, trade wars and proxxy wars would go up, international sanctions or resolutions to apply pressure and public image. But as far as rallying the troops. This is why the bigger nations have avoided major conflict with each other since ww2, the nuclear endgame is basically garenteed, especially since most of them are allied in such a fashion that the majority of the world's troops will be involved anyway. Now a smaller country like north Korea launching a nuke will not likely end the same way. A large country like usa or Russia could respond with enough conventional power to end it just as quickly with less danger.",
"This is an oversimplification, and yet I'm surprised not to see it here already. That is exactly the point of having what is known as a nuclear deterrent - that is to say the fact that you have a nuclear arsenal basically means that another side who also has a nuclear arsenal will not use them on you because if they do, they will also be annihilated by yous in exchange. This is a doctrine called mutually assured destruction or mad for short. Yes, it is literally called The Mad Doctrine on purpose. source: have studied this both in college and at a previous job. edit: added source",
"~~Most~~ Many countries that have nuclear capabilities signed a treaty saying they'd never ~~use nuclear weapons against another country~~ be the first to use them against another country. The damage done in WW2 against Japan was tremendous and we all know it's inevitable that one bomb falling would pretty much mean the end of the world. Edited since apparently actually explaining something as if you were talking to a 5 year old requires writing a dissertation.",
"There is a simple answer to this that everyone seems to ignore. One side wants to win the war. Nukes assure that doesnt happen, so nukes wont be used the way everyone imagines. Nukes would be used when one side is so desperate that they dont care if they die too. By that point there is a huge chance that most of the nuclear capability of a country would already be removed. Also, it may not seem like it, but for places like the USA most nukes shot at it wouldnt make it to their target (Which is one of the reasons why countries like the USA and Russia have so many nukes). It wouldnt be like boom everyone dead. It would take hundreds of nukes to hit their target to bring something like the US military to its knees. Now the aftermath, that is a different story all together."
],
"score": [
136,
22,
20,
9,
6,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5sbcm5 | - What is the meaning and origin of the hand gesture that is blowing on your fingernails the brushing them on your chest? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dddvanz"
],
"text": [
"The gesture is \"polishing one's fingernails\". You mimic blowing some moisture from your breath onto your previously polished fingernails and using that to restore the shine by rubbing them on your jacket or shirt front. It means, \"Oh, that impressive thing I just did? I'm so good that it caused me no more trouble than dulling my manicure a bit.\" Back in the day, men and women would get ~~pedi~~ manicures and keep their hands clean and tidy, as well as putting a shine on their nails. Once it dried it behaved just like modern clear nail polish, and if it got a little scuffed, you could just fog it with a bit of your breath and rub it on your coat."
],
"score": [
229
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5sbhux | Abstract art. Why is Picasso's Cubism more impactful than his Blue Period? How do people judge, let's say, a Jackson Pollock painting a masterpiece when to me it looks like chicken scratch? Why is the Malevich square such a big deal? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dddw1zi",
"dddvn1p",
"dddug37",
"dddzvk5"
],
"text": [
"The culprit of avante garde art is the camera. Picasso grew up in the 1890s honing his craft painting trompe l'oeil (true to the eye) works that perfectly captured details of light, shadow, and all of the hallmark true to life intricacies that would cast a work as true art as it \"perfectly captured he subject.\" Now enter the camera. Photography's ability to capture images of the world without a brush meant that artist, paint, and canvas weren't required to record and reflect the world around them. Picasso began to ask a simple question **\"What is art?\"** If \"art\" is no longer simply a matter of correctly rendering light, shadow, and proportions, what could it be? This is the question that would drive art forward to this day. From there artists carry out exercises that build on one another to challenge the purpose, meaning, and form of art. Picasso deconstructs forms to challenge true to life paintings as the *only* art. The Dadaists make art of nonsense, using it to reflect the ridiculous state of The world around World War I. The Emigre (immigrants fleeing the from the Second World War) drove art down to the simplest forms of point, line, and plane - removing subject from art almost completely. The art critic Clement Greenberg (I believe - can't find my old book) said that great art should be divorced of subject. However, all of these works achieves the same goal - they illicit emotion. So, in the case of Pollack's violent paint, Malevich's statement of art as nothing…the simple geometry of Piet Mondrian's well known red, white, yellow, and blue blocks, or even Ed Ruscha's 'Twenty Six Gas Stations\" containing photos of gas stations linked to his life…they all illicit something in the viewer. Awe. Wonder. Anger. Disgust that it's not art in the viewer's mind. But they make you think. That is art. So, the artists and works you referenced are profound in that they were novel benchmarks in the perspective of the question \"what is art?\" In the time following the challenge and threat the camera brought to to the field. Or the freedom it brought to explore other definitions.",
"Oh boy, I am not sure if I can come up with a simplistic way to explain this, but I have a degree in Graphic Design, and I had to take four \"History of World Art\" classes, where similar questions would came up and be discussed pretty regularly, so let me just tell you how I feel about this: Art embodies more than just what you see, but a lot of times it is a connection to the artists, their stories, struggles, the struggles of that time period, or specific concept or idea from that artist about something important to them (love, death, faith etc), or even the process of creating certain piece, if it is specifically difficult or unique. Most of the times all those combined make certain pieces more valuable than others. And while art is usually visually engaging, all those things mentioned above combined can bring out variety of emotions in people who know the history of the time period and story behind the art work or the author, and that's where the real value for them lies. It can't be manufactured, or replicated, it's just tied to a piece through an artist who embedded his feelings, emotions and ideas into his/her work at specific point in time, so that piece than serves as a unique time capsule that keeps moving forward stimulating future generations for as long as it exists and as long as people keep remembering and understating what it stands for.",
"Probably has a lot to do with being the first people to do something, having huge personalities, and some luck.",
"Regarding Jackson Pollock, there may be a less organic reason for his success. There is some decent evidence showing that the CIA --somewhat arbitrarily-- sought out artists and \"boosted\" them to fame by posing as connoisseurs and paying top dollar for the budding artist's work. The goal was to use these American's free-spirited and expressive art as a \"weapon\" to contrast and compete against the Soviet's rather constrained art forms. Jumping off point for ya: URL_0"
],
"score": [
33,
5,
3,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/modern-art-was-cia-weapon-1578808.html"
]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5sbm0i | If computers completely replaced stock brokers, how could market values be considered anything more than imaginary numbers we chose to believe? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dddu92u"
],
"text": [
"Uhm...what you just said is exactly how they are now. I mean literally. Bunch of dudes telling us the value of something based off of hunches and schemes."
],
"score": [
6
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5sbp8n | If the Conquistadors brought diseases to the new world, how come they didn't bring any diseases back to the old world? | If the Conquistadors brought diseases to the new world, how come they didn't bring any diseases back to the old world? Are people in the old world immune to all diseases that Natives American, Aztec people etc have? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ddduyjp",
"dddv8jr",
"dddvh22",
"dddwyjn",
"dde5sze"
],
"text": [
"They did. Syphilis is a disease they brought back. The thing you missed is that it was a 3 month trip or longer across the ocean. Any deadly diseases they caught would have killed them long before they made it back to Europe. And deadly diseases did regularly kill settlers.",
"There's a couple of things to consider Because the Native Americans, etc live in smaller tribal groups rather than larger cities the conditions for diseases to develop were less favourable so a lot of diseases just didn't have the chance to develop. For the diseases they did have that explorers could have caught - if they were likely to be fatal then the person(s) with the disease would have been unlikely to survive to return trip to Europe, so no deadly diseases made it back. But some diseases likely did. But they would have been mixed up the general mess of other flus and colds that already existed. Although one thing that has often been suggested is that Columbus brought syphilis back to the Europe with his crew.",
"The old world was into domesticating animals (very significant), and into densely populated cities (also a little significant). Diseases developed among the farm animals and cities at far faster rate. The Europeans had already suffered through various plagues as a consequence of this, so when they arrived in American, the Native Americans got hit with all those plagues at once. If you think of diseases as a crop, the European way-of-life was like a fertilizer. When Native Americans and Europeans met, the Europeans had inadvertently grown a much, much bigger crop of diseases to carry with them.",
"The new-world lifestyle (few domesticated animals, dispersed settlements) wasn't very good for breeding plagues; the old-world lifestyle (lots of domesticated animals, cities) was great for breeding plagues. Cities actually had more deaths than births right up until the 19th century - they depended on people moving in to sustain their populations. See also: [Americapox - the Missing Plague]( URL_0 )",
"[Americapox: The Missing Plague]( URL_1 ) by [CGP Grey]( URL_0 ). explains it nicely in an ELI5 sort of way."
],
"score": [
30,
14,
8,
7,
4
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JEYh5WACqEk"
],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC2C_jShtL725hvbm1arSV9w",
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JEYh5WACqEk"
]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
5sd344 | Why are educational institutions typically left-leaning? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ddea5x8",
"ddeecbi",
"dde6jpk"
],
"text": [
"I usually joke that either Conservatives weren't smart enough - or too violent and delinquent to finish high school. In reality, I think it has to do with how becoming educated in various fields impacts you - in Economics classes to be clear, it's almost entirely Conservatives, very few liberals there. I have also observed most trade programs like automotive and hvac are usually run by conservatives. So, it depends on the field and when conservatives say that academia is left-wing, they are being hyperbolic - anything not right-wing is left-wing, there is no center to them. Many of them think of themselves as the center. I will say if you love the field of sociology it's pretty difficult to be a conservative because when you analyze the issues, their perspectives actually cause a lot of problems. While democrats aren't saints, they don't normally favor policies that are outright harmful to the recipients of the policies. Many social problems were elaborated on by academia, specifically the social sciences and humanities section. This earned the ire of those who benefit from the systems being criticized. Which means religions and big corporations. They don't like being criticized. So the best refutation open to them is to just call it liberal hogwash - which is what they called it when Democrat politicians complained about the same issues. So even though there isn't such a connection, conservatives fabricated the appearance of it. But Democrats and Liberals are heavily criticized in academia as well. In the social sciences - psychology, sociology, anthropology, most of these fields teach a strong sense of empathy and compassion toward others that conservatism generally lacks. Conservatism relies on religion for these elements. Regardless how you feel about religion, academia feels that religions are open to criticism and like companies, religions don't like being criticized. A large part of being liberal involves a level of emotional maturity, self-reflection and introspection, examination of society and it's problems, and development of empathy and sympathy for the unfortunate. Which is what happens in college, actually - a lot. Lastly, there is a funding issue. Conservatives generally want educational institutions defunded which directly pitted Conservatives and Academia against one another on at least one issue - funding. Liberals came to the aid of Academia and this solidified, in the minds of conservatives that there is a conspiracy on the left between academia and scientists to thwart conservative principles. Back to the joke now - it's because Conservatives are cruel, cold hearted mean people who don't like having the underclass educated - last time that happened, in the 1960-1970 era, the populace became aware and we had a feminist revolution, civil rights revolution and rise of the middle class - something that died the moment Conservatism regained control. Bad, mean people.",
"Conservatism is a worldview based around holding back change. It's right in the title. Academia is a profession where the primary product is new knowledge that pushes things forward and encourages change. It is also a relatively low paid career for the amount of training and time it requires. These will be naturally in conflict. If you subscribe to the former, you are less likely to want to dedicate your life's work to the latter.",
"Politically, I think they may lean left because of government funding issues. Culturally, colleges are progressive centers of thought. I have no numbers or anything but I feel like most professors in the sciences and arts are liberal minded. Also the other day a [source] said that \"more educated people tend to lean left\" but I'm not gonna go into that."
],
"score": [
33,
6,
4
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5sd9ai | On SNL (and similar shows) how is the live audience's laughing timed with the camera cuts we're seeing at home, when they can see everything happening on stage? | Always wondered this but an example is [the Sean Spicer sketch]( URL_0 ) at 6:57. When he gets hit with the water there's light laughs but a much bigger reaction when the camera cuts to Spicer with the super soaker, but wouldn't the crowd have been able to see him(her) with the super soaker before the camera cut to it because they could see the whole stage? Are they shown a screen with the camera cuts and told to laugh in time with it? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"dde8czb"
],
"text": [
"There are several staging areas in studio 8H in Rockefeller center, most of the time the audience isn't straight on, meaning the soundstage isn't directly in front of them. So the only way they can watch many sketches is on the TV(s) mounted on the walls and rails. Other times when the cut happens for the joke for the audience that is straight on they can still see the cut in the monitor. Even if they don't laugh 80% of the studio does and the effect is the same"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
5sef0c | Why does everyone hate Tom Brady? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ddef6o7",
"ddedwpo"
],
"text": [
"OK. First of all you need to start with Drew Bledsoe. He was the Patriots QB before Brady. Patriots fans, LOVED, him. Started there as a rookie when the tram was generally losing and mostly sucked. He was QB when the team turned around and became winners and the fans loved him for it. He was starting for the Patriots for something like 11 years. Then one day, in the 2011 season he got injured, second game of the season. The injury was so bad, dude nearly died! Everyone thought the Pats season was over, but the backup QB, Brady, stepped in lead them all the way to the championship! Bledsoe got better during the season, but the team leadership decided to keep Brady in the starting role. Some fans viewed this as Brady taking Bledsoe's job. During one of the playoff games, Brady was injured and Bledsoe stepped in to finish (and win) the game taking the team to the Superbowl. At the superbowl that year there was all kinds of consern over who would be starting. The old star or the new one, turns out Brady was back in the starter roll Pats won the game and Bledsoe was traded after the season,. Bledsoe was traded to the Bills the flowing season. This divided the pats fans, lots were upset because they still viewed him as their superstar. The other half loved Beady and viewed him as the future of the team. This divide was not helped by the fact that Bledsoe's first season with the bills was one of his best ever. AND the Pats did not make the playoffs that season. And so it began. Bradey became a superstar but some people still held onto that anger and resentment. They did not feel like he had given Bledsoe the respect he deserved and that Bradey was some kind of punk kid. He was a winner, that's for sure, winning the Superbowl in 2003, and again in the 2004 season. But then the super bowls stopped for 10 long years. During this time Bradey did not exactly live humble, not that it would be expected of any other athlete with his record, but still he did not win himself any friends. The new England coach, Bill Belichick had more than a few scandals since 2001 involving borderline cheating and that was before deflategate happened. Here's an article about it, but a lot of that ill will rubbed off on Brady. URL_0 Deflate gate basically cemented the opinions that people already had about Brady. If you hated him, you hated him more. If you loved him, you thought the whole thing was overblown.",
"jealousy-5 rings, supermodel wife, rich, and not too shabby looking. resentment-his team winning means a lot of teams didnt advance in the playoffs. makes him and his team a good target to vent that frustration. anger- patriots have been the subject of a few scandals over the years (spygate, deflategate). leading some to question how they have become so dominate. Every story needs a villian, and the patriots, and tom brady as the face of the patriots, has fit the role. There are bandwagon fans and there are bandwagon haters, brady has the latter."
],
"score": [
15,
8
],
"text_urls": [
[
"http://www.si.com/nfl/2015/09/08/patriots-cheating-suspicions-bill-belichick-tom-brady"
],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5sf2sv | Why is there a huge difference of population between the second and third most populous countries in the world? | China and India have about 1,3 billion people, making them the two most populous countries. However, the third most populous country, the United States, is at a population of about 300 million. Why is there such a huge jump between the quantity of people between India and the US, and not between China and India (or the US and Indonesia, at 260 million)? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ddejam2"
],
"text": [
"There are many factors that contribute to this, but the main factor is based upon the use of contraceptives in the United States. Contraceptives are widely used throughout the US, while India (who tried to incorporate contraceptives into society and failed miserably) don't use them nearly as much and have limited abortion rights based on religion. This leads to heavily increased birth rates in countries like India because of more unexpected births, while the US has a limited amount of unexpected births."
],
"score": [
3
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
5sfbc0 | How native americans lost so much of their territory so quickly to colonists | Was it really just diseases that decimated their numbers or were they just too trusting of the colonist until it was too late and their numbers and technology was just too great to fight back? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ddeldkq",
"ddel164",
"ddey392",
"ddexkyt",
"ddel02w",
"ddemgcc"
],
"text": [
"Lots of things. (1) The diseases had killed off vast numbers of people even in places that no Europeans visited. By the time anyone set up colonies in North America, you were already looking at the post-apocalyptic leftovers of their civilization. (2) It really wasn't that fast. You are looking at a stretch of basically 500 years. That's a long damn time by anyone's reckoning. (3) Numbers and technology did play a role. The Natives only had their own groups to replace their numbers, but the colonists had a practically limitless supply of people and resources coming over from the Old World. (4) There was no such thing as \"The Native Americans.\" There were many hundreds of nations, bands, and tribes that encountered the Europeans at different times and places. Many native groups were also at war with each other. There was never a point at which all natives took direction from a single leader or followed a single policy. Trying to look at millions of diverse people as if they were a single Borg-like entity is a huge mistake.",
"Yes, it really was that disease destroyed their numbers. Between 80% and 90% of their populations were killed by the natural spread of disease after first contact with the Spaniards and other colonists starting in the 1500s.",
"A lot of good points here but something that's missing is native Americans had no idea you could own land. So if someone came to you and said I'd like to buy all the oxygen in this area, you'd probably sell, free money right? But then they came and told you they bought all the oxygen here and you aren't allowed to breath it. Would kind of take you by surprise",
"Disease had a major role. We know that pre-colonial populations were in the millions and there were actually mega cities throughout the country. However, disease contracted by contact with European colonists wiped out an estimated 90% of the native population. This is why the large cities were abandoned and most natives moved into remote tribal settings. The technology gap was another driver, especially when it came to weapons of war. Over the course of time, the natives were drastically outmatched when facing European conquerers. Lastly, the natives were disorganized compared to the colonists. Remember that the natives were not one united group of people, there were hundreds of small tribes spread across the country. These tribes acted independently of each other and in many cases were warring with each other. Conversely, the colonists were unified and able to overwhelm any one tribe at a time.",
"They didn't. If you're not counting the lost colony, the first British settlement was in 1607. The last Indians were put down by the US Army in the 1890's. That's an almost 300 year gap.",
"Survival rates and life expectancy among native americans were likely not on the same level as the colonists. On the same token, birth rates were probably much higher among the colonists than the natives. Those two factors alone would quickly lead the colonists to naturally push out the natives. That doesnt even touch on the superior firepower, communication, travel, and numbers, of the colonists. Or their uncanny ability to accidentally genocide through disease. When you're *actively* trying to displace a population, those help. Simple demographics were against them from the start, and once the colonists started actively claiming land, there was nothing the natives could do."
],
"score": [
82,
14,
9,
6,
5,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
5sfrmv | Why is Nickleback so hated? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ddepdff"
],
"text": [
"It's a bandwagon thing I think. Someone started the joke and it just grew like wildfire ...look at this graaaaaaaaph"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5sfwa4 | How is Gaga'S halftime performance being seen as a satanic ritual | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ddepys2",
"ddfb3oo",
"ddes8py",
"ddetp47"
],
"text": [
"I haven't heard that, but I'm going to guess it's an extension of the \"spirit cooking\" garbage from the election. Do a google search for \"Hillary Clinton Satanist\" and you'll find a million fake news sites about how she and John Podesta are part of a secret human sacrifice coven. Now that the election is over and Clinton and Podesta are out of the limelight, I'm guessing the rabid Trump crowd has translated those allegations onto Lady Gaga, who is a vocal critic of Trump. They were very angry when she was chosen to do the halftime show.",
"I think there is/was a Brietbart article talking about this. I refuse to link to them, but you can google if you are so inclined. Brietbart is sort of like The Onion for the alt-right. Well. Not really. The difference is that The Onion knows it is a joke, it writes articles as jokes to make fun of...everything. Satire. Brietbart seems to think it is actual news, or at the least its readers think that it is real. It is not.",
"For some people, everything that isn't \"Jesus Loves Me\" is satanism. Like any conspiracy theory, if you look hard enough, you find something you can twist into evidence.",
"Because people want to believe it. Gaga is well known to have liberal politics, and liberalism is identified with Satanism by some, and therefore projecting Satanic undertones on to her performance confirms what they believed all along. That kind of thinking is why we can't have nice things."
],
"score": [
17,
6,
5,
5
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5sfz3p | Why do religions have such a problem with sex and masturbation and where does it come from? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ddeqr9i",
"dderpa4"
],
"text": [
"Probably because sex and masturbation for most normal human beings involve pleasing your desires and libido, which is a form of lust. So to give in to those desires is to be a human being, but most religions like Christianity try and reach a higher state of mind, including not being distracted by such primitive desires. Not saying I agree with this, I like sex too much, but that's always what I've been taught.",
"Like any other form of life, religion seeks to spread and reproduce. Monotheism, the subset of religions that you're using the term to describe, sought to expand by displacing the polytheism (worship of many gods) that was the primary religion of the era. There are Greek and Roman gods of war, wine, and fertility. The Monotheists aren't going to make much progress with their message unless they build a weapon to use against \"the pagans\". The construct they produced, including the \"have no other gods than God\", was family centered. Marriage became a big religious deal, where only virgin women could be married in the church, and bloodlines became an important religious justification for things like who got to be King and who was a serf. Since these rules were not benefits in the short term, the focus was shifted to \"eternal Life\" where there were payoffs later for restraining these impulses during one's life. It's simple mind control, but it is the foundation of much of modern ethics."
],
"score": [
7,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5shf1q | How and why was it decided that 18 is the age when someone becomes an adult? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ddf3s0z",
"ddf39u4"
],
"text": [
"The age of majority is actually very complicated and is different for different states and different things. The age of majority in Alabama and Nebraska is 19 and in Puerto Rico and Mississippi it is 21. A lot of other states use 18, but if someone is still in high school, they are still considered a minor. The reason most places in the US think of the age of 18 as the age of majority is because of certain events in history. When the draft in World War II was initiated, the age of majority in most of the US was 21. FDR needed more soldiers, so he lowered the age for the draft to 18. In the 1960s and 1970s, there was a movement to lower the voting age from 21 to 18 because the idea that someone could be drafted to go to war but not be allowed to vote was repugnant to many. So, Richard Nixon lowered the voting age to 18 in the year 1970, and the US eventually passed the 26th amendment setting the voting age at 18. Most states shortly afterwards changed their age of majority to 18, but some did not.",
"no idea but it should be moved to 25 as that is about when the decision making center of the brain is fully developed."
],
"score": [
20,
5
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5shpk4 | the Bowling Green Massacre | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ddf4ur7",
"ddf4jpu",
"ddfbjb1",
"ddffkl1"
],
"text": [
"Kellyanne Conway is a counselor to the president, who recently in a speech mentioned an event called the bowling green massacre as evidence for the need for more strict immigration rules. However, there was no such massacre. What *actually* happened is that in Bowling Green, Kentucky, an FBI agent posing as an Al Qaeda member approached two Iraqi refugees, asking if the two wanted to help him obtain and ship weapons to the extremists back in Iraq. The two men agreed, and obtained weapons illegally, at which point the FBI revealed itself. The two were arrested and the incident prompted a six-month rescreening of all incoming Iraqi refugees. However, it's important to note that at no point was there even a plan or effort to attack US citizens with the weapons, just ship them. Upon further digging, it's become apparent that Kellyanne Conway has on two other ocassions also referred to this nonexistent massacre, causing people to suspect it was no slip of the tongue but an intentional false presentation of events in order to generate support for President Trump's immigration ban. This is also the same woman who gave us the \"altnerative facts\" quip, so a lot of the media already considered her a joke.",
"\"The Bowling Green massacre is a nonexistent incident referred to by U.S. Counselor to the President Kellyanne Conway in an interview on the television news program Hardball with Chris Matthews on February 2, 2017. Conway cited the \"massacre\" as justification for a travel and immigration ban from seven Muslim-majority countries enacted by United States President Donald Trump. However, no such massacre ever occurred. The next day she said she had misspoken and had actually been talking about the 2011 arrest of two Iraqi refugees in Bowling Green, Kentucky, on terrorism charges.\"",
"It was just a simple sting operation that ended simply. Overall it was a Bowling Green kerfuffle.",
"Never happened. Kellyanne Conway, in her zeal to defend the travel ban and \"Muslim ban\", said that legislation like this was necessary to prevent another \"Bowling Green Massacre\". She's since tried to walk back this claim, stating that she misspoke and meant to say \"terrorists\"... but it's highly unlikely it was unintentional or just a mere slip of the tongue when you consider this is the same woman who brought us \"alternate facts\". She's also made this same claim on at least 2 other occasions, and the word terrorists wouldn't have fit the context of the sentence she was using at the time in this instance. (As far back as 2011, she said in an interview about Obama: “He did that because two Iraqi nationals came to this country, joined ISIS, traveled back to the Middle East to get trained and refine their terrorism skills and come back here, and were the masterminds behind the Bowling Green massacre of taking innocent soldiers' lives away.” She's also made similar statements on at least 2 other occasions, and has referred more than once to \"innocent soldiers\" in Bowling Green, KY being killed by terrorists.) What actually happened was that two potential terrorists (mind you, they had not yet committed any acts of terror on US soil, but they did claim responsibility for attacks on US soldiers in Iraq and were attempting to send money and weapons to Iraq for what we can only presume are the same purposes (attacking US soldiers in Iraq). However, that does not serve to bolster her argument because the ban was purportedly intended to prevent *domestic* terrorism...so she offered an \"alternate facts\" version. Which is to say, she lied."
],
"score": [
582,
61,
6,
4
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5shv9a | Whats the difference between being passive aggressive and sarcastic. | This has always confused me and i ask my friends and they cant explain it. ELI5 please and give examples of each please. | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ddf6i49"
],
"text": [
"Passive-aggressive behavior is a way of expressing hostility in an indirect way, so it can be denied when confronted. It can manifest itself in a variety of ways. You might intentionally forget something important in retaliation for someone genuinely forgetting something, then try to subtlely link them together. Or can be as simple as sulky while watching a movie your SO likes but you don't, to ruin the fun and make sure they don't ask you again. Malicious compliance is also common, where you do what someone wanted, but in a way that gives results they did not want. In both cases, when accused, you turn it into an argument about your intentions rather than your actual acts of hostility, confusing the issue and avoided blame. Also note that passive-aggressive behavior has found its way into pop psychology, and is often applied to non-confrontational behavior that isn't hostile. Passive-aggressive notes, for example, usually aren't. Sarcasm has a role in passive aggressive behavior. It allows for technical agreement, but with a tone that conveys disagreement while maintaining plausible deniably. Not all sarcasm is passive-aggressive, and passive-aggressive behavior is certainly not limited to sarcasm."
],
"score": [
5
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
5sibc1 | If the US Supreme Court is the final arbiter of the law and the law states there shall be nine justices, why didn't the court just insist that the vacancy be filled? | Wouldn't the separation of powers demand it? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ddf9hyb",
"ddfay10",
"ddf9qq4"
],
"text": [
"The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and the Supreme Court is the last word in interpreting the Constitution. However no part of the Constitution gives the court the authority to force the President or the Senate to nominate or approve a new justice.",
"The Constitution makes no mention of the number of Justices, just that their should be a Supreme Court, and the President is responsible for nominations, while the Senate is responsible for confirmations. Even if there were, and they demanded it be filled, it would be unclear which side would be supposed to relent. The Senate's role is not a rubber stamp, it is to advise and consent. Realistically nobody gets on the Court without both the President, and Senate agreeing they should be there.",
"Critically, the Judiciary has no enforcement power. That is the executive branch. If the executive doesn't enforce the ruling of the Supreme Court and if Congress doesn't follow a ruling, there is nothing to stop them."
],
"score": [
8,
4,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
5sicxb | Why H & R Block would need IBM'S Watson to help them do their job. | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ddf9zky"
],
"text": [
"\"Their Job\" is to get you to give them your money to do your taxes. If a celebrity appearance from a celebrity computer program will get you to give them your money, they simply pay the IBM team to let them use the name and likeness of the Watson program that won Jeopardy. Watson is great for mining large document archives to make the facts contained more accessible. If you have thousands of tax report pages, this might be helpful. But unless you're Donald Trump, it's all advertizing."
],
"score": [
5
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5siuxr | How did people plan massive protests before the internet? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ddfj3xe"
],
"text": [
"people would meet and share posters and also phone each other with something called a \"phone tree\" so every single person would get a call then pass on the info to 2 more people by phone"
],
"score": [
6
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5sk1kc | When robots take over almost all of our jobs, how would a UBI (universal basic income) exactly work, and how would it succeed where communism failed? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ddfo0tc",
"ddfovgq"
],
"text": [
"UBI doesn't really have much to do with Communism. If anything, it's opposed to Communism since it doesn't involve popular or even government ownership of the means of production, just a redistribution after the fact of wealth generated in a capitalist or quasi-capitalist system. The basic idea of UBI is that you tax people, and everyone gets a certain amount of money regardless of whether they work or not. There are many different versions of UBI, and details vary, but that's the basic premise: redistribution of money, even without special \"need.\" It's a human thing, so it won't be immune to corruption, but given that it's supposed to be pretty straightforward, I don't think it'd be especially crazy in those terms.",
"Nothing implemented by a group of human beings with power is immune to corruption. As for how it would work, I imagine there would be a number of wars before it ever really got off the ground."
],
"score": [
5,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5sm72p | Why is it that Yoda makes perfect sense, while also seeming to speak backwards? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ddg37cl",
"ddg38jh",
"ddg3819"
],
"text": [
"Typically, standard English sentences follow a subject-verb-object order. For example, we would say, \"Han Solo digs Princess Leia.\" \"Han Solo\" is the subject, \"digs\" is the verb, and \"Princess Leia\" is the object. Han Solo-digs-Princess Leia: subject-verb-object. That's the typical pattern, but it's not unheard of for English speakers to deviate. For example, you could say something like, \"She wants to fight, and fight she will.\" That \"fight she will\" part is just like Yodish, but we're using it for emphasis. Carson also points out that \"poets and lyricists frequently deviate from standard word order because of meter, rhyme, or aesthetics. For example, 'Over the river and through the woods, to grandmother's house we go' is Yoda-esque in its construction, yet English speakers sing it without a thought.\" \"With this ring, I thee wed\" is another example of something that deviates from the subject-verb-object construction, but that most people still consider real English. Carson also notes that although Yoda shifts around sentence elements, he doesn't do so randomly. He tends to use object-subject-verb word order,* as in \"Princess Leia, Han Solo digs,\" and he does not break up syntactic units, like preposition phrases or infinitive phrases. For example, he keeps together phrases such as \"to continue your training\" and \"to the dark side.\" From URL_0",
"Yoda-speak sounds unusual because he speaks in subject-object-verb whereas English is normally subject-verb-object. This would be unintelligible in many languages but you can kind of get away with it in English (while sounding either profound or like a weirdo). While we do have a SVO order convention in English, English rarely relies on this order to be intelligible. It doesn't sound right but it still makes sense because our verbs usually aren't modified by the subject or the object. The boy hits the ball. (SVO) The ball the boy hits. (OSV) Hits the ball *does* the boy. (VOS, here I did have to cheat a bit). In all of them the verb \"hits\" is unchanged.",
"He's not really backwards, just a bit archaic. People used to speak almost like Yoda in their normal patterns, and it still happens today if less often than before. Yoda is still intelligible as long as he uses all parts of a sentence eg “Try not. Do, or do not. There is no try.” As long as there's a verb and the subject and object are understood if not implied then it's valid."
],
"score": [
15,
6,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[
"http://www.quickanddirtytips.com/education/grammar/yoda-grammar"
],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5smme3 | What Marie Antoinette meant when she allegedly said, "so let them eat cake." | I know that it is disputed about whether or not she actually said it, but if she did, what did she mean? I know that her people were angry and blamed her (probably wrongfully) for their economic situation. So, when confronted with what she thinks they should do about the famine, she supposedly says, "let them eat cake." Was cake different back then? Is it not the cake we know? The sugary pastry covered in frosting we serve on birthdays? What is wrong with cake? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ddg6g3t",
"ddg6u8s",
"ddg883x",
"ddg7gkt",
"ddgapnd"
],
"text": [
"The idea was that she was utterly clueless about how the average person lived. \"Oh, they don't have bread? Well then they should eat cake, that's a good substitute.\" If she did really say it, then she clearly had no idea that luxury foods like cake cost money, or that people aren't starving because the bread has run out, but because they can't afford it. So it was really effective propaganda (whether true or false), because it was a very effective way of painting her as 100% clueless, out of touch, and accustomed to absolute luxury. And why should someone like that deserve to rule us? We should storm the Bastille. Who's in?",
"In a novel written when she was very young a \"foreign princess\" is told the people are mad that there is no bread due to a flour shortage. She doesn't know what bread is made of, so she says \"qu'ils mangent de la brioche\", i.e. \"let them eat brioche\", thinking that it might be available since it's not bread. Marie Antoinette was Austrian, and already unpopular, leading people to attribute this quote to her during the propaganda campaigns of the time.",
"When I was five, I went to kindergarten with kids from some fairly rich families. One day I was lamenting to one of them about how I'd missed the bus to daycare and I didn't know what to do. The kid calmly suggested that I call home and have my housekeeper come and pick me up. This was oddly funny in two ways because not only was this kid unable to imagine a world where everyone didn't have a housekeeper, but I was only five and had no idea what the fuck a housekeeper was! I'd seen a film strip about bee keepers, so my only thought was of a giant hooded person billowing smoke into my house. I wasn't sure how this was going to help me get to daycare that day, though. Anyway, it's a lot like that.",
"The [quote as it was in French]( URL_0 ) is *Qu'ils mangent de la brioche*. So, its not the sugary cake Americans know but *brioche* which is a rich bread made with eggs and lots of butter. It was translated to cake back before people know what brioche was, but nowadays more people know what brioche is. Brioche is certainly a luxury bread, but it can still serve as the bread of a meal. Cake is a dessert, you're not going to make a sandwich out of cake. Restaurants don't give you a basket of cake sticks as a cheap way to make you feel full. It looks like this particular princess or queen did not say this quote but it was extremely effective propaganda. Suggesting a luxury item as a substitute when there is a shortage of a basic staple good shows an appalling lack of common sense and compassion.",
"She was told the peasants were starving because then did not have enough \"bread\", where bread in this sense meant food in general. Her response was either hopelessly out of touch, thinking cake would somehow be available if bread was scarce, inhumanly callous, making a joke at their suffering."
],
"score": [
17,
14,
14,
5,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Let_them_eat_cake"
],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
5sna9u | Why do people cling to false information that has been widely and thoroughly debunked? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ddgc84g",
"ddgcy1k",
"ddgj059",
"ddgdjmf",
"ddgejnm",
"ddgn6x6",
"ddgv0ag",
"ddgg1lq",
"ddgkxog",
"ddgezax",
"ddggcwo"
],
"text": [
"We have faith in our caregivers: Caregivers are looking out for our best interests We have faith in our senses: Seeing is believing We have faith in our memories: \"I remember when it happened\" And Faith is a virtue. When suddenly confronted with irrefutable evidence it is easier to reject the new information than it is to lose faith because losing faith makes me weak. And it means that either my caregivers were wrong, that my senses were wrong, or that my memory is flawed. It is easier to me to go with what I know than to question my reality.",
"> false on its face and easily provable as such. Do you have any examples for this? Most things in the world today require you to put your trust in someone else who is an expert, or require you to become an expert yourself. Consider the concept of the solar system. I absolutely believe that there are 8 planets (and Pluto), but I have only personally seen four of them. I'm choosing to trust astronomers and scientists and physicists who tell me that there are more, and I have no issue with that trust, but there's always a possibility that they are lying. Throw in 20 years of action/crime/drama movies where nothing is ever what it seems, and huge organizations all have agendas and manipulating the herd is how people get ahead, and then remove a great education that teaches you to think critically and you can end up with a natural distrust of everyone who isn't exactly like yourself.",
"I've been grappling this and I wish I could give you an answer. I'll respond to it, but I've been hoping to understand this more myself. Opinions seem to be tied very closely to people's identities. So if you provide people with data that refutes their claims or beliefs, they would have to admit that the premise on which they've based their identity, their purpose, and their goals we're all a sham. I dont think people consciously have this thought. I believe it's an automatic psychological defense mechanism. There is something called the 'Back fire effect.' Check it out here. URL_0 It basically states that when you present proof suggesting a person's opinion to be other than correct, they will grow more convicted in their views. Basically the opposite of science! What really boggles my mind is when I see this behavior in college educated people. Not because I believe non-college educated people are less intelligent. Far from it actually. But a college degree, more than anything, should confer upon a person proof to society that they know *how* to think. That is to say that I hold them to a higher level of responsibility, that their opinions should be backed by facts, with room to be flexible should new facts be presented to them. In practice, proof (however it is presented) should affect a person's conclusion. But unfortunately, that is applies to theory more than reality. I see this mostly happen mostly with political views.",
"Because it's easier. I'm not being snarky. That's why. People's \"opinions\" are so wrapped up in their identities these days, admitting to backing the wrong idea is tantamount to calling your whole worldview into question. It's *way* simpler to just go \"*LALALALA*\".",
"Some things that are claimed to be debunked are just as ridden with bias as the original claim... It's almost impossible to find an unbiased source for anything these days.",
"Cognitive bias is very difficult to overcome. When you believe in something so strongly and proof becomes known that challenges that belief, your brain will actively work to discredit the proof. You'll connect the dots to work around the proof. If you were to get a connect the dot puzzle and it told you that it was a bird, but it LOOKS like it supposed to be a pig, you'll go against the progression of 1-2-3-4 and connect those dots to make a pig instead of a bird because it challenges your belief that it's not a pig. Some people associate this experience with being gullible, but it has to do with what you've learned previously. What you learn initially has a stronger impression than when you learn afterward that might conflict with it. This is not to say that the individual isn't to blame, but there's a deep biological basis for the cognitive bias. Overcoming it means that you're stronger than your \"programming\". The good news is that the more you challenge this bias, the easier it becomes to overcome other bias. This is why scientists and researchers are more open to being wrong, as it leads to more discovery and information.",
"I would argue it's a lack of interest in properly educating oneself. I had 2 conversations with a 20 year old delivery driver the other day. In the first he was absolutely DUMBFOUNDED that Hawaii was a state and not a continent/country. In the second I had to explain that germs cause sickness, not cold weather. Cold weather will weaken your immune system to some extent but you need to get germs in your body to get sick. He basically just said he didn't believe me, then when he saw me wearing a light jacket the next time I went out for a cigarette he said \"cold huh?\" in a very snarky tone. This is what you get when you combine the NYC public school system, a lack of interest, and an already \"not the sharpest razor in the cookie jar\" kinda person. On the plus side, after explaining the germ thing further he did say \"learn something new every day!\" so I think he knew I wasn't looking down on him. I hope this doesn't come across as hubris or a holier than thou up on a high horse kind of mentality but I feel like it's partially on me to help get him interested in learning these basic sorts of things. It's up to you too, assuming you can do it without being condescending. I can't speak for anyone else but if someone explains something well to me that I previously didn't understand, or gives me evidence that disproves something I already believed, I always appreciate it. I think most people do as long as the other party isn't being a jerk about it. I guarantee that a large percentage of people who cling to these falsehoods do so because there's an animosity toward people who talk to them like they're stupid for believing it in the first place. I'd wager there's a ton of people reading this who still think urine is sterile. You're not stupid, you just never double checked. That's ok, cuz guess what? You learn something new every day! Or you don't...",
"Any information is always presented through the lens of the presenter's worldview. If we find that the information threatens our worldview, we can easily tell ourselves that the information is distorted or conjured up by the other's worldview. It's really very easy, you do it every day towards those you disagree with.",
"Because if something backs up their beliefs they don't want it to be false. Usually in the form of politics and hot button issues. Someone sees a crazy headline and it verifies there thoughts so they believe it. Example: I saw a headline today that said Trump is illiterate, immediate people repost it to Facebook without a 2nd thought. I think its called confirmation bias.",
"Despite having access to a LOT of information (or possibly because of it), we've all become acutely aware of how easily it is manipulated. Varying sources put up anything and call it the truth when a lot of the time the truth is probably not anywhere close to supporting their agenda. But that doesn't matter to them. What's really sad is when they use information that, repeatedly from multiple sources, has been proven false. The wage gap for example. People spend so much complaining about something that is accounted for by individual career choices that it distracts from real problems.",
"Because most people have created careers, professional reputations, relationships, on the basis of a belief (religion, atheism, climate change, capitalism, socialism, etc) to the point that should their beliefs be proven wrong, they would lose all of the framework that has made them who they are and why anyone would or should value their statements. Imagine, if tomorrow, the theory of relativity was proven completely wrong. The scientist and professors today would basically have to start over as they would have nothing of value to offer. A sixty year old professor would be on the same footing as a freshman in college. I think that is why most scientific discoveries are bristled at by the scientific community because it could threaten the existing status quo and cause many researchers to have to throw away years of research and opinion."
],
"score": [
180,
165,
35,
21,
4,
4,
4,
3,
3,
3,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[
"https://youarenotsosmart.com/2011/06/10/the-backfire-effect/"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5snga8 | How does the DeVos confirmation impact my kids that are in public schools? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ddgdd7x"
],
"text": [
"Hardly at all. The Federal government is not in charge of your kid's school, that is handled by the local school board. No change in Sect of Ed will change that, and Ms. DeVos might make the federal government less important to your local school. Now, when your kids want to get a federally guaranteed student loan, Ms. Devos's policies might change things. That said, there is a lot of law on the books and the Sect of Ed doesn't get to ignore the law, no matter what she was told when she interviewed."
],
"score": [
6
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5snk82 | What are the major political parties of the U.K. and how do they compare ideologically to those here in the U.S.? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ddghqwy",
"ddgegba"
],
"text": [
"There are two major UK political parties: The Conservative Party and the Labour Party. The **Conservatives** are the party currently in power. They are a right-leaning party although they're probably a little closer to the centre than the Republicans in the US are. A lot of their policies revolve around keeping taxes low and trying to reduce how reliant people are on the government for support. Theresa May is currently the leader of the Conservatives. The **Labour** party are a left-leaning party, although the \"new Labour\" movement of the late 90s to the early 2000s led by Tony Blair was closer to the centre in terms of their policies. Labour are currently led by Jeremy Corbyn, who is controversial because he's *very* far on the left, which has annoyed a lot of the voters that favour Blair's style of politics more. Labour's policies tend to focus on social reform and giving more power to trade unions. Labour are the UK's equivalent of the Democratic party in the US, although Labour are probably more left-leaning (especially under Corbyn). As well as the two \"main\" parties, there are also quite a few other parties with varying degrees of influence. The **Scottish National Party** are currently the biggest of the other parties, with over 50 seats in Parliament. They are a centre-left party that focus on issues relating to Scotland. Devolution is their main campaigning point, which means reducing the power of decision-making in London and trying to introduce more Scotland-specific policies. The SNP will likely try to hold another referendum on Scottish independence following the Brexit vote. Nicola Sturgeon is the current leader of the SNP. The **UK Independence Party (UKIP)** won 10% of the popular vote in the last election, although only won 1 seat in Parliament. UKIP are a right-leaning party (further right than the Conservatives) focused primarily on securing the UK's exit from the European Union, which they have now achieved. Their other key areas of focus are campaigning for tighter controls on immigration and introducing lower taxes. Paul Nuttall is currently the leader of UKIP, although the party has seen several leadership elections since Nigel Farage (sort of) stepped down as the leader in 2015. The **Liberal Democrats** were very successful in the 2010 election and formed a coalition government with the Conservatives, giving them an unusual amount of power relative to the number of seats they had. The Lib Dems suffered heavy losses in the 2015 election however, as many people felt that they had failed to carry out some of their key election promises (such as halting the rise on tuition fees) when they were in the coalition. The Lib Dems are politically close to the centre, leaning slightly to the left. Their key issues include building closer ties with the EU, investing more in education and the NHS as well as focusing on environmental issues. Tim Farron is currently the leader of the Lib Dems. There are a few other parties too, such as the Green Party, Plaid Cymru and Sinn Fein. These parties are quite small and don't have much influence over UK politics at the moment.",
"Two major. A few that have made decent headway. Labour/The Conservatives. The Conservatives are most similar to the Republicans but aren't dominated by the religious right. Low taxation. Low government spending. Low government involvement. The \"Trumps\" of the party are relegated to the backbenches. Usually led by RINO types, but they are the most conservative of the two (the other being the other major party, Labour). They want to leave the EU but are sort of divided on the terms of the exit Democrats... well the closest thing would be Labour, except Labour aren't as committed to third way politics. It's difficult to compare them but they are the closest possible thing. Labour are a democratic socialist party. So think Bernie. Pro- Universal healthcare, high(er) taxes, higher spending. They want to leave the EU but are sort of divided on the terms of the exit UKIP - To some a one policy party - an EU exit. To others they're the closest thing to a Libertarian party. These guys really want little involvement as possible. No smoking ban. No fox hunting ban. Some people want free market involvement in the NHS, some don't. Very \"hands off\" approach to the economy. They have a single MP who doesn't fit in very well. Liberal Democrats - They once had a high of roughly 60 seats, out of roughly 650, but blew it after they were perceived to have sold out. They stood on a platform of no University tuition fee increases, but changed their mind in exchange for a referendum on voting reform. PR is a long held principle but somehow they managed to get the referendum to be on AV of all fucking things which isn't proportional. Nowadays they have 9 MP's and seem to be the \"Do not exit the EU\" party. Scottish National Party - Scotlands major party. They have all but 3 seats or so. Pro-EU. Civic nationalists. They want Scotland to leave the United Kingdom and be independent but lost a referendum on it. Using the EU vote to position themselves for another referendum. Their's a hodge podge of other parties. Northern Ireland has a bunch of parties that generally align with either The Conservatives or Labour when it comes to voting. Wales has Plaid Cymru but they're a fly on the wall and only worth mentioning because they want independence too. We have some cool novelty parties like the Monster Raving Loony party who used to be lead by a cat. That's off the top of my head"
],
"score": [
16,
7
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5snyo1 | What are charter schools? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ddgkr4q"
],
"text": [
"Public schools are given money from city, county, state and federal governments on a per-kid and per-square-foot basis. Charter schools are private schools that meet a given standard to be considered equivalent to public schools. Parents can choose to enroll their children into these private charter schools, with a large portion of the tuition paid for by the per-kid rate that would have gone to their public school. Ideally, this means parents can choose the best school for their children without being restricted by arbitrary boundaries, while not \"wasting\" the per-kid tax payment their public school would have received. By the virtues of capitalism, only the best schools will succeed and children everywhere will receive the finest education! Unfortunately, this has yet to be proven true in a large scale. Studies of many charter schools have shown their students have objectively worse performance in almost every category. However, their marketing departments are world-class, and can drive sales which is what really matters because God Bless America."
],
"score": [
4
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5so4bf | Why are some cuisines significantly spicier than others? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ddgtcs9",
"ddgmxst"
],
"text": [
"continuing on from previous explanations, the main theory is that spicy food is eaten in hotter places because heat induces food spoilage and spices help with that. Liking the taste of spices became something that was passed down the generations as those who ate spices were healthier (due to antioxidants and bacteria fighting properties of spices). If you want to know more about these theories, have a look at research conducted in this area: URL_0 , bear in mind these are theories and there is no sure answer to this question.",
"Spices in food have a lot of uses. They cover the taste of mild spoilage, some of them can slow down the spoilage process itself, and then of course, they taste good. One theory as to why hotter climates often have spicier cuisines (when spices were traditionally available) is that eating spicy foods induces sweating, ultimately cooling you down in the days before air conditioning."
],
"score": [
4,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[
"http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/1998/03/food-bacteria-spice-survey-shows-why-some-cultures-it-hot"
],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5spc6w | In Thomas and Friends why does Sir Topham Hatt talk to the engines when there are clearly engineers operating them? | They must be confused by this dude talking to the front of their engines all the time babbling on about being really useful right? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ddguhx0"
],
"text": [
"In the Thomas universe, trains are like very smart horses (think something like Sven in Frozen, but more.) Just like you'd encourage your horse, despite there being a rider, you'd certainly be even more direct with a horse that spoke and understood English. Given that situation, the engineer still does a job, but it doesn't take away from the train having a will of it's own. or, as this guy on quora put it: > Christian Roden, English major. > Written 21 Mar 2012 > Well, according to the books, the engineers serve the same function as they do in real life. The Thomas and his friends cannot function unless they have a proper fire and sufficient steam pressure, and they normally cannot run unless the engineer guides them (though I will admit, the autonomy of the engines was *greatly* increased in the television series... and I'm still not sure I agree with that choice). > Most of their adventures, in fact, occur when they are going about their daily tasks (transporting passengers, shunting cars, etc.), while their accidents tend to happen when the engineer forgets to properly secure the brake, or somehow loses control. That's why Thomas is as surprised as everyone else when he suddenly finds himself off the rails. In fact, many of the stories are based on real-life occurrences, thus giving an explanation for the unsolved happenstances that leave everyone puzzling (could machines be slightly anthropomorphic? I don't think it's likely, though I have grave suspicions about computers). It also helps that many engineers, pilots, and sailors have a tendency to personify their craft. > Figures like the engineers are actually quite common in literature, especially children's literature. They serve as the tollbooth, so to speak, to the bridge between reality and fantasy. Their function is vital, because they enable the \"what if's\" to be asked. In many children's books, adult figures serve this function, either by validating or denying the children's sometimes tangential take on reality. Think about it this way. In the cartoon strip \"Calvin and Hobbs,\" the long-suffering parental figures are the ones who enable his childhood. By providing that brief base in reality, they enable Calvin's flights of fancy to relate much better to the audience than they would if, for example, the strip were solely a fantasy strip about a boy and a talking tiger."
],
"score": [
5
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
5sq382 | What is the difference between beer and lager | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ddgzi27",
"ddh0by2"
],
"text": [
"A lager is a style of beer, in the way that blue is a type of color or beef is a type of meat.",
"There are three different types of beer, they are categorized by how they are fermented: **Lager** - This is a beer fermented with a \"bottom fermenting\" yeast (aka lager yeast), yes the yeast is on the bottom, and yes its commonly simply known as lager yeast. This is fermented at a low temperature, generally 45-55 F degrees (~7-13 C). Lager beers are often clean and crisp beers, without huge flavor or variation. Some examples would be: Budweiser (USA), Kirin Ichiban (Japan), Hofbräu Original (Germany). For further clarity, Pilsners are lagers. All of your big name \"macro brew\" beers will be lagers.(Think Bud, Miller, Coors, Stella, that random shitty beer in 12 packs) **Ales** - Ales are the beers that have the most variety and flavor. They are \"top fermented\" beer, at a higher temp (~70F), and can be made in tons of ways as this type of yeast is much better for different flavor beers and adding lots of other stuff. Ales make up the majority of beers that aren't your big name macro brews. Some common Ales will be any IPA, such as the hoppy Ballast Point Sculpin, stouts such as yummy creamy and dark Guinness, and a brown like Newcastle. The variation for ales is insane compared to Lagers. IF you're drinking a high end or craft beers, its almost certainly an ale. The third, and very very lesser known one is called **Lambic**: Lambics are super unique in flavor, and seriously you should try one if you haven't. Lambics are beers brewed with naturally occuring yeast, that is they literally leave the beer in the open and the natural yeasts in the air ferment the beer (In a more practical sense, you can actually make them by artificial means too, but lets ignore that for now). OK, sounds weird right? It not, its totally genius, and great. Many lambic are \"sour beers\" (but not all sour beers are lambics!). Lambics are often considered the hardest beers to make, and master, and are uncommon to produce outside of Belgium (but available for purchase of course as imports). IF you've ever heard of a \"Geuze\" beer (not: NOT \"Gose\", thats different), a \"gueze\" is a style of lambic like pilsner is a style of lager or IPA is a style of ale. Many lambics are also fruit flavored, with fruits such as cherry, raspberry, or peach. Seriously you should try one if you never have. As a slight aside, there is a lambic brewery in Brussels called [Cantillion]( URL_0 ) which makes traditional air fermented lambic's in the middle of Brussels, and they are frankly considered Gods of the beer world, their beers are highly prized and highly regarded. You can't talk lambics without talking about Cantillon. If you're ever in Brussels you can go there too! It's only $5 for a tour of their place and some samples Now get drinking"
],
"score": [
8,
6
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[
"https://www.cantillon.be/?lang=en"
]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5sqmba | why was red chosen for "stop", green chosen for "go" and yellow for "prepare to stop"? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ddh543q",
"ddh57ee"
],
"text": [
"It's not a coincidence. Traffic lights were invented in London and were based upon a system of signals that themselves originated with train lines. Originally train lines had red for stop and white for go with green meaning caution. Unfortunately, there was an accident when the lens fell out of one of the red lights (making it white) and so they removes the white colour and replaced it with green. The intermediate (caution) colour became yellow. When the lights were established in London, the same system was used. In part because it was familiar to officials who would implement the system but more because red is a great colour to penetrate London fogs. Longer wavelength light is scattered less by atmosphere and other gases so red penetrates better than green or yellow. Thus you can see a red light further away in fog than green.",
"They're derived from railroad signals. Red was an obvious choice for \"Stop\" since red being the color of blood has meant danger since time immemorial. \"Caution\" and \"Go\" were arbitrary- Green meaning go came into popular culture from signals, not the other way around. Originally green meant \"Caution\" and white meant \"Go\". That changed after the red lens fell off a railroad signal and an engineer thought they had a \"Go\" signal and collided head-on with another train. And even in the early days of trains there were lots of white lights around. Why not blue or purple? Incandescent lamps and before that candle flames don't put out very much blue and purple light, so a green signal would be brighter than other colors (presumably red-green colorblind people didn't get hired to be train engineers). Although New York City did experiment with purple for a pedestrian phase on road signals for a short time many, many years ago."
],
"score": [
30,
19
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5sqqvs | Why is the education in the US so bad or called bad by many people? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ddh7xs2",
"ddh67rh",
"ddhlolj"
],
"text": [
"How did we go from number 1 in every subject to middle of the pack? What changed? Kids still have the same aptitudes and talent. We still teach the same subjects and in many cases more advanced subjects. We still rely on the testing system. So what changed. Here is my opinion. I think the biggest change is the dynamic between parents, teacher, and child have changed drastically. Until about 15-20 years ago, parents and teachers did not have adversarial relationships. If the teacher raised an issues with the parents about a child's behavior or performance, the parents would hold the child responsible. Instead, parents blame the teacher, threaten to sue, and always take the child's word over the teacher's. This is a recipe for disaster. Kids realize that they can get away with a lot more, so they act out or slack off because they know they can get away with it. The second issue ties into to the first and that is lack of effective punishment for offenses. I'm not talking about corporal punishment, but detention, suspension, alternative schools, and expulsion. Litigating parents and the courts that allow them to operate have tied the hands of our schools. We can no longer punish kids for their behavior. It used to be that if a kid was out of control, they would go through a series of escalating punishments. Where I grew up, the kids who could not control themselves were eventually sent over to an alternative school, where they were separated from the general population and had very strict and structures school days. The main point being that they were no longer allowed to disrupt the education of others. The third issue is the No Child Left Behind Act. Though well intensioned, it completely back fired. It ties school performance to federal funding. Particularly, standardized tests are used to determine funding. Those schools that perform poorly get less funding. So, this forces schools to focus on getting their kids to pass these tests as opposed to teaching kids how to learn and think critically. Also, these tests are particularly easy for highly intelligent students. Since the focus of teaching is the test material, these students do not get the opportunity to take more advanced and challenging classes. The school are forced to pull resources from gifted & talented programs and funnel them towards low achieving students in an attempt to get them to pass the federal tests. In effect, we are teaching to the lowest common denominator and limiting the growth of our best and brightest. Not only that, be we have moved away from critical thinking and understanding based learning and are focused on memorization and regurgitation. Lastly we have adopted a system where kids are not allowed to fail and it's gotten out of hand. My mom is a teacher and she is not allowed to grade in red pen, because it could hurt the students feelings and make them feel like failures. If a student fails a test, they are allowed to retake it with no consequences for their first failure. So most kids fail the first test on purpose so they can see what is on the test and take it again later. She is no longer allowed to publically announce grades in the class while handing them out, because the students might get embarrassed. In essence we are teaching kids that they don't have to work hard, that they are owed do-overs, and that they can just cruise through life and everything they need will be given to them because they are owed it: it's their right. We are crippling our kids and stunting their growth as productive human beings. Most of the changes were well intentioned and meant to help low achieving students, however most of them have backfired and we are now seeing the consequences of those changes.",
"Kids are taught what they need to take tests and not to think for them selves and problem solve due to strict curriculum guidelines. My experience is that things my kids are taught are very overly complicated then when I learned them but if i teach them the easy way to figure it out they get bad grades bc even if the answer is correct they used \"alternative\" methods from how they were taught....no i am not kidding this was an actual response to my inquiry.",
"Why are people upset about DeVos? In the 2014-15 school year, Texas spent $9,559 per student in grades K-12 (DMN). Public schools are being compared to the outcomes of private companies like Hockaday, which charges $22,833 for day school (per a Google search). For the record, Hockaday is a stellar school. Send your kid there, if you so choose. This isn't about Hockaday. Public schools teach every kid who comes to their doors - Mayflower legacy and recent refugee; PhD parents and 6th grade drop-out parents; rich and poor; gifted and special needs. K-12, which is longer than most countries. Everyone. And they have amazing successes. Most people in America who are successful (defined any way you want) are products of public schools - even the majority of those people who are now anti-public schools. Private schools take who they want, if the applicant can pay. Public schools have no application process. No fees. No anything. They teach who shows up. No matter what. Ankle bracelet because you are awaiting trial for murder? Come on in. English is your fifth language? Or not one you know? Have a seat. You are capable of learning at a 2nd grade level? Here - take Biology and try to pass the state mandated exam. If you fail, it will be your teacher's fault. Public schools are beset by arbitrary evaluation systems, bizarrely awful state tests that bring in millions to private companies, and constant belittlement. They are told they have \"plenty of money\" and \"anyone can teach\" by people who haven't set foot in a public school in decades, if ever. And now the answer is pull funds away from public schools trying to serve all to give to private companies that will only serve a few? In what chapter of The Looking Glass is that logic? Yes, public schools fail sometimes. Sometimes all of the talent and effort and tears and desire cannot leap the hurdles in the paths of some kids. But they try. And they cry real tears for the kids who don't make it. Real tears - not political ones. Today public school teachers and administrators and students and parents were slapped in the face by 50 Senators and Vice-President Pence, who said a political donor with no public education experience is worth more than they all are. Despite pleas from tens of thousands who are in the trenches every day, and know of which they speak, these 51 people put party and politics above the best interest of millions of kids."
],
"score": [
10,
4,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5srd6j | Why have the shift from band Societies to civilizations made civilizations lose their Egalitarianism ways? | m just wondering how in ancient times, band socities could practice egalitarianism while civilizations cannot continue that? More specifically, what changed?? Its not human greed because then band socitied wouldnt be equal then. So what factors changed band societies to civilizations that made us lose egalitarianism | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ddh9qeo"
],
"text": [
"Essentially, when you depend on everyone in the immediate vicinity to do their job in order to survive, you're more of a team player than if everyone in your vicinity is a stranger who may or may not have any impact on your life whatsoever. Hunter-gatherer societies were tightly knit and depended on one another for survival in a very life-or-death way. Now, we're still dependent on one another in a general way but it's not as specific or life threatening to lose members of the civilization every now and then. Add in an emphasis on individualism and you've got a group of people who don't depend on one another as much, or at least don't recognize their dependency and thus feel no need to be aulteristic or eglaitarian. Alternatively you can think of it as...Switching from a power structure where everyone is relatively equally as powerful, to one where only a select few are powerful, make the remaining members with little power fight over what hierarchy they can get, for the sake of necessary resources."
],
"score": [
3
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
5ssjtw | Democracy vs. Republic | I've heard many people say "America isn't a democracy it's a republic" but what exactly is the difference between these two? And how did the perception that we live in a democracy begin? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ddhijwr",
"ddi0c5g",
"ddhi2ky",
"ddhjgdf",
"ddhkkkv",
"ddhggbi",
"ddhiplf",
"ddhkrmg",
"ddhwybq"
],
"text": [
"> but what exactly is the difference between these two? Democracy: The public both proposes laws and votes up/down on such laws through a referendum. For example, state or local referendums in the US. See federal referendums in Switzerland. Republic: The public chooses \"smart representatives\". The representatives then proposes laws and votes up/down on such laws in congress for a period of several years. Even if such laws do not represent the will of the public who choose the representatives. For example, see immigration policy that was put in place by \"smart representatives\" before Trump, and the immigration policy being changed by the \"smart representative\" Trump. All without public consent. In a proper democracy, the [public would have decided immigration policy]( URL_0 ) in the first place. > And how did the perception that we live in a democracy begin? By people who are both ignorant in their own country's history and in the definition of democracy and republic. The US was formed as a republic to PREVENT democracy. *\"We are now forming a Republican form of government. Real liberty is not found in the extremes of democracy, but in moderate governments. If we incline too much to democracy we shall soon shoot into a monarchy, or some other form of a dictatorship.\" -Alexander Hamilton* *\"A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.\" -Thomas Jefferson* *\" pure democracies “have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.” -James Madison*",
"There are some answers here that are focused on the historical context of the terms, and some that are just wrong. Here are two very brief definitions based on their structure: * **Democracy** comes from the greek words *demos* and *kratia*, meaning \"people\" and \"strength\", respectively. It describes any political system where the populace under that system can collectively assert itself politically in any way; this often takes the form of **representative democracy**, where the people elect representatives who perform the day-to-day business of government. * **Republic** comes from the latin phrase *res publica*, meaning \"public affair\". A Republic is any government, country, or state where the government is legally associated with the will of the people, and in some cases may be synonymous *with* the people. It is opposed to private forms of state, especially most modern monarchies, where the government \"belongs\" to the sovereign and acts in their interests. * These two terms often intersect, but there is no reason they need to. The United Kingdom is a democratic state, but the government formally belongs to the queen: this is why it is strictly speaking \"Her Majesty's Government\" and not the \"Government of the (people of the) United Kingdom\". Likewise, what we would call the early Roman Empire was still a republic - there was no formal \"constitutional change\" that altered it from what we consider the \"true\" Republic - but power was concentrated in one man, who would come to be called \"Emperor\" in western history, who had attained every meaningful political office simultaneously and could override any other body, meaning it was not democratic (strictly speaking, Ancient Rome was never really democratic by our modern standards, but in the Imperial period there was no mechanism for even the elite to collectively exert influence). * The United States of America is, arguably, both a republic and a democracy. Its government officially acts in the interests of the American people, and the vast majority of national political offices are filled through elections. * However, it is also a Federal government: while the government of the United States has power over the entire country, it shares that power with the 50 states, and these states' governments are just as \"sovereign\" as the national government. The Federal Government in Washington DC can not take certain actions against individual states without violating the Constitution. The opposite of a Federal government is a Unitary government, such as the People's Republic of China: while the PRC has granted many responsibilities to smaller regions like cities and provinces, it has no obligation to do so, and could revoke that responsibility at any time; they are legally subordinate to Central People's Government in Beijing. * Sometimes the term \"republic\" is viewed as referring only to unitary states, since the Federal Government \"belongs\" to its constituent parts instead of the people directly. That means that, instead of a single Democratic Republic, the United States could be considered a Democratic Federation of Democratic Republics. * Because the two major political parties in the US are the Democrats and the Republicans, there is some (largely meaningless) political squabbling over how the country is described in textbooks, with each party wanting to de-emphasize the other's chosen term. Because the Democrats are not ideologically committed to Democracy and Republicans are not ideologically committed to Republicanism (they support, **very** broadly speaking, social liberalism and conservative nationalism, respectively), this debate has very little to do with the actual meanings of the terms or their applicability to the modern United States. * EDIT: to answer your last question, it is generally agreed that the Founding Fathers sought to create a republican, democratic society as early as 1776. They were primarily inspired by the Enlightenment, an 18th century intellectual movement against the absolute monarchies that dominated the western world at the time, which specifically embraced democracy and popular sovereignty (i.e., republicanism). * There was some conflict in the first few decades of the United States' existence between the Democratic-Republicans (led by Thomas Jefferson), who wanted a weak federal government and an anti-British foreign policy, and the Federalists (led by Alexander Hamilton), who wanted a strong federal government modeled after Britain - where the President essentially acted as an elected monarch. Both groups advocated some elements of democracy be incorporated into society, however, and none of them opposed a republican government. Formally, Lincoln's [Gettysburg Address]( URL_0 ) 87 years later used the phrase \"government of the people, by the people, for the people\", which is one of the best articulations of simultaneous republicanism and democracy.",
"I think this argument may be based on a slight misunderstanding of American history and a confusion of the different meanings of \"democracy\". The first democracy was Athens in the 6th century BC, in which citizens were randomly chosen as officials, and all citizens formed the legislature; today, we usually use \"democracy\" to mean any system of government which has (more-or-less) free and fair elections, the rule of law, and a respect for human rights in general. The confusion probably arises because at the time America gained its independence, \"democracy\" was a bit of a dirty word. It was synonymous with \"mob rule\" and described by some as \"the tyranny of the majority over the minority\". The complicated system of US presidential elections, involving the infamous Electoral Colleges, was set up to keep the citizenry at arm's length from actual government: they could have a say, but that say was filtered through the Electoral College to ensure they didn't elect a moron -- at least, that was the plan -- and to ensure that heavily populated states didn't consistently overrule less densely populated ones. So when non-Americans say things like, \"But surely, in a democracy, X and Y should be allowed?\" they're using the wider sense of \"a system of government that has elected leaders\"; Americans, though, will recall their history lessons and counter that \"America is not a democracy,\" not realizing that's true only in the negative sense of \"democracy\" as \"mob rule\". Even so, \"democracy\" and \"republic\" are not quite synonymous. For example, the UK is a democracy (in the broad sense), but is not a republic; it is a constitutional monarchy, because its head of state is a monarch whose powers are restricted by law.",
"They're not mutually exclusive terms. Democracy refers to a system of governance in which people vote either for officials (representative democracies) or on specific policies (direct democracy), often times a combination of both. A republic is a structure of government characterized by the absence of a monarch. The United States is a democratic and federal representative republic in which the electorate votes for officials at three main levels of government (federal, state and local) and whose officials craft and vote on legislation and policies in order for them to become law. tl;dr \"America isn't a democracy; it's a republic\" is an incorrect and intellectually false statement because it incorporates elements of both as they refer to different aspects of government.",
"\"Democracy\" and \"Republicanism\" are actually two axes on which all states can be measured at. You'd have the **\"Democracy-Totalism\" axis**, which denotes how much power the state divests into its citizens. A democracy is characterized by the government deriving its legitimacy from the will of the people, by regular elections either directly voting on laws or electing representatives which ought to represent the people that voted for them. A totalitarian state on the other hand has a small clique of people at the top enforce their laws on everyone else. True totalitarianism is however rare nowadays, \"authoriatanism\" is more common. Basically were the state really really insists the people to please follow the govenrments course of action. And you'd have the **\"Republic-Monarchy\" axis** - which denotes how the head of state is determined. In monarcheis the head of state is (usually) hereditary, in Republics they are either elected or appointed. Some examples for the combinations of the the axises: Monarchy-Democratic: UK, Sweden, Netherlands, Belgium Monarchy-Totalitarian: Saudi-Arabia Republic-Democratic: USA, France, Germany, Poland, Italy Republic-Totalitarian: China, Belarus, Cuba, Egypt, Syria",
"In current usage, democracy means the same as republic. Long ago, a republic referred to what we have (where the citizens elect representatives), while a democracy meant what we now call *direct democracy* (where the citizens vote directly on laws and policies).",
"\"Democracy\" is a broader term that covers multiple different types of democracies. A republic is one of the types of democracy, characterized by a government led by representatives elected by the citizens (as opposed to, say, a democracy where each citizen votes on everything, which would be a \"direct democracy\" or an \"Athenian democracy\"). In short, a republic is a representative democracy.",
"Aside from the historical things I think are covered. Almost nothing. A democracy means (some) people vote on stuff. Either they vote themselves or they vote in representatives. A republic is where the government is elected by (some) people. (sometimes people have this to mean a non-monarcharcy government instead) Many people consider the difference, *who* can vote. There's no true democracy, every state has limitations on who can vote. E.g., The 6 month old baby that won't stop crying up next door can't vote. In what most people consider a democracy there is a very wide range of people who can vote. Let's make up numbers and say over 90% of people over 18+ allowed to vote. Let's contrast that with the a the People's Republic of China. This is generally not considered a democracy. Instead of most people over 18 who can vote, it's only members. It's much more restricted and your right to vote can be taken away (you can be kicked out of the party). However, the government is still technically a republic, since there is some voting taking place to elect representatives and pass policy and laws. The difference is the criteria of *who* can vote and the proportion of people who have a say is significantly smaller. I.e., In the context of today only places with near universal suffrage are considered democracies.",
"The most accurate term would be \"democratic republic\", though there is wiggle room with all the terms. A democracy, strictly speaking, involves all legal voters at every level. That is simply not manageable in anything larger than a small town (or perhaps a mid-size city), however. A republic involves representatives sent from the various areas within the governed area. Republics generally have the representatives voting based on their own ideas and interests, sometimes with input from those in the areas they represent. For the first several decades of the US as a nation, Senators were nominated (appointed) by the state government for the state they came from, though today they are elected directly by the residents of each state. House members have always been elected directly. In the middle ages in Europe those with money or land or other large holdings/resources or who were minor royalty in some way could appoint people to represent their interests to the king (or queen). This varied a bit from age to age, but was generally present in some form or another. This is an example of a republic where the average person had no real say in the day to day matters, but where the central authority (the monarch) had some limits or influence applied from below rather than ruling at their whimsy and with no accountability or pay-outs or whathaveyou to anyone. *Edit: example--a duke or lord might have used their knights and/or wealth to influence a king's decision. \"You want to do battle with this other rival king/nation, and need my knights to help you? Ok, let's talk about that highway I proposed last year to connect my fiefdom with that of duke A and lord B on either side of me...for trade purposes. And that university you want to build...I have some land I could \"donate\" to the cause...\", etc.* The US is a little bit of both. We send representatives to every level of governance from school boards to township and county boards and city council all the way up to state and national government. These people compete for votes with their ideas and visions, so while we don't often agree with everything any single individual does or pursues--we do have some element of choice. We can choose the person or persons who come closest to embodying our interests, and in turn we expect that person to pursue those things on our behalf in regards to governance. When their term is up, we can replace them (or try to anyway) or retain them (or try to). In this sense voters have a democratic input over the course of time but not in the day to day. If we don't like what someone has been pursuing, we have the option to replace them or (in some cases) recall them prematurely. But we do not have a direct say in day to day or bill-to-bill matters except as we might do through protests, letter campaigns, and other organizational efforts that may influence the way a representative handles a given situation. As an example, here is a news clip from just a few days ago about [public lands bill HR 621]( URL_0 ), a House bill that would have disposed of a significant amount of public lands in the western US. An overwhelmingly furious response from a very wide array of people across many states persuaded the original sponsor of the bill to not only yank the bill, but to do so with a nod to public influence on their social media page. Click the link (above) for a screen-cap of their response to the pushback. Here is an article [outlining successes in public resistance to Trump's actions so far]( URL_1 ). The Tea Party has a well documented history of outsized influence on politics over the past six or eight years, succeeding tremendously despite \"true\" adherents being in a minority even within the Republican Party. And so on."
],
"score": [
41,
34,
26,
15,
8,
6,
4,
3,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[
"http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26108597"
],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gettysburg_Address"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.outdoorhub.com/news/2017/02/02/outdoorsmen-women-stand-public-land-bill-hr-621-dies/",
"http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/2/6/14473482/resistance-works-anti-trump-protests"
]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
5sswto | To what extent do judges need to "act surprised" in cases such as the review of the travel ban? | To clarify the request: I don't think judges are acting, but I would imagine that with days or weeks to prepare, both the judges and the lawyers are aware of the many of the general avenues to argue the case. Both sides probably have an idea of how events would unfold given pursuit of any of these lines of inquiries. If this is true, then when the hearing actually begins, and the lawyer embarks down a certain path, the judge already knows roughly where the lawyer is going. Nevertheless, the judge needs to remain inquisitive and appropriately challenging, despite many predictable statements, to allow for the lawyer's complete argument to unfold and the specific interpretation of the law or relevant precedents to emerge and finally tip the scales. So I guess the question is, is this true, and what are the customs surrounding this? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ddhk9eq"
],
"text": [
"To be honest, I don't really know that I understand your question. Judges don't need to act surprised at all. It is said that judges step into the court room before the hearing begins with their decision on the issues already made. Lawyers typically submit written arguments in advance of oral hearings, depending on the nature of the hearing."
],
"score": [
12
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
5stcp7 | How is Rule XIX of the U.S. Senate constitutional? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ddhmyc6",
"ddhmoaq"
],
"text": [
"It's literally in the Constitution. Article 1, Section 5, Subsection 2: \"Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.\" The Senate created Rule XIX for itself to govern the behavior of it's senators.",
"Because it isn't a law, in fact the Constitution has nothing to do with it at all. That entire section is setting down how the Senate runs it's business, and includes a clause that basically says \"be civil to your fellow senators\". What Elizabeth Warren said was *technically* a violation, but it is not unreasonable to suggest that the Republicans are selectively enforcing the rules here."
],
"score": [
7,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5stuu0 | why are there other countries like China able to provide students with better education and teachers are held in high regard while the United States struggles? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ddhw1u0"
],
"text": [
"There's a bazillion reasons. The U.S. has some of the best schools around. At any grade level we have world class education, however that's the top of the top. Our bottom of the barrel schools are pathetic. They're underfunded, in bad neighborhoods and have 0 support from the community. I'm not sure how other countries do it but in the U.S. schools are mostly funded by property taxes. So rich neighborhoods pay more per student than poor neighborhoods. Add to that the fact that poor families put less emphasis on education than better off families and you get a bad school with students that don't care. (These are large generalizations, however they are proven to be true in general) Why aren't teachers held in high regard? Well teacher's unions are looked poorly upon. There's a huge debate whether they harm or help students but in America there's a pretty big union vs anti-union debate going on so it's not just teachers. Teachers get 3 months off the job a year, rarely do they have to work a full 40 hour week, in some states teachers can save up to 2 full years of sick days, so they can tell the school they'll be 'sick' for 2 years, continue getting paid and then retire after that, finally getting a college degree in 'education' is seen as a joke to some people because it's perceived as easy. So while everyone knows teachers can be important to students it's also easy to see how it could attract underachievers do to it being perceived as a cushy job. I'm not here to start a fight. I get there are some great teachers but I'm outlining reasons why teachers may not be considered 'in high regard' per the question."
],
"score": [
14
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5sules | When did "the customer is always right" business model start, and why do we still use it despite the issues it causes? | From a business standpoint, how exactly does it help your company more than a "no BS" policy would? A customer is unreasonable and/or abusive, and makes a complaint. Despite evidence of the opposite (including cameras and other employee witnesses), why does HR or management always opt to punish the employee rather than ban the customer? Alternatively, why are abusive, destructive, or otherwise problem-causing customers given free stuff or discounts and invited to return to cause the same problems? I don't know much about how things work on the HR side, but I feel like it takes more time, energy, and money to hire, train, write tax info for, and fire employees rather than to just ban or refuse to bend over backwards for an unreasonable customer. All you have to say is "no" and lose out on that $1000 or so that customer might bring every year rather than spend twice that much on a high turnover rate. I know multibillion dollar companies are famous for this in the sense that they don't want to "lose customers", but there are plenty of mom and pop or independently owned stores that take a "no BS" policy with customers and still stand strong on the business end. Where did the idea of catering to customers no matter what start, and is there a possibility that it might end? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ddhzr9w",
"ddhx6ys",
"ddi7w9a",
"ddi1139",
"ddi54ca",
"ddi20me",
"ddi8p9u",
"ddi2hiq",
"ddic6eg",
"ddi0lak",
"ddi35fe",
"ddi0wv5",
"ddia8dw",
"ddi07ql",
"ddhxea3",
"ddi5vl3",
"ddi18pq",
"ddi54jl",
"ddids3x",
"ddi6gqb",
"ddiirrf",
"ddik5ct",
"ddid05k",
"ddi8tba",
"ddi08u6",
"ddia7ta",
"ddiersm",
"ddi5seq",
"ddi01ze",
"ddi1tr3",
"ddiatzu",
"ddi0rhf",
"ddijtpg",
"ddi2pqa",
"ddi5s9u",
"ddibk82",
"ddi6qvr",
"ddi0s80",
"ddi8cc6",
"ddikwis",
"ddihq5r",
"ddil7ti",
"ddil1pe",
"ddi7dzs",
"ddi0wmo",
"ddi8ftw",
"ddikm00",
"ddi5giu",
"ddifhy0",
"ddik637",
"ddif02h"
],
"text": [
"Some decent posts here but I think one key thing is missing. As a business owner, you do not control the impact that a dissatisfied customer has on your business when he or she recounts the experience. A customer can be 100% wrong in their interaction with a business. You could ban that customer or simply ask him or her to leave. However, when they go out into the world and recount their experience to their friends and family, those people will only hear the customer's side of the story. You as a business owner don't get a seat at they table to explain what actually happened. This can easily dissuade other people from visiting your business and buying from you. So it often makes sense to placate a customer who is not \"right.\" That customer leaves satisfied and may even realize later upon further reflection that he was being a jerk. If he ever recounts his experience to another person, his story is now unequivocally positive. \"Man I was super pissed off the other day after a long day at work. Went to Mike's tacos, and I accidentally ordered the wrong thing. When the waitress brought it I was kind of snotty and told her she better fix it. She did it with a smile even though I was being a dick. She went out of her way to try and give me a good experience. Those are good people at Mike's Tacos.\" Word of mouth is extremely important for local businesses and really any place that has direct customer interaction. Since you can't control the customer's message to the outside world, sometimes it is worth taking a small loss of a rude or wrong customer to help your reputation. This doesn't excuse those people for being assholes, but it is the reality of doing retail business. This doesn't always apply and some customers can really take advantage of satisfaction policies. Repeat bad customs are often banned.",
"EDIT: I've been informed by some alarmingly angry profanity enthusiasts that the origin of the phrase does in fact refer to the [customer service usage]( URL_0 ). So instead please refer to the original answer below as the most USEFUL version of the phrase, rather than the original. --- The \"customer is always right\" is an often abused and misunderstood sentiment. The \"customer is always right\" originally meant that what the customer wants (and thus buys) is more important than what you think. For instance, you're a shoe store. You stock green boots, black boots, and pink boots. Green is your favorite color. You always wear green boots. However, your customers only buy black and pink boots. Those green boots sit dead on your shelf, but you keep stocking them. Even when you could be using that money to stock more black and pink boots. The customer is always right means it doesn't matter that you like green boots. Buy more black and pink and suck it up. The saying got twisted through misunderstanding into some kind of customer service truism that it was never intended as.",
"I think this question confuses 'The Customer is Always Right' with 'Customer abuse of Employees'. Those have always been two separate things. I'm speaking from the experience of working at Customer Service Desks at two different supermarkets: Whole Foods and Wegmans. 'The Customer is Always Right' is the general approach to a customer complaint or concern. There are a couple of things going on. First, if it is a matter of bad product, the cost of the product in question is usually trivial compared to the buying power of any given customer. So if someone comes in with a dozen eggs and says one is cracked, I would tell them to go get another one and mark it paid. I don't know if it cracked in their car going home or it was cracked in the store, but it doesn't matter. I just spent a few dollars to make that customer spend a lot more dollars in the future. Could that system be abused? Yes. And people do abuse it. It happened on occasion that someone would buy prepared food and eat it in the store, but return to the customer service desk with half a plate and complain the food was bad. Of course you know they're angling for a free meal. But again it is risk/reward. The cost of appeasing an abuser is usually less than the cost of accidentally rejecting a real complaint. It also serves to get that customer out of the store as quickly as possible. If they create a scene, it will make other customers unhappy too. Another case is an angry customer. Either they felt like they were treated rudely, or bad product had ruined some plans, or any of a myriad of reasons. 'The Customer is Always Right' in this scenario means deescalation. You need to resolve the anger first before resolving the issue. The quickest way to get this done is appeasement and empathy. Tell them you understand and you apologize and that they're right: it never should have happened. You invite a manager into the mix - which also has the benefit of outnumbering them. People shopping in supermarkets often don't want to be there. Go in with the assumption that someone is having a bad day and you're usually right. If you can make them happy and they leave happy, well then you're the one bright spot in the otherwise crappy day. This brings them back to the store tomorrow. 'Employee Abuse,' however, was NEVER tolerated in any place I worked. Cursing out an employee, yelling and screaming, inappropriate behavior (I had one guy lie down on the service desk as if to take a nap once), or anything physical would get a customer escorted out of the store. At Wegmans, that would have involved a cop and Whole Foods had their own security. Whenever a customer got abusive, the customer was always wrong. It's a health and safety issue at that point. And yes, people do get banned for life. Both stores also have their own 'inventory control' people: essentially undercover shoppers looking for shoplifters or scammers. You didn't want to confront shoplifters yourself, but notify a manager who would notify these folks (we rarely if ever knew who they were). Why does this work at big retail chains and not Mom and Pop stores? It's really economy of scale. Large retail stores are making a lot more money per transaction and doing a whole lot more of them, such that they can absorb the cost of a 'Customer is Always Right' policy. And in the end, you encourage people to return and spend more money with the policy.",
"The Customer is Always right phrase came around during the 50s when the ad business started to boom. It's a similar sentiment as \"you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink\". You may think your customers want a product done a certain way but they buy what they want, and you can't always predict that. You may be selling a superior product in every way but if the customer is only buying the inferior product, then you are wrong. Cater to what the customer wants, even if you the business think you have a better product for them, they want what they want and since they are paying, they are right. This is used as a business model and never intended to be taken literally at a personal level.",
"People have widely misconstrued what \"the customer is always right\" axiom actually means. Not surprisingly, the party mostly responsible for this has been... consumers. We live in an entitled culture. (In the West, anyhow. Sometimes the rest of the world isn't so lucky.) Around the turn of the century and before, shopping for a lot of items was not a self service affair. You were helped by a salesperson or shopkeeper, who was counted on to be more or less knowledgeable about whatever the product in question may be. Even if that item was mundane (a sack of flour, or a pound of nails) it was probably located behind a counter or in a storeroom or otherwise inaccessible. Naturally the customer would tend to turn to this person for advice, particularly with goods like clothing. \"The customer is always right\" really means that despite what the salesperson's opinion or prior experience may be, he should ultimately sell the customer what they ask for. Regardless of how silly or unfashionable it may look on them, or if there is a higher quality version or another product that would earn a fatter commission, whatever -- if the customer wants a specific item, that is what you sell them. Somewhere between the 1960's and 1980's, possibly due to the rise of chain stores, corporate culture, and the possibility for bad word of mouth to spread fast and far via the telephone, TV, nationally syndicated letters to the editor, etc. this got twisted around to the current \"bend over backwards and do anything to prevent the customer from complaining\" compulsion. That's what everyone thinks it means now, but that's not what it originally meant.",
"Harry Gordon Selfridge (founder of Selfridge Stores), John Wanamaker, and Marshall Field (founder of Marshall Fields in Chicago). Selfridge worked at Marshall Field's from 1879 to 1901. Together, 'they advocated that customer complaints should be treated seriously so that customers do not feel cheated or deceived.' The idea was later amended to include the fact that \"customers can be dishonest, have unrealistic expectations, and/or try to misuse a product in ways that void the guarantee.\" URL_0",
"I absolutely ban customers that are abusive or very rude, even if they don't complain. On the flipside, we will happily fix respectful customer's errors out of pocket. The reason is simple: If you treat the customer well they come back. If they buy food that earns us $10 in gross profit, but piss off all the employees doing so, the company is going to lose more than $10 in lost productivity and retention programs. Therefore, every time they come back, they cost the store money. It's better to keep them away. If other customers need us to make an order again so we eat a $5 net loss. But this makes them much more likely to 1) come back and 2) order more expensive food. Even though we ate a 1 time $5 loss, it more than pays for itself down the road. The \"Customer is always right\" is not a business model and any spinless manager who gives in to abusive customers shouldn't be in charge of anyone.",
"The customer is always right refers to trends. Others have provided good examples, but I have one that kind of sticks with me. Let's say I run a burger shop. Meat is obviously superior. Well, the current trend is towards healthier food. People start asking for veggie/tofu/etc. Burgers. I am vehemently opposed to veggie burgers. If there's no meat, then it's not a burger. I can maybe tell one or two people off. If I were in a more rural area, I could maybe get away with no vegetarian options. But I'm in California, full of vegetarian hipsters. So while it pains me, I start advertising a veggie burger. And I could also make a lettuce wrap burger. As a gluten free option. I don't believe in gluten free, but it costs me nothing but pride to wrap a burger in lettuce instead of the bread it belongs in. That's what the customer is always right means. You have to follow the trends and look at what your customer base wants. That's why, even though Carl's Jr/Hardee's advertise themselves as where you can get a real big manly burger, they have natural and vegetarian options. The demand is there.",
"I have been in retail for 18 years. Hopefully getting out after a trade course in May. I would compare customer service to spoiling a shitty 3 year old. When a customer acts out to get there way and a store yields to them whether they are right or not only enables that behavior and shows others how they should act to get there way. The squeeky wheel gets the oil. What I dislike about this the most is the customers that come in every day and do the real \"good customer\" thing don't really get rewarded with anything extra. We just take there money and say come back tomorrow.",
"This expression isn't referring to individual customers, but instead to all customers. It's a statement on capitalism and market forces.",
"I worked at an upscale Seattle bar for a year and they had this policy and it was absolutely awful. I was serving a breakfast shift one weekend morning, and we had an unexpected group of 35 people walk in and want us to set up a huge table for them. I let them know they would have to wait 10-15 minutes for a couple of other tables to leave as we were very busy, and needed to free up tables in order to combine them into one large table. We sat them, took all their drink and breakfast orders and got to work. We had a decent sized kitchen but not a kitchen that could churn out 35 plates at the exact same time, so we brought out meals 5 at a time, we let them know ahead of time this was how it would be. The first people were done eating before we could refill drinks and before the last 5 people got their meals. The lady who had organized to pay for it all, came up to me and asked if she could speak to my manager. I asked her what it was she needed as I could try and answer her questions (my manager had a newborn baby and was always busy with he baby). She started yelling at me saying I gave them awful service, that I should be fired for not attending them and checking Thier table every 5 minutes for glass refills, serving their food at different intervals, ect... The lady wouldn't calm down, so finally I went and grabbed my manager from her office to speak with this evil woman. The woman demanded that their entire bill be free, and that I should have to pay for it. Mind you we were an upscale Seattle bar, so our food plates were between 16-23$, and drinks were anywhere from 8-15$. These people had a bill of over 1200$!!!! That was my entire months paycheck. I didn't get into any trouble as my boss knew it wasn't my fault, she had to explain over and over again to the lady, that her bringing 35 people to a restaurant last minute was very unheard of and pretty unacceptable to expect basically a catering service last minute like that. In the end my boss gave them half off of their entire meal order, and gave them a 100$ gift certificate to come back and try us again. I couldn't believe she wanted that lady to come back, or that she gave that lady 600$ off her entire bill. Not to mention they left me no tip. That table took up my entire serving shift, so I made no money, when usually I would walk away with 200$ or more. This is the kind of \"thhe customer is always right\" mentality that is so fucked up with the service industry!!!",
"In Texas, where I live, it is common to see a sign in small businesses that says, \"We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone.\" This is the prevailing sentiment among the people with who I am acquainted. If a would-be customer causes a problem in a business, *any* sort of problem, he is free to take his ass on down the road. Nobody has any right to be served in any business where I've ever worked. Either you behave yourself, or GTFO.",
"I've worked Customer Service in one form or another for about 15 years, from home repair to food service to tech support. The most successful CS departments strictly refuse to follow the mantra of 'the customer is always right.' The most successful CS departments work on a mantra of providing accurate information and as much time as the customer demands of you. Currently, I work for a joint car company/telecom project dealing with onboard touch-screen radios similar to Onstar. Average Hold Time is something strictly ignored unless you're going UNDER 5 minutes. Then, they want to know why you're not spending more time with the customers. We can take as much time as needed to satisfy the customer's demands, as long as we're capable of doing so, and when we're not capable of supplying the solution, we tell them in simple terms while expressing our empathy for their situation. In short, if a customer wants free service without a qualifying reason such as a documented failing on our end, we'll apologize as often as is required by the customer, but we'll never promise them anything we can't deliver and we'll never break the rules to make them happy. 'the customer is always right' has led to the idea that if the customer complains loud enough and long enough, they'll get what they want. And with some companies, that'll work. Not with all companies, though.",
"One of my business professors used to say, \"the customer is always right, but not everyone has to be your customer\"",
"I have no idea where it started. It has been implemented for the most part to assure customer satisfaction. It is rare you get the abusive client. These people know what buttons to push and where. It's almist a career for them. The bigger the company, the more liability it will have. Trying to keep them quiet is a way to control a horrible PR story getting to the real customers. A woman was wearing a fancy dress and went to push on the door, catching her sleeve on the bar. She was furious at the company and demanded a new dress. We had clear video of what she did, but she was very loud and ready to involve courts. The company paid for a dress. Trying to out out fires are sometimes easier when they're smaller. I have seen some egregious and litigious behavior over many years. You have to weigh your opinions. It's not about who's right and who's wrong. Our society does not work that way. The headlines and hearsay will read to make the big company the bad guy because it's a better story. Small businesses can in some way cushion the blow better because they rely more on word of mouth and it's customer growth can be stable. Plus, not a likely target for the people trying to sue for big sums of money. Edit: grammar",
"Gonna let you in on a secret. It's because it allows the higher ups to place more pressure on the lower workers while portraying a kind environment. Lemme break it down. There's a company in my town called Stew Leonard's. They employ a shit ton of people. They follow that rule, and even add another cheeky one: \"If the customer is not right, see rule #1\". Yeah, very funny. Anyway, the people that work there are just happy that they have a job in this terrible town. They're told promotions lie in the their future if they work hard. And that does happen... Sometimes. Really it's just a way to control them. Give them a challenges they have to follow and trick them into competing against each other all while the honchos work far away in a separate building. But hey, put on those jeans and they're just like us! Now kiss your king's boots.",
"\"The customer is always right\" has mutated in meaning since its origin. Originally it meant that you should change your inventory + service based on what the marketplace demands. Best modern example of this is how Netflix's model to not have ads is \"right\" because they dominate the marketplace over other streaming services that kept ads. Today: the idea that it means you shouldn't argue with a customer making demands is a bullshit marketing ploy more than a business model. At McDonalds, the customer is always right is not practically true (they stopped having ketchup + napkins out because the customers (and non-customers) were taking too many) but the idea is that arguing with the customer is less profitable than just getting them out of the way. The thing is, most McDonalds' don't really do that. It's just this marketed impression that you can get away with it. But yes, try telling McDonalds that you require UNSALTED FRIES. See what happens with \"how right\" you are. By law they are required to literally make a separate batch of fries due to how they produce the salted fries, but this would disrupt + cause so much problems they'll just tell you they can't do that. Best Buy used to have this model where they'd not even check returns for anything or require a reason. My friend had the top of the line graphics card perpetually for 2 years because of this return policy. It wasn't until people started buying items and there'd be slices of pizza in the box because someone returned it with fake shit inside that they had to think \"ok maybe the customer can go fuck themselves.\"",
"> Despite evidence of the opposite (including cameras and other employee witnesses), why does HR or management always opt to punish the employee rather than ban the customer? in today's economy and culture, it is far easier to find a new employee than to get a new customer. however as far as i'm concerned, any company that goes so far as to fire an employee just because a jackass customer demands it is one that isn't going to get my business. happy employees ensure happy customers. > I feel like it takes more time, energy, and money to hire, train, write tax info for, and fire employees rather than to just ban or refuse to bend over backwards for an unreasonable customer. All you have to say is \"no\" and lose out on that $1000 or so that customer might bring every year rather than spend twice that much on a high turnover rate. because on the business side, the customer brings in money but the employee costs money. from that perspective, it's better to preserve your source of income and eliminate an operating cost, especially if it's not one that you absolutely have to replace right this second. > Where did the idea of catering to customers no matter what start, and is there a possibility that it might end? when you're dealing with a truly free-market economy, the one where the consumers are the ones who dictate which companies will survive or fail, then if you want your company to profit and grow you need to cater to the customer as much as possible to attract and retain their business... and that meant giving them whatever they wanted, no matter how wrong they might be. even though we're not in a free-market economy (we're in a very litigious, profit-centric economy where the focus is on quarterly balance sheets and shareholder happiness), it's often less costly to give the customer what they're asking or go so far as to draw up a settlement with them than to have them sue you. lawsuits are public, expensive, and drive away customers. when will it end? those mom & pop stores that take the \"no BS\" policy often do so with a good dose of common sense, and likely their reputation within the community is solid enough that whoever goes out and bitches to the world isn't going to be taken seriously. so when the rest of the world employs common sense along with those small stores, then it'll end and we can realize that sometimes the business did the right thing, or what we're asking them to do is out of line.",
"\"The Customer is Always Right\" is not a *business model* (which describes the essence of a business, what it does, and how it makes and uses money), and despite the use of the word \"always,\" it's not a *maxim* or *axiom* or *law*. When a customer has a complaint or dispute, \"the Customer is Always Right\" is a *rule of thumb* that businesses often employ in attempt to achieve the best long-term outcome for the business. The Customer is Always Right is used to describe the behavior of the business when the customer is *actually wrong*! It typically means placating the customer: * to avoid the time and cost of nuisance, * to save a sale or deal, * to the increase the chance of continued patronage (and revenue), or * to protect the business's reputation Now, the situation you describe is extreme: an employee is fired to placate a customer (who is not right). I can think of a few situations in which the wrongful-firing approach might be reasonable (from the standpoint of the company): * the value the customer brings (or is expected to bring) to the business *significantly* outweighs all the costs of firing and re-hiring as you mentioned, * the company is extremely large and the employee is low-value, unskilled or minimally-skilled, and replaceable with little effort, or * the customer appears to be willing and able to inflict significant harm on the business's reputation. Yet in all these examples, the customer would probably have to *demand* the employee be fired.",
"I am currently mobile and will need to go back and confirm my source, but \"The customer is always right.\" (assuming I'm remembering correctly and my sources aren't bullshit) has come to take on a twisted sort of meaning in that the customer should always get their way. What it actually meant whwn it was first said, was that the customer ultimately knows what they want more than you do, even if what they want will not help them or is bad. That companies need to cater their products and services to their customers needs and wants rather than coming up with a product or service and trying to convince people they need it.",
"Fuck the customer always being right. I was told a story from a co worker about a guy that came in to order a pizza. This pizza has a white sauce, chicken, bacon, chives, and parmesan cheese, but the guy only wanted the sauce, chicken, and cheese. My co workers tell him it won't taste very good, and offer to add different toppings to it. He declines and says make it the way he wants. They make the pizza, box it up, and send him on his way. He comes back in a couple minutes later complaining that the pizza doesn't taste good and he wants them to make another one for free. They tell him no and say we told you it wouldn't taste good and that you could have added other toppings. He gets upset and leaves. He comes back and asks are they really not going to make him another pizza. They say only if he's paying for another one. He leaves. He then comes back and asks again, which they decline again, and this time he grabs a couple plastic forks and throws them at them and runs out. Well it was slick outside, he slips on a snowbank and almost gets his legs ran over by a car. Jumps up runs across the street and doesn't come back. About 15 minutes later, they get a phone call from the guys girlfriend saying her boyfriend bought a pizza and it was just chicken, sauce, and cheese and it didn't taste good like that. They said we know, we told him that and offered other toppings which he declined. She asked if they'd make another one and they said only if they were paying, she hung up.",
"It creates lack of respect among true loyal patrons. The screamer has no loyalty to that store. He/she will go where ever it pleases them, not where they get good service & a good product. His/her friends will know they are complainers of everything. When other patrons see the accommodation to assholes they lose respect for the business when they see principles and standards are lowered for a buck. In fact they see it as greedy. As for the employees, a study showed they feel abandoned by administration and look out for themselves where as employees that feel supported put the customer first and satisfaction scores go up. URL_2 URL_0 URL_3 URL_1 A Boston shop owner received complaints from an elderly irate customer because his employee would not open the store on a Sunday for her to return shirts. She flamed his business on Facebook. He welcomed her to return the items, informed her that his employees had responsibilities to their families and loved ones, and banned her from his stores. His business tripled. Don't be a blind slave to a phrase created in 1909 when human beings were not greedy and were courteous by nature. Customers are now dishonest, have unrealistic expectations and want something for nothing. Progress to the times of now. Can you imagine what life would be like if we kept draining peoples blood when we thought they had a disease? In South Florida the electronic stores changed their policy for video camera returns. Why? People were buying them to film their relatives bar mitzvah, birthdays, or other special events instead of paying for the camera or hiring a videographer. How did they find out? The tapes of the events were left in the cameras when they were returned. Progress. Re-adjust. Be realistic.",
"what's with all the deleted posts? I WANNA KNOW!!",
"As someone with 10+ years of Customer Service experience, I straight up won't work for companies who follow the \"Customer is always right\" policy. In the past, when facing abuse from customers (name-calling or just plain rudeness etc.), my managers have ALWAYS stuck up for me and banned or \"fired\" the customer from doing business with us. And it made me work that much harder. I think its old-fashioned style of doing business and many new companies don't believe in it any longer.",
"\"The customer is always right\" is more of a concept rather than literal marching orders. It simply means that the onus is on the employees in an establishment to cater to the customer rather than the customer adapting to fit the establishment. The reason why this has been kept around is because although it sucks for the employee it is much better for the customer whenever they interact with a customer service employee. And then that employee gets to enjoy that benefit whenever they go anywhere. For example you can walk into Target and the sales people are supposed to bend over backwards to help you. Other posters have said that this is predominantly a trait of American culture which is certainly true. In Europe there is more concern for employee's wellbeing and as a result usually the standard of customer service in places such as resturaunt or gas station is lower than in North America. The trade off is that the person behind the counter won't want to commit murder as often. Source- 5 very long years in the service industry on both sides of the Atlantic.",
"MBA, worked in business strategy. People are touching on the customer perception aspect, which is great, but they're missing the point. The Customer is always right comes from the 50's. However, it was a literal business strategy. The most famous legend of the story is [Nordstrom and the tire return.]( URL_0 ) During the 50's, people really started to get savvy about corporate strategy and started to build out a lot of the modern frameworks that are still used today. One of the most important marketing frameworks works like this: you can work on differentiating your product or service, making the service or product a higher quality, or you can be a cost leader. If you are tackling all three, you aren't using your resources efficiently, and your company becomes luke warm tea, which is to say not particularly good at anything. No one likes look warm tea. Competitors will come along who do any three of those dimensions better and will take most of your business. Customer is always right is the differentiation of service. Customers will go to your store if they trust your company and enjoy the service they receive. The idea is a single customer might cost you money with their BS, but you attract customers who will pay your slightly higher prices for products that they can get elsewhere. You will see this all over the place. Your favorite Italian restaurant might not be the cheapest, and the food might be nearly identical to their competitors, but the environment and service might be better. Or take LL Bean and their no question asked return policy. What a lot of companies focus on is not the day to day costs that they incur, but the long term life time value of customers.",
"All I know is 20 years of retail has given me this super power of hating people before they even talk. So that's cool",
"This has nothing to do with individual customers, but large groups of them and how their opinion should affect your business model and practices. You make a sharper knife, let's say. Studies show that the sharper the knife, the safer and better it is at doing the job. But the customers disagree with the science. They fear the sharper knife will hurt them. Who is right? Well, the customers have the money. And they're using it to buy the duller knives your competitor is selling...so....",
"A statement my father made on the subject has stuck with me- The customer is NOT always right, but the customer IS always the customer. This idea has helped guide me through discussions with challenging customers, always remembering who ultimately pays the bills.",
"I interpreted it more along the lines of \"Defy logic, make them think they are right.\" I worked at a dog daycare for $9.25 an hour. I tried to explain to difficult or upset (usually wealthy) customers the situation logically. After that failed I decided to say \"You're right. This and that was wrong. I or the employee made a mistake. Policy will be reevaluated and/or disciplinary action will be taken.\" Then I did nothing and never heard about it again.",
"I will say, I am proud to work for a boss who believes the customer is not always right. We work in a service based industry, and we see our fair share of complaints. If there isn't a good basis, or we get into it with a customer, he backs us 120%. If we are rude, there is a good basis, or something was our fault, he also backs us with what we need to do to take care of the customer and keep them coming back. He's pretty awesome and doesn't put up with people trying to game free stuff.",
"Because the second one store starts it, they beat out their competition. if anyone stopped doing it, they simply couldnt compete. Think about it; If A store today allowed its employees to ignore or deny customers, even if they want something ridiculously stupid, then they would lose a customer. they could just go somewhere else, as more than likely there's a store nearby that does the exact same thing, AND treats all their customers better than their employees. Essentially, get used to being treated like shit at your job :/ On the plus side, private businesses, if you can find them, typically treat their employees pretty damn fair.",
"Another storytime!: I worked at a large (no longer existant) bookstore chain in a large city while I was in college. We were in the middle of tourist central, and holidays were chaotic with lines wrapping around the store. We would offer free gift wrapping for as long as our supplies lasted as a courtesy, that we all happily obliged. Flash forward to two days after the holiday rush, an elderly woman comes in, and goes to purchase a few children's books. I ring her up in my sing song voice, and she asks me if we will wrap these for her. I look and notice we have zero wrapping paper left, so I let her know that whole we have no more free wrapping paper left, we do sell wrapping paper in our stationary section, and I would even wrap it for her with that if she'd like. Well...She proceeds to expel some heavy cursing from her around 80 year old mouth, and goes towards our stationary section. I shrug it off and wait for her to come back. She came back alright, and proceeded to hit me over the head with a roll of wrapping paper while cursing at me. All this over a holiday 'courtesy'.... Our loss prevention guys come over, pick her up and remove her....Also find she was trying to steal Harlequin novels in her saddle bag (alot of people would steal these in mass to resell on street tables). TL;DR: Cashier (me) has run out of \"while supplies last\" wrapping paper AFTER the holidays, gets beaten over the head with wrapping g paper roll by 80 year old woman who is also stealing Harlequin novels. I have soooooo many stories from that place, large bookstores in metropolitan areas just breed curiosities.",
"I had a boss who always said, you have to give the illusion that the customer is always right, even if they are a pig headed twat.",
"\"Several retail concern used this as a slogan from the early 20th century onward. In the USA it is particularly associated with Marshall Field's department store, Chicago .... Several retail concern used this as a slogan from the early 20th century onward. In the USA it is particularly associated with Marshall Field's department store, Chicago\" The trading policy and the phrase were well-known by the early 20th century. From the Kansas City Star, January 1911 we have a piece about a local country store that was modelled on Field's/Selfridges: [George E.] \"Scott has done in the country what Marshall Field did in Chicago, Wannamaker did in New York and Selfridge in London. In his store he follows the Field rule and assumes that the customer is always right.\" sauce - URL_0",
"Story time: Work in a smaller shop, sell some agricultural and electrical equipment. A product we sold to a customer broke down within the 1 year warranty period. They brought it in for servicing or replacement. Husband and wife team, they were belligerent, angry, accusatory, the whole nine yards. They seemed to feed off each others anger, proportionately getting madder when the other speaks. The kind of customers that make you wish for a meteor to come flying in at just that moment. But you just keep going and kill them with kindness and professionalism. We take the unit to the back for a quick inspection. Turns out the guy had made massive alterations to it. New welds, changed alignments and everything. And he did not do a good job of it either. When confronted he said he was trying to fix our flawed design and wanted a full refund AND a new unit for his troubles. Escalated to the company president who eventually asked them to take their broken unit and leave the premises. This customer was most definitely not always right.",
"I'm not sure if the saying was ever meant to be taken literally. At least I certainly don't. I run a business in the service industry and we try to use that saying as a way to get you in the right frame of mind for dealing with a customer. The way I look at it is. \"The customer is always right, until proven otherwise\". If the customer brings up a concern, you immediately assume they're right to be concerned. You DON'T speculate and you DON'T go on the defensive until you investigate the matter. \"I will look into your concern and rectify the issue right away\" A lot of the time they're right to be concerned and because you took the \"customer is always right\" stance to begin with, you defused the situation and pacified the customer. Follow up and fix the concern and more often than not, you'll look like a hero. Now even though your company screwed up, you've still got a happy customer as well as a referral. Sometimes the customer is not right. Willingly allowing your customers the right to take advantage of you is not a good business model. And I'd be surprised if there are any successful companies that actually promote that saying in the literal sense.",
"\"Customer is always right\" I believed started with the first modern department store known as Selfridges. It's still open today! Started by an American too! URL_0 URL_1",
"Fuck the idea of \"the customer is always right\". That's why people are so goddamn spoiled and rude. Just like parents who spoil their kids. Imo, the company/employees are 1st. The product is 2nd. And the customers are 3rd. If the customers don't like my shit fuck'm they can go somewhere else. I ain't about coddling to everyone's stupid ass preferences and shit. Lol",
"I have been told, though take this with a grain of salt, that a lot of people misinterpret the phrase to mean \"the customer always gets what they want\" when it should more correctly understood as \"always take the customer seriously/at face value.\" Essentially... don't call the customer a liar, treat them and their views with respect. So if they tell you that a gorilla is ransacking produce, then by all means give them a \"yes ma'am I'll go look right into it.\" If they say \"I found all these eggs were broken right as I walked out the door,\" you don't respond with \"are you sure that's what happened, sir?\" even if you saw their toddler smashing them yourself. However, if your store has a no refund policy on dairy, you would still not be out of line to say, \"I completely believe you sir, but as it is our store is unable to offer a refund on those eggs.\" You might offer a straight replacement though. This means you don't just let customers use expired coupons, or curse at you, or return obviously damaged goods, it just means you take what they have to say as a legitimate concern that is worth your time.",
"Speaking from the perspective of the hotel business (I'm a partial investor in one) you have to strike a balance. In the late 80's, Hampton Inn ran a \"satisfaction guaranteed or your stay's on us\" campaign, which caused such enormous chaos with their franchisees (due to very high volume of complaints solely to get the free room) that they had to terminate the campaign and a lot of them actually had to put up very carefully worded signs that they did not honor that promotion due to rampant abuse. The home office tried to spin it 'paid off in the end with repeat business' that they 'tracked' but talk to any franchisee who was around during that era, advertising that was an unmitigated disaster. Now, on the internet, where every idiot is nuclear-capable with other peoples reputations, it makes things even dicier, particularly for a small business when it comes to dealing with predatory customers (since they're going to have a small internet footprint where a complaint could be very overweight), but there is hope... Things are changing for the better. The internet has been around long enough now that people aren't as widely influenced by a bad review as they once were. Not even 10 years back, a single bad review could cause real trouble in your online bookings, Now, people tend to evaluate the whole picture, meaning that while you do strive to make everyone happy, when you get that psycho who cannot be pleased, a calm response to their unwinnable complaint (online or otherwise) is usually enough for the customers to realize what they're seeing. So, for us anyway, the formula isn't 'the customer is always right'. The formula for us, in a nutshell, is more like \"Work as hard as possible to make the customer happy but if you encounter a hostile or adversarial customer who won't let you win, then they're not right and fuck them... and if they go whine on the internet, we'll be right there to rebut everything they say\".",
"When people realized that they make more money dealing with a few outliers, than imposing their own views and opinions on their customers.",
"It's easier to please an outlandish customer than it is to deal with and fight possible bad PR that customer could bring upon your business.",
"You misunderstand that statement, \"the customer is always right\". The idea behind this is overall trends, not specific customers. If you have an item in inventory that doesnt sell, take it off your shelf.",
"What you have here is a total misunderstanding. Nothing you've written in the post is particularly accurate or true in business, you just don't understand the phrase you're trying to use. If the company you work at is like this, I would look for another job.",
"I agree. The \"customer is always right\" model has given some customers carte blanche to be tremendous douchebags to employees. I feel like there should be a defined set of circumstances in which HR or an employee should be able to tell a customer to go fuck themselves. Everyone i know has a story of a customer being a jackass.",
"Capitalism. Its not supposed to be taken verbatim, its just meant to be a mindset or motif for interacting with a customer. If you act as if the customer is always right, the customer will like you, theyll feel good around you, theyll recommend you. If one thing goes bad and the customer feels shitty about the experience they may damage your image. So, sometimes you take a loss on giving them something for free so that they recommend and keep coming back to you giving you a larger net gain.",
"\"The customer is always right\" DOES NOT mean \"the customer is always entitled to get/do whatever he or she wants.\" When I was in sales this came up a lot - someone would come in stating that they need x y and z for some project. I could tell them that x y and z won't work and instead they need a b and c. If they objected or wouldn't listen, then I would just sell them what they want, because who am I to talk them out of spending money if they insist upon it.",
"The answer is actually pretty simple. A lot of people suggest that is has to do with customer experience and word of mouth: I will argue that this is not true. There are industries, such as ISPs, where it really doesn't matter what the customer thinks. They're going to go ahead and do what they want to do regardless of what any subscriber thinks. Look at Comcast, and Charter, and how they've been buying everything up. Both of these companies suck, and everyone knows they suck. But they are operating on the other business paradigm \"The provider is always right.\". The market tends to prefer \"The customer is always right.\"; both from a consumer perspective and a business perspective. A business might prefer it because it is a **part** of what keeps large companies from growing too large as to threaten monopolies. Microsoft, for instance, also takes the \"vendor is always right\" approach. The \"customer is right\" paradigm is intended to empower both boycott and word of mouth advertising which are instrumental market mechanisms when it comes to the survival of smaller businesses. Because if the largest business in the industry gets to set the rules: then they will easily shut out the competition. As has been entirely the case with ISPs land-locking their competition out of the market by owning all of the infrastructure in the ground. The only solution to this is if an even bigger company comes along and makes an even bigger investment. Such has been the case with Google Fiber. We prefer the \"customer is always right\" model because it is far healthier for a diverse and distributed economy than the \"vendor is always right model\". It has nothing to do with whether or not they're actually right. It has to deal with empowerment of the consumer.",
"There is no specific source for the whole \"The customer is always right\" mindset when it comes to retail. There's been some arguments as to where it likely started, yes, but nothing you could specifically say \"this is where it began.\" The best arguments I've heard seem to point to it starting sometime in the 1900's with the Woolworth's chain of stores. They were a simple five and dime chain that later grew into something far larger. In any case, Woolworth's had this policy to never argue with the customers, regardless of the reason. Given that the most something in their stores could cost was ten cents (this later changed, of course, as inflation took over), then the store really wasn't out much if a patron wished to argue that something cost five cents; as opposed to ten cents. From there, the idea that the retail salesman (there were few if any sales ladies at this time) was there to serve, and not to argue or haggle over prices, seemed to take hold. Over time, the idea that \"the customer is always right\" has evolved some. Many companies, such as Wal-Mart once held to this, though in recent years they have opted to change. Back until about 1996, Wal-Mart had a policy that regardless of WHEN you bought something from their store, you could always return that item, whether damaged or not, and get full price or an exchange. No questions asked. Around 96, though, this rule changed, with receipts being required and a whole host of regulations and limitations coming into play. Now, even in situations where a store claims \"the customer is always right\" the saying is more often applied with the addition \"except when he is wrong.\" The latter being very important when it comes to the more technical nature of many products being sold such as computers, or highly technical electronics. As to the idea ever ending? Honestly I don't see that happening any time soon. There would have to be a massive shift in attitudes, and let's be honest here; people don't like to be told they're wrong, even when it's painfully obvious that's the fact. Thus, while we can't positively say WHERE the idea started, we can be certain that it will be with us for some time to come.",
"Not at my business. Lady came in, I was sitting in my employee break room ( I am the owner ). She walks over and taps loudly on the lockbox over the thermostat and asks: \"Hey, can you turn this down, it's hot in here?\" I told her no, I could not. She asked : \"Well, why not?!\" (already starting to get angry and loud). I told her because I didn't want to. I also said I am not turning the A/C on when it's 50 degrees (F) outside. She lost it. Called me rude, said she couldn't believe I would talk to a woman that way (wtf? I literally said two sentences), etc and so on. Said she wouldn't give our business money and left. Now the backstory is, we are a hair salon. When the stylists use their tools in their rooms, obviously the room they are in heats up ( the thermostat controls the whole building). The stylist that was working on this client complained about her room being hot earlier (gee, it might have to do with the red hot hair dryers you are using, I'm no expert though). I told her to crack her windows because it's 50 degrees outside. She said okay, then didn't listen to me. Anyhow, I killed the lady with kindness as she was losing her shit on me. I believe she was just embarrassed for acting like a moron and eventually she left, after I made it clear that customers don't control the thermostat in my building, and they certainly don't just walk in and make demands. Before we had the lockboxes on the thermostats, we had problems with people freezing out the A/C because they would leave them set too low overnight. I guarantee, had I not been sitting right there and had there not been a lockbox on that thermostat, that customer would have adjusted it herself. She certainly looked like she wanted to. I'm a small business owner, not a frickin' tycoon. Anyways, I never heard from that lady again, and she never left a negative review, probably because she realized how stupid she was acting. I took the amount our stylist would have made from that lady and subtracted it from her rent for that week, because I'm a nice guy, not as an admission of guilt. Screw customers like that."
],
"score": [
5023,
4416,
2964,
2328,
131,
118,
52,
47,
31,
30,
28,
26,
18,
17,
17,
16,
12,
12,
11,
10,
10,
10,
9,
9,
8,
8,
7,
7,
6,
6,
6,
6,
6,
5,
5,
5,
5,
4,
4,
4,
4,
3,
3,
3,
3,
3,
3,
3,
3,
3,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[
"https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_customer_is_always_right"
],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_customer_is_always_right#cite_note-4"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.businessinsider.com/southwest-airlines-puts-employees-first-2015-7",
"http://positivesharing.com/2008/03/top-5-reasons-why-the-customer-is-always-right-is-wrong/",
"http://www.inc.com/larry-kim/is-the-customer-always-right-not-a-chance.html",
"http://www.inc.com/oscar-raymundo/richard-branson-companies-should-put-employees-first.html"
],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.snopes.com/business/consumer/nordstrom.asp"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/106700.html"
],
[],
[],
[
"https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Gordon_Selfridge",
"https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_customer_is_always_right"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
5sutz9 | Why did the U.S. begin a political party system despite George Washington explicitly saying not to? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ddhytuh"
],
"text": [
"Mainly because it's really effective if you're a politician to formalize alliances. Political parties needed to be warned because they are common in legislative bodies if unregulated. It makes things easier for you to know that members of your party are obliged to vote the same way you are."
],
"score": [
6
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5sv77i | Who/what is the "Chair" of the Senate, and who tells him/her what to do? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ddi2b22",
"ddi2jf9"
],
"text": [
"The [president pro tempore of the senate]( URL_1 ), meaning president for a time, is the second highest ranking Senator and a senator who serves as something like acting senate president in absence of the Vice President. The position was created in the Constitution (Article I Section 3): > The Senate shall choose their other Officers, and also a President pro tempore, in the absence of the Vice President, or when he shall exercise the Office of President of the United States. In practice, the president pro tempore frequently delegates the day to day operations of presiding over the senate to more junior members of his party to provide them practice with the parliamentary process, and senators address whomever is filling the role with the honorary titles. The woman conferring with the Senator presiding over the senate is possibly to be the [Senate's Parliamentarian]( URL_0 ), who is their senior adviser on Senate rules and proceedings.",
"So, the most important thing to remember about the senate is that everything happens first in Committees. Each committee has a specific job that they specialize in (armed services, agriculture, education, energy, etc). Every bill goes through one of these committees during its creation to get approved before heading to the full house/senate for a vote. Each of these committees has several sub-committees that are relatively small (~5-7 senators) with a Chair and a Ranking Member. The Chair is responsible for heading the sub-committee and making sure the rules are followed. The Ranking member is just the longest-serving member on the committee (sometimes the same person). The other members of the subcommittee debate the finer points of the bill and write* the specific legislation. Once the subcommittee is done with the bill, it goes to the larger committee for a vote to get onto the floor of the senate, then goes to the floor of the senate for the overall up/down vote (the part that you saw). tl;dr: the Chair is the person who ok'd the bill to go onto the floor of the senate for a vote, and that person whispering in their ear was likely a ranking member or their staff assistant providing help."
],
"score": [
4,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_MacDonough",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_pro_tempore_of_the_United_States_Senate"
],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5svfca | Given its once immense popularity, how did Latin become a 'dead language'? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ddi3t5d",
"ddi860v",
"ddi780i"
],
"text": [
"Latin evolved into the other romance languages (French, Spanish, Italian, etc). So in that respect it had the same the fate of almost all human languages, which is that they evolve over time into new languages. But second, Latin was also *kept alive* in its original form. This is a lot more rare, and only happens to languages that are especially prominent for some reason (in Latin's case, as the language of learning and religion for much of Western Europe). So you get this weird dichotomy where the language still exists (classical Latin), but nobody speaks it - instead they speak its children and derivatives.",
"As others have said, Latin did not \"die\" so much as it experienced linguistic drift and differentiated into French, Italian, Romanian, Spanish, etc., which coexisted alongside the Catholic Church's codified (and largely static) Church Latin. However, it's important to ask- why did this happen as the Roman Empire fell? Simple: Latin as a *lingua franca* of Roman Europe was only possible because Roman civilization operated a sophisticated transport and postal system that connected one end of the Mediterranean to the other. Latin originated as one of many languages that was spoken on the Italian peninsula - specifically in a region called Latium, which contained the location where the city of Rome would be founded. Due to a variety of historical factors, the speakers of Latin - who would come to be called Romans, or Italians, constructed a civilization that dominated most of Europe for the next millennium. This created a very strong pressure for anyone living under or near Roman rule - a category that included most of Europe - to learn Latin. As Rome collapsed (a process which took centuries, roughly from 200 to 476 AD), the institutions of Roman government weakened, and especially in the Western Empire, the people of Gaul, Britain, Hispania, and Dacia (among other places) no longer had any real incentive to speak \"proper Latin\". Language drifts naturally, and without these connections to one another, the Latin dialects of the different Roman provinces grew apart, and were occasionally replaced entirely (the mixed Latin and Celtic languages spoken in Britain, for instance, were slowly replaced by the Germanic languages of the Angles and Saxons that invaded Britain after the Romans left). The Eastern Empire, which contained advanced civilizations dominated by the Romans (like Greece, Egypt, and Judea) rather than disunited barbarians first \"civilized\" by the Romans (as was the case in the West) - simply reverted to their own native tongues, although they usually bore some marks of Latin influence. This is why Greece, for instance, still speaks a form of the Greek language, and not a Romance language with Greek influence. However, one very important Roman institution survived the fall, and more or less replaced Roman unity with its own: the Catholic Church. However, the Catholic Church's scope was extremely limited compared to the Empire, and it could not reverse the decline in literacy and transcontinental communication and trade. While it maintained use of a formalized version of Latin - called Church Latin - its use was restricted to a shrinking class of literate clergy, spread very thin throughout the increasingly disconnected, rural post-Roman world. If Church Latin did not exist, it is likely that we would not consider Latin to be a dead language - Italian would be acknowledged as the modern form of Latin, much as Modern Greek is acknowledged as the modern form of Ancient Greek (despite the two languages being about as different as Ancient Latin and Italian). tl;dr- Latin did what all languages do: it evolved. However, due to the existence of Catholicism in Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages, its older form was preserved alongside the newer dialects. We call the older form, which is no longer spoken outside a religious or scientific context, \"Latin\", and the newer dialects \"Romance Languages\". Like with biological evolution, hard distinctions like this are a human conceit, and there is no clear point at which two dialects become different languages.",
"There were two forces pulling on Latin. The Catholic church wanted Latin to remain static and unchanging, reflecting its use in many of their sacred books. They taught this Latin to their priests, and to students in Catholic schools. This is the Latin of educated people, and it was used, at least in mass, until 1965. It's still around, as the reference language for Catholicism. It's called a \"dead language\" because it doesn't change to adopt new words. Because God used all the words you really need to know in the Bible. (OK, that last bit's an exaggeration). The other force pulling on Latin was \"ease of use\" by the large majority of the population which was not highly educated. New discoveries, existing local dialect, and changing expressions, what we call \"slang\" today, were not welcome in Catholic Latin. However, they were used a lot in daily life. What started as a local Latin dialect came to be recognized as a separate Romance language."
],
"score": [
23,
13,
4
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5svzbn | Why is the US dime smaller than the nickel? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ddiayb6",
"ddi8ksl"
],
"text": [
"The value of coins used to be based on the precious metals they contained. Pennies were copper, and other coins were silver, which is why the dime was smaller than a quarter or half-dollar, and about the size of the less valuable penny. There used to be a coin called a half-dime, which was even smaller than a dime. It was replaced by the nickel, which was copper alloyed with a little nickel to give it a silver finish. The nickel is larger because copper and nickel is worth less than silver. These days there are no longer any silver coins being minted for general circulation in the US, but the traditional sizes have been retained.",
"Speculation ahead! At the creation, the nickel was made of nickel and the dime was made of silver. Relative value of these two medals influenced their size significantly."
],
"score": [
18,
11
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5sw04m | The political spectrum, i.e. the right, the left, the conservatives, liberals etc.? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ddia9hg"
],
"text": [
"Very simply: the modern period of politics - and basically everything else - began with the French Revolution. The absolute monarchy was replaced with a fairly unstable republic composed of many different factions. The Jacobins, who advocated radical change of French society and were very anti-clergy, sat on the left side of the assembly chamber. The Montagnards, who were more conservative and pro-clergy, and opposed major alterations to society, sat on the right side. Because this was the first major example of a representative democracy in Europe for well over a thousand years, that distinction became the model of representative democratic politics which would slowly spread through Europe over the next century, and the rest of the world in the next. In almost all political systems, it is an oversimplification: the \"left-wing\" of a political system advocates positions which usually involve altering society and may support greater social equality, and the \"right-wing\" of a political system advocates positions which usually involve preserving society's current state or reverting it to an earlier one, and may support greater individual freedom. These directives conflict with one another quite often, and both the left and right contain many factions which disagree with one another (for instance, establishment conservatives like John McCain have very little in common with people like Donald Trump). Generally, both sides advocate for a stronger government when they are in power and a more constrained government when they are not. This seems to be fairly universal across most western democracies."
],
"score": [
6
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5sw0cy | Why do companies post job vacancies that are already planned to be filled internally or even not at all? | In watching job vacancies and talking to current employees, I've noticed that a number of companies (especially larger ones) often publicly post a job vacancy with seemingly no intent to hire outside...and sometimes with no intent to hire at all, that the position is actually being eliminated. | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ddi93t3",
"ddi8q5y",
"ddilt0o",
"ddiangg"
],
"text": [
"Many large companies require a very precise policy be followed when hiring someone. This generally requires publicly posting the position, accepting resumes, and quite often even interviewing a minimum number of candidates (often at least three). They require hiring managers to jump through these hoops for a few reasons 1) It forces the manager to document every step of the process and ensures they're doing their due diligence to hire the best candidate instead of whoever's convenient. 2) It makes it much harder to hire someone unqualified, especially due to favoritism or bribery (If you collect 5 resumes for a position and the one you hire is by far the worst, that will raise a red flag with HR) 3) It protects the company from liability (if someone tries to sue claiming unfair hiring procedures, these requirements and documentation much it much harder for the plaintiff to win that law suit.)",
"Usually corporate policy. I was hired from an internship and my bosses were required to put out a classified ad and make me go through the application/interview process. I guess so that if things were to go sour and I turned out to be a lying manipulator, they had documented evidence that they did things legally and through the right means.",
"If the intended internal hire is someone on some kinds of visa, it is required to post the job publicly so you can document that no qualified citizens are applying for it. You can often spot these postings because the list of requirements and qualifications will be ridiculously specific.",
"HR departments often require all openings to be posted externally, to prevent nepotism and ensure that managers do their due diligence when evaluating candidates. Managers, on the other hand, when they have a qualified internal candidate in might, will often do the absolute minimum to comply with HR, so that external candidates will be discouraged."
],
"score": [
13,
6,
3,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
5swc0y | How the notion of "a god/gods" came around | I've been wondering about this for a while, as I don't understand how we'd come up with an idea like that without being crazy (Abraham for an example heard to kill his son from some mytholigical creature). I'm just frankly interested in how did they come up with these. | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ddicng7"
],
"text": [
"I'm not really able to give an in depth answer as I'm quite tired and it's nearly midnight, but I'll try in case nobody else sees this and answers you. I think its safe to say that most cultures started off broadly animistic, so without any real sense of how anything in nature worked everything was 'magical'. Questions as broad as why the sun moves across the sky to why pebbles in streams are rounded were way out of the realms of our knowledge. People began to explain the forces of nature around them in allegorical stories in oral traditions; folk tales were the only way information (and entertainment) could be handed down through generations. I personally think an emphasis should be placed by anthropologists on how young people died back in our early history too, 15 was basically 'middle age' - and it was in no way long enough for their brains to come to logical conclusions about the world around them before having their own kids (and subsequently brainwashing them with their own oral traditions/folktales/religious teachings.) The world was a scarier place to our ancestors, and death lurked everywhere. They didn't understand disease or anything like that, so they started to sacrifice to or worship/talk to forces of nature because thats all they could do. Sometimes it would work, sometimes it would not - but of course it was always coincidence either way. As time goes on, oral traditions get more grand. Each generation adds their own part onto the stories about creation and the forces of nature until they've basically become anthropomorphism characters in stories. Hence, they are no longer just a 'river spirit' for instance, but a God. Theres some theories surrounding many cultures, about when basically the concept of a God changed from being nature based to man based. As an example, in Norse and Germanic culture, there were two sets of Gods. One was the Vanir which largely represented fertility and the forces of nature. The other was the Aesir who despite also personifying forces of nature, were also often cited as being the first tribe through which all of the Germanic tribes originated. Odin, the chief god of the Aesir (or Woden, Wotan depending on culture) was always linked to the tribal chief or King at the time. In other words, it is likely that they saw their own ancestors (and king's) actions as being divine in addition to the world around them. They were no longer just pawns being played by the forces of nature but a force themselves. Monotheism came along in the middle east - no doubt most notoriously in Judaism, but the truth is that it was tried a few times before that as a system of control. Within polytheism, you have multiple Gods and temples to which you can turn to meaning the political power of the religion is essentially split. (You're unlikely to go to the temple of Mars in Rome for instance, if you work as a midwife - so therefore the religion kept everyone's opinions on things roughly divided.) In Ancient Egypt, a rule known as Khem began outlawing other temples except that of the 'one' God, Atun (a sun God which has many parallels to Jesus it has to be said.) The move was purely political as it removed the power of the priesthood. As the Pharaoh therefore had all the religious power religion, as well as politics, could be brought to bare on the population. I think (not entirely sure) that the next ruler after him restored polytheism however. The Abrahamic faith which came out of Palestine has many parallels and borrows literally hundreds of aspects of older religions from surrounding provinces - but ultimately monotheism (especially the 'conversion' tactics) is purely a political and domination tool which has been used to scare the commoners into submission with stories of bogeymen. Admittedly, perhaps it has had some role in civilising the planet, but only after the deaths of untold millions who would refuse conversion."
],
"score": [
4
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
5swe9n | Why is a president commenting on a judicial procedure not a violation of the separation of powers? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ddic0ew",
"ddic3ls"
],
"text": [
"He is allowed to comment all he likes. He is even allowed (and often expected) to fight judicial procedures in court. What he can't do is order his executive branch to directly violate the court findings.",
"The separation of powers refers to the distribution of legal powers between the branches. Making public comments is not a legal government power and isn't regulated by the Constitution. Any member of a branch of government can make comments about how another branch is being run."
],
"score": [
5,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5swoed | Why is gentrification a bad thing? | I googled the definition: "the process of renovating and improving a house or district so that it conforms to middle-class taste." Improving sounds great! However.. I understand that this term has some racial connotations, and is generally thrown around as a negative thing. Please explain. | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ddifdia",
"ddif4ou",
"ddiel5h",
"ddieich",
"ddihlhd"
],
"text": [
"Setting issues of race aside, gentrification usually means housing costs go up. If you're making $28k a year, you're almost certainly renting your housing. Then a bunch of young engineers and lawyers and doctors start moving into your neighborhood. They have more money than you to throw around. Landlords are able to charge more for rent because more tenants have extra cash, and before long your landlord starts raising the rent because if you can't afford it, they have three new engineering grads who *can* afford it. So you may have to move to a different, cheaper neighborhood to continue making ends meet. So it drastically impacts the make-up of a neighborhood and ends up displacing people who may have called the community home for years. I call a college town home, and it has a neighborhood right by campus that was once home to inexpensive housing for students, but it's now all being bought up and replaced by faux urban warehouse style apartments at luxury prices. What was once a great convenience for international students who couldn't afford a car becaue they're paying twice or three times the tuition of locals is now being turned into a hipster paradise for rich kids who can't bear to live without sealed concrete flooring and stainless steel appliances. This is just part of the natural flow of the market and may not be inherently immoral, but these are just some of the reasons it's controversial.",
"Gentrification in practice is domestic colonization. Middle to upper class white people move into neighborhoods traditionally inhabited by people of color, and in the process, build new luxury homes and apartments, trendy restaurants...etc. This makes the neighborhood more desirable for other middle and upper class white people, which causes rent and property values to skyrocket. The end result is that the people of color who have lived in that neighborhood, usually for a very long time, are forced out as they can't afford to live there any more.",
"Gentrification is a bad thing because it makes people lose their homes and businesses because they can no longer afford the neighborhood. Some of these have been there for decades.",
"My understanding is that the idea itself is nice, build a community up so that it is worth more, and on the whole everybody wins. With a higher community value, the taxes become higher so the community can improve itsself. But what ends up happening is the middle class moves to a lower class neiborhood, and ups the value, causing an increase of the cost of living there. This is great for the few families who \"Gentrified\" the community, but makes it so that those who lived there originally can no longer afford it, and therefore have to move to the next, low income community.",
"Not only does the cost of housing go up, as excellently described above, but the rest of the neighborhood starts to change as well. Hipster/trendy restaurants move in to cater to the wealthier market, driving up business rents so that the reasonably priced, authentic places can't afford to renew their lease. Eventually there's nowhere affordable for the original residents to patronize. Repeat with all the other local services: drycleaners displacing laundromats, yoga studios replacing gyms, \"vintage clothing\" stores unseating the local goodwill/salvation army, Starbucks forcing out the local coffee shop, Whole Foods driving out the local grocer. And then the new residents start calling the police whenever a dark skinned person walks by; regular patrols are beefed up. Outdoor benches get removed and parks get closed up at night to discourage loiterers and vagrants. Street parking gets rescinded in favor of private garages. The problem isn't the neighborhood getting \"nicer\", it's that the original occupants get forced out."
],
"score": [
10,
6,
3,
3,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
5sx1s1 | Why do most people from latin american countries like argentina and uruguay look caucasian while their neighbors like chile and paraguay look more hispanic? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ddilz5a"
],
"text": [
"Hispanic refers to the culture from Spanish or Portuguese heirloom. The word you are looking for is 'native american'. Argentina and Uruguay, and some areas of Latin America haven't mixed themselves in with the locals, so it really depends on how much native and european blood each has. Argentina and Uruguay, and other south american countries had an influx of European immigration after World War 2, so they revamped their european-ness recently. Most of countries like Mexico, on the other hand, are dominantly mixed races, so it would depend on how much European lineage they have. Terms like mestizo, mulato, black, white, and other racial terms are still reflected among the people, and people breed within their own racial group. Indigenous people mix with indigenous people, and caucasian latin americans, mix with other caucasians in some countries. There is a large racial profiling and stereotyping thanks to this. Me as caucasian mexican, have trouble in the states, or Europe, as I dont look 'mexican' enough."
],
"score": [
6
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5sxu2i | Micro-agression vs. curiosity | What is a micro aggression? More specifically how do you differentiate between being curious and being micro-agressive? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ddip4nl",
"ddipwcd"
],
"text": [
"Microagression: Something a person says or does, either on purpose or accidentally, that seems a little racist, sexist, etc. An example would be telling an Asian person, \"Wow! You speak English surprisingly well,\" even though they could very well be from an English-speaking country. Something blatantly racist, such as refusing to hire anybody who's a member of a certain race, would not count as a microagression. Curiosity: Asking about something you genuinely don't understand. It doesn't necessarily have to have any implications of a person being intolerant or prejudiced. There can be some overlap between the two, such as when someone asks about something stereotypical. An example would be saying to a black person, \"Do you people really eat a lot of fried chicken and watermelon?\" if they actually believe that that's what members of that race eat. The categorization is really just based on whether the comment has stereotypical/racist implications. However, the terms are by no means mutually exclusive.",
"A note ahead of time: I don't really like the phrase \"microaggression.\" Personally, I think microagressions essentially boil down to being a rude or clumsy conversationalist, and sociologists just felt like coining a new buzzword so they attached a marginalization component to it. (Being rude = being rude, but being rude to a marginalized person in a way that is (incidentally or intentionally) related their marginalized status = microaggression) But, on to your question: You don't. Not really, anyway. Microaggressions are (often inadvertent or unconscious) assumptions we make, behaviors we engage in, or actions we take that are inflammatory or damaging to the affected individual. So, off the bat, we run in to a secondary question -- how can I be sure if a random person will be offended by something or not? The answer is that you can't. So, what you do is do the best you can to be cognizant of things people might be sensitive about, and if curious, to be tactful in how you approach a subject. For example, if you have a co-worker whose ethnicity you can't determine, \"What are you?\" probably isn't a good ice-breaker question. You might be genuinely curious about their background and not intending to offend them, but it would still likely make them feel uncomfortable."
],
"score": [
7,
4
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
5sxvxx | What specifically were white people afraid would happen if they used the same water fountain as black people? | It makes sense that schools were separated, because there were learned social differences, but why water fountains? Did they simply perceive other races to have worse hygiene? Or were they superstitious about race-specific diseases? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ddiuv1i",
"ddj4k2y",
"ddj0hk1",
"ddj1c8d"
],
"text": [
"White supremacists had everyone believing that black folks were inferior, disgusting, half - beast people. In their minds, drinking from a black persons water fountain was like sticking your head in a horse trough.",
"Would you drink from a dog bowl? That's closer to the mentality. When you consider drinking from a dogs bowl there is an instant gut reaction of disgust.",
"It was not fear, or superstition that created these policies, (though certainly some individuals actually believed this) it was simply a means to control and assert dominance over another group. There were many similar myths propagated to support slavery as well, they were lies told to justify the exploitation of others.",
"They considered (and many people still consider) black people to be sub-human, so sharing anything with black people was seen as sharing with animals."
],
"score": [
21,
9,
6,
4
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
5sy3bv | Habeas Corpus (US Law) | Hey guys, I'm working on a paper for a legal anthropology class, and I need a little help to make sure I'm understanding the concept of "habeas corpus" properly. Can any of you guys in the PoliSci community help me out? Also, if able, can you guys also explain what the whole suspension of this law was for? Like I said, I have a general idea but I'd like to hear input from people among the actual political science community. Before I get down to writing my thesis and researching it, I'd like to make sure I know what I'm getting into. | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ddiqls1"
],
"text": [
"If you are confined by the government, you have the right to be brought before a judge and challenge your confinement. This typically applies only to people who have not been convicted of a crime, and are merely being held against their will. It is a check against law enforcement locking you up without due process. *Habeas corpus* was a part of English common law, and was specifically granted by the US Constitution. The Constitution says *habeas corpus* can be suspended \"in cases of rebellion or invasion\". It was suspended during and after the Civil War, and is currently suspended for various terror suspects. The idea is that in a war-like situation, those who fight against the US should be treated more like enemy prisoners and less like citizen lawbreakers."
],
"score": [
3
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
5sy4f1 | what's the difference between a police chief and a sheriff? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ddiqtp9",
"ddiqhpn"
],
"text": [
"Every county (or Parish in Louisiana/Borough in Alaska) has an elected Sheriff. The Sherriff is technically the highest-ranking sworn law enforcement officer in a given area. The Sherriff is in charge of the Sherriff's Department of the county and the officers that work for him are Deputies. The Sherriff's Department has county-wide jurisdiction as well as control of the jails, courthouses, and county-owned property. A police chief is in charge of the police department of a particular city or town. How they are hired is at the discretion of the municipality. Some may be elected, others may be appointed. It just depends. The police department will have jurisdiction in their city/town. Generally, it works like this: If you live in Townsville and call 911, the Townsville PD will show up to your door. If you live outside the Townsville limit, then the county Sherriff's Department will show up. With about 18,000 law enforcement agencies in the US, there are a lot of variances. Some counties have county police departments and don't use the Sherriff's department as traditional law enforcement. It really all depends on the state you're in and the county within that state. Source: I'm a cop.",
"Generally: A police chief is the top law enforcement official in a town or city. The chief is hired by the local government and reports to the mayor, city manager or other official or body. A sheriff is the top law enforcement official in a county, and is elected by the people of the county."
],
"score": [
8,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5sy8bu | Why do people have the urge to procrastinate even though it's inefficient? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ddirzh8"
],
"text": [
"Sometimes it's secretly tied to low self esteem. If you have a project that you genuinely aren't certain you can do well enough on or finish in time, and you try your hardest and fail, then you know for certain you 'failed'. On the other hand, if you can justify to yourself that the reason you didn't do well was because you \"didn't have time\" to give it your full attention, then you can pretend you might have done better if the circumstances were different and just blame the situation instead of yourself. People who procrastinate might have actually shown a lot of talent when they were younger. They were praised for work they found relatively easy and told they were inherently smart. Later, when the tasks become more advanced and they start being genuinely challenged, they still kept that mindset where \"everything should be inherently easy for you because you're so smart and talented. If you're genuinely struggling then that just means you're not good enough and all the praise you received before was misplaced.\" See imposter syndrome for details. Anyway, this self deprecating mindset can cause someone to freeze up and really struggle with tasks. Just one possible scenario."
],
"score": [
3
],
"text_urls": [
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5sz0xc | What does it mean when Americans talk about their country as the land of freedom? In what way does it differ from for example European countries (and many other)? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ddixh1x",
"ddiyk92",
"ddjausx",
"ddiy7bh",
"ddj5oyj",
"ddixco6",
"ddj03h2",
"ddjczlv",
"ddj271l",
"ddj0y84",
"ddj4ixm",
"ddj4m52",
"ddjlvc0",
"ddj9pwl",
"ddjb10i",
"ddj8msp",
"ddj832t"
],
"text": [
"It's also historical: in the 1800s in particular, immigration was unlimited, the West was wide open, and people from anywhere in the world were able to go to the USA and succeed or fail on their own merits. But the history glosses over the losers in that race: how free are you if you're dead?",
"URL_0 The difference between European freedom of speech and American freedom of speech. American freedom of speech is there to protect the person who is saying things others may be offended or disgusted by. You are allowed to have and express any opinion so long as it does not place people in immediate danger.",
"The fundamental difference between American and European Freedom^^TM is the concept of negative vs. positive freedom and where we get our rights from. Negative freedom is the freedom FROM government action. It's a restriction on what the government can to do you. In the American concept you have the freedom of speech, to own a gun, to privacy, of religion, of the press, etc. The government doesn't say, you can't say that, you can't own that, you can't hide that, you can't worship that, you can't print that. The government is prohibited from action. Positive freedom is the freedom TO government action. Look at European governments on what the government must do for you. You are free to not be offended, not be unsafe, not be bothered, not be sick, etc. You have a freedom TO be something, but it is a compulsion of the government to provide it. In Germany the government is tasked with protecting the equal dignity of all. So that means the government can impose upon others to ensure your (positive) freedom. America is unique as it is the only country which takes negative freedom to such an extreme. America says \"yes, literal not even the neo- version, NAZIs have a right to march through Jewish neighborhoods to celebrate the holocaust.\" There's not this government having the ability to compel some social norm or protection. There's this government having the mandate not to restrict someone else's rights. Second, America has a vastly different idea of where rights come from. Rights, especially in Europe are seen as derived from some agreement or some historical moment or something along those lines. Rights, thus, can be created, amended, or done away with when times change. In America, rights are inherent in your being. You don't have the right to say whats on your mind free from government interference because it was a good idea in the 1780s-1790s, you have that right because it is God-given. > We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; **that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights;** that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It's not government, its a state of natural existence, that people have rights. These \"unalienable\" (because what government is equal to divine providence?) rights are part of you and the government either recognizes and protects these rights, infringes on the rights, or its not a right. And because these rights are granted by the creator, divine providence, the supreme being, or God... they are contained within His creation and not within government (creation of man) or the behavior of others so it's a rejection of positive freedom. Because freedom, in the American sense, is self-contained (you can act as YOU wish because YOU have free will) and government is not the final power or arbiter on what are rights government can not impinge on your self-contained free-will (so be an asshole, no freedom not to be offended). So that's the two ways it mainly differs from other countries. Edit: Sorry, I know I'm late to the party but the foremost explanation of what I'm trying to say comes from the Virginia Declaration of Rights, mainly the first clause: > Section 1. That all men are by nature equally free and independent and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.",
"As an American ex-pat, who knows? I was raised with the whole \"America is the land of the free, goddammit!\" but after living in the UK for the past decade I feel much freer here. For example: I have freedom from going bankrupt if I get a debilitating illness. I have freedom (mostly) from being shot by some dumb ass kid with a shotgun. I have freedom from somebody trying to teach my kids creationism instead of science. You know, little things like that.",
"I will offer that your impression of Americans is based on a small subsection of our population. It is a vocal, in-your-face subsection for sure, but that's what gets youtube clicks or makes headlines. Our country was founded on principles that were uncommon at the time. Then, monarchies existed all over the world and ultimately our Revolution was used as an example by some others including those in Europe to mount their own. One could argue that our American freedoms were originally touted by some Europeans as a goal. Today you, I, and pretty much every other regular person in the world want the same things - peace, prosperity and a good future for our children. Those few I mentioned above are what you see on youtube, but most of us are just like you. Following your premise, I would believe that all Finns herd reindeer and wear their skins as coats.",
"It is a mantra. I do not know if it differs from modern European countries. The only firearms I ever had were government owned. But when I drove a thousand miles North to Minnesota I regretted not having my passport. That meant I could only travel in a rectangle about three thousand miles wide.",
"When the national anthem was first written, America was a pretty true bastion of freedom. Nowdays, most first world countries have caught up to the US in terms of freedom. I suspect many of the more nationalistic US citizens would quote the second amendment as being the main difference, but that's it. Other countries are arguably more free because they don't have to pay outrageous healthcare bills.",
"Its because we were a collection of colonies. It took some brilliant political strategies to unify us. Historically the American concept of freedom is rooted in economics. The idea of inalienable rights, the pursuit of happiness, is a statement affirming entrepreneurial pursuits. The wording of our historical documents reflects the necessity to unify against the most powerful countries in the world for an extended amount of time. We are absolute savages and our revolution, if I am correct, goes down as one of the most successful in history. The idea that social freedoms are written into these documents is a modern translation and subject to individual interpretation.",
"\"The land of freedom\" is derived from a historical statement. America was the first country to usher in a new era - one where monarchies died and personal rights increased. The immigration of the English to North America (previously called the colonies, controlled by the British) was in an attempt to escape Britain. These people built a country from nothing, all while the strongest country in the world tried to stop them. Untrained farmers with no experience in war fought incredible amounts of British soldiers, outnumbered. What this all means is that the America back then was the land of the free - the only place you could go to escape tyranny. The colonists won the war against the British because they fought for freedom, and they felt there was nothing more important. **Now here is the important part - America is not the land of the free, it never has been.** In a sense it is, we do have rights granted to us by the government. But they can also be taken away. The NSA (National Security Agency) continuously spies on its citizens day by day by tapping phone calls, creating digital signatures on its people, and tagging them with locations. I won't go into detail about how terrifying this all is, as it would take too long. We do not choose who gets to be president. The electoral college, an inexperienced and potentially corrupt collection of people do. Lobbyists influence the creation of laws by bribing legislature. We have imprisoned Japanese-Americans, solely because we believed that they may be spies for the Japanese government during World War 2. **Above all of this, we are one of the least democratic of the democratic nations in the world. I believe we are ranked 20 in the world. Not bad, but not terribly good for the 'land of the free'.**",
"In some ways, you're right, it doesn't make sense. After all, America incarcerates a greater percentage of its population than any other country in the world, and has extreme penalties for even small offenses - how can they call themselves the \"land of freedom\" given this? But in other ways, they have a point. For instance, as far as political speech goes, the US is about as free as you can get - other first-world countries like France, Germany, and England claim to have free speech, but have *extremely* oppressive laws about \"hate\" speech and the like. That said, yes, it's mostly just historical as others have said.",
"I'm not particularly familiar with European law but it's my understanding that I have much more freedom than a European. 1) Guns. I read about some knives even being illegal in the U.K. 2) Freedom of Speech is far stronger here. Europe has hate speech laws etc, wants to fine facebook for not censoring etc. while untrue and bigoted statements aren't always socially acceptable they aren't illegal and shouldn't be. I might not agree with what you have to say but I'll fight to the death for your right to say it. Only unpopular speech needs protection. 3) Self Defense Laws work differently in most US States. Where I live I'm not required to attempt to retreat or escape an attacker to claim self defense. This law counts with regards to not only armed but also unarmed defense. It's wrong to expect an innocent person to be forced to retreat from someone committing evil. I can stand my ground, say what I want, shoot (or beat) the guy in the face and then call the police if he attacks me. These freedoms are vastly superior to those in Europe or some US States. 4) These are a few of the current actual freedoms we enjoy. There are many more that once existed or were intended by the founding fathers (freedom from unreasonable search and seizure etc) 5) Historically full freedoms were mostly only intended for white, landowning males. This is because the US was founded as a republic (not a democracy)(platonic model of republic) and the founding fathers were largely wealthy slave holders and we're exclusively males of European (almost all British) descent. They saw these conditions as the best perameters to identify individuals worthy of self governance. Historically the majority of freedoms were intended only for this class of people and others were intended to remain slaves forever. This is one of the concepts that is now absent from mainstream American discourse.",
"I think the people that thought of it meant freedom from paying taxes to England. These days I think it means freedom to do whatever you can get away with. That's what our leadership is showing us anyways.",
"America was the first country in the history of the world to be founded on the premise that the People were in control, that the government existed to serve the people and not the reverse. Individual liberty and the right to pursue happiness are guaranteed to every citizen under the Constitution. This is unique to America. When you hear the term American Exceptionalism this is to which it refers.",
"We are the land of the free because of the third amendment! We can't be forced to quarter troops in peacetime! /s",
"Some people forget that the United States was the first nation to create a republic, rather than having one small group or king as a leader. The government was an experiment that had never been done before and other countries (even the founding fathers) envisioned the nation not lasting longer than a century. It is incredible that the Americans were able to keep the country united enough (even through a civil war) to be able to spread its republican values to other nations.",
"It has to do with the concept of positive vs negative freedom. American history has placed a very high value on negative freedoms- things that the government cannot prevent. If you look at the Bill of Rights, there is a lot of \"Congress shall make no law\", it's about restricting the government. This is in contrast to positive freedoms, which are things which the government must provide for you. Also, the American conception of rights is that they are not given by the government, they are God-given; this means that if your country does not allow you to, for example, own firearms, you still have the right, your government is just infringing on it.",
"We are much less free than we used to be. Our government was first designed to be federal, as opposed to national. The power was in the state governments and the federal government was meant to hold them together and protect them. Each state government was treated as an experiment in government. This allowed the citizen the freedom to move to the state which had laws favorable to their family, religion, and business. The freedom to move being more important than the power to vote in many ways. States with favorable laws would attract citizens, and states with onerous laws would deter citizens. The progressives in the progressive era didn't like the idea of citizens moving to avoid their laws, so they promoted, and were successful in having changes made that gave the federal government more power, the 16th and 17th amendments being some of these changes. I would argue that now we have a national government as opposed to a federal government. The main desire of progressives is to have a one world government. With a one world government, people will not be able to move to avoid laws they don't like. Progressives love government, and they want you to be under their control. They think that they know how to run your life better than you do."
],
"score": [
624,
181,
32,
28,
18,
9,
9,
8,
8,
6,
6,
5,
4,
3,
3,
3,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[
"http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/07/07/europes-freedom-of-speech-fail/"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5sz7wt | Why is peanut butter half the price of actual peanuts if it takes more effort to produce it? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ddj0q1z",
"ddiyipn",
"ddiym7x",
"ddj8iid",
"ddk5xo2",
"ddj7ij8",
"ddjgacl"
],
"text": [
"You assume the peanuts that go into a jar of peanut butter are the same ones that go into a bag of peanuts. They're not. The food that you buy whole (e.g. peanuts, tomatoes, potatoes, strawberries) are the best of the crop. The food that you buy processed into some other form (e.g. peanut butter, tomato sauce, tater tots, strawberry jam) are the small or bruised or misshapen or damaged parts of the crop. The appearance or condition doesn't matter because it's not going to retain that form when processed anyway. People will pay more for nicely formed, pretty produce. So the stuff you buy whole in the supermarket (or _lightly_ processed, like a jar of roasted nuts) is more expensive than the produce that goes into highly processed foods (where highly processed = it doesn't retain any of it's original shape or form).",
"According to [this web site]( URL_0 ), it's much cheaper to make peanut butter at home than to buy it ready-made, which would go against your premise. But then I found [this site]( URL_1 ) which backs up your premise, and showing it costs a lot *more* to make peanut butter at home. So why the discrepancy? The second link might shed some light on it: > Note: I used all organic ingredients for the homemade version and was somewhat limited by what was available at Peapod. If you have access to bulk bins or un-shelled peanuts, you can likely bring the cost of the peanuts down by quite a bit... > I feel sure that more cost-effective sources of peanuts can be found at local markets. So it seems like the answer is to buy un-shelled peanuts, in bulk. You're paying a premium when you buy peanuts because they've been shelled and packed into small packages. This a) pushes the cost of manufacture up, and perhaps more importantly b) means we are prepared to pay more for the convenience of having them this way.",
"The price of an item doesn't have to be directly tied to the cost to produce it; often times a business is more interested in the price customers are willing to pay for an item. If customers are willing to pay more for unprocessed peanuts than they are for the equivalent amount of peanut butter, then a company will gladly charge more for the peanuts even if they don't cost more to produce. (An example of this came from a previous thread about child rates at movie theaters -- it costs the same to have a child in your theater as it does an adult, but they still charge less because families may not be willing to pay full price for all their children.) There may be other issues such as peanut quality specific to peanut butter as well, but I don't want to speculate on those. I know more about pricing than I do about food processing.",
"It's because they can use any peanut to make peanut butter, regardless of cosmetic flaws, or size. Actual peanuts, usually have some kind of quality control for the nicer looking peanuts, or size. It's a grading process. When they harvest peanuts, they determine based on size, and quality, what's what. I literally live in the middle of a peanut field in Virginia, and lease the property to peanut farmers to pay the personal property tax.",
"I actually work for a peanut butter manufacturer and am a roaster supervisor. There are a lot of different kinds of peanuts and a major factor when making peanut butter is the aflatoxin levels in the peanuts. How you sort the peanuts is a major factor into what peanut lots you can use for the final product. There are many many more factors that go into it. The color of the roasted product, the viscosity, the quality as far as the aflatoxin specifications which differs based on if you are making an EU product or domestic. Shits complicated.",
"I buy peanuts in bulk to make PB at home, and it's way cheaper than store bought PB. But look up how cheap peanuts are when you start buying them by the ton. In the quantities PB manufacturers buy them at, they're almost free.",
"Long story short, because they replace the peanut oil with other plant oils. Peanut oil sells for a lot of money so they remove the peanut oil and replace it with a cheaper oil like linseed. The peanut butter tastes pretty much the same and they get the extra profit from selling the peanut oil. The increased profit from selling the oil, combined with the fact that ugly, broken and deformed peanuts that wouldn't sell very well as whole nuts (aka cheap peanuts) are used allows them to sell the peanut butter for cheap. There is a downside for people with allergies. Because it's not always clear what oil was used to replace the peanut oil some people with allergies have to avoid peanut products because they are allergic to some oils even though they aren't allergic to peanuts."
],
"score": [
416,
129,
26,
11,
6,
4,
4
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[
"http://www.squawkfox.com/peanut-butter-recipes/",
"http://www.thekitchn.com/make-or-buy-peanut-butter-153019"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5szkko | - Why is Capitalism seen as the "standard" model of society across the globe? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ddj8wsg",
"ddizu4x",
"ddjds4y",
"ddjwts8",
"ddj8nru",
"ddjv242",
"ddk0wtg",
"ddjwkbd",
"ddj0far",
"ddjarlq",
"ddjaot5",
"ddjagyr",
"ddjgn1s",
"ddjz8re",
"ddj8dcx",
"ddja7ib"
],
"text": [
"Unlike people in this post are saying, it's not because it's \"more efficient\" or \"because it actually works\". It's due to a lot of historical events. Capitalism is global because capitalism countries won the ideological war against the other systems, to put it simply. The Bourgeoisie won over the French Revolution and changed the world's politics because of that. They adapted the previous representative system that kings used to listen to people into the modern concept of representative republic (more on it in this video: URL_0 ). In the process, they also obtained control over the means of production (such as lands), and the system they devised also excluded most of the population from the political process. Having control over the means of production gives the controllers A LOT of power over other people's lives. Economic power and political power are directly correlated, and capitalism favors the concentration of economic power in the hand of a few. That creates a vicious cycle, where people with more power can acquire even more power. If you try to overthrow them, you'll find yourself fighting against the monopoly of force. It's beneficial to the people in power for the system to continue operating, and that's why it still operates, and why there's so much propaganda on \"it working properly\". I know people will come and say \"ok, so if communism is better why didn't it won over capitalism on the USSR?\". That also has some historical explanations: Marx himself believed that capitalism made industrial development a lot more efficient, and when he talked about implementing communism he was talking about doing it in fully developed industrialized countries. Russia was an agricultural country back at the times of the revolution (and yet, in just some years, it was about as industrialized as the rest of the world, in a much shorter timestamp). Nevertheless, communism is also the control of the means of production by the hands of the *workers*. USSR had the means of production in the hands of a *representative republic*, which can be easily be controlled by private interest. The actual workers were still alienated from the value of their work. That is, USSR's communism is not that far away from the capitalist system, and some social scientists, such as Noam Chomsky, call that system a \"State capitalism\". Why do I talk about propaganda? Because capitalism doesn't \"work\". It just generates value in the hands of a few and drives industrial progress towards that goal, but that by no means is inherently good. We're all seeing the effects of the industrialization on the environment. We all see that people still die of hunger every day. Unemployment rates are getting to an absurd point, because industrialization is driving automation for efficient profit, and that has as a consequence that less people need to work. I don't wish to imply communism is the solution for such problems. I think my point is that a good economic system should be fit for people in general, and not for those in power. Communism tries to address that, but it has its own set of criticism among other socialist authors (such as Bakunin, Kropotkin, or Bookchin). Rojava has an interesting experiment in a truly democratic society, inspired by the work of Bookchin, where economy is planned to benefit people in general, not just private interests. It is working well, even if you consider they are in a state of war against the daesh. EDIT: I'm having to argue over and over and over and over again on how socialism doesn't imply central planning, and I'm tired of it, so please, PLEASE, read about more socialism models than the USSR model. Please. This is an example: URL_1 It's by no means the only one. EDIT 2: Thanks for the gold, anonymous stranger! I believe I could have worded this answer a lot better if I had more time for research, but my point is that most capitalist apologists completely ignore both the moral grounds for capitalism (which Weber did a great job on writing about it) and the historical reasons on why it became so pervasive (which Marx and Chomsky also wrote very well about). EDIT 3: while I consider myself an anarchist (not a communist or marxist - although I do like Marx's historical analysis), I find it funny that, even though I explicitly stated that I don't wish to imply communism is the solution for the problems of capitalism, most capitalism advocates are still insisting in pointing that \"communism failed and capitalism is better\". So... thank you to prove you have not read the post, I guess?",
"Primarily because it is the most effective economic model that works within the confines of human behavior. It incentivizes increased effort via increased reward, and from a historical context, has it's roots in our very earliest civilizations, whereas other economic models such as socialism are much more recent. Of course in all economic models there are numerous differences in implementation. Words like Capitalism, Socialism, Communism, etc. are abstract concepts that don't exist in pure form, they are thus implemented via a variety of economic models, many of which borrow the abstract concept's title.",
"Nitpick: it isn't a 'model of society', it's just the economic idea that people who have money can use it to invest in someone else's business, rather than keep it in a bank or wherever. As opposed to the Marxist idea that that sort of private ownership is bad and the people (for which read the state) should be the primary investor.",
"It has, so far, proven the most effective and efficient means of leveraging the incentives of large numbers of people to deliver most of the needs of societies with a minimum need of government or other central guidance. Being run by humans, it also exhibits and in some cases magnifies some of the less desirable traits of humanity, such as greed, but compared to alternatives such as central planning (the old Soviet model, for example), it's proven notably better.",
"Of all economic systems devised by man, capitalism is the one which is the least rewarding for the state. It rewards innovation, creativity and hard work. This is different than crony capitalism, which rewards connections, alliances and general corruption for the end goal of profitting. All economic crisis of capitalism were derived from cronyism in the three spheres of power in societies; judicial, private sector and state regulatory agencies. Whenever their roles were preserved and the market was free to perform its intended role, without the chokehold of the other two spheres, it thrived and led humanity to the greatest technological, societal and economical advances we ever could have had. The problem is when socialist/communist-leaning stakeholders push for control of one sphere over another. The state exists to serve the people, not the other way around (communism); if people work for the state, they may be forced to sacrifice themselves for \"the greater good\", which is, the perpetuation of an ever-growing state. On the other hand, the market cannot take over the state and the law and declare itself the sole ruler of it all (anarchy), since this opens the door for oligarchies and monopolies, as well as proliferation of black markets, lack of punishment for bad business practices and perpetuation of longer-lived businesses, asfixiating local family ones. Finally, the law declaring itself superior over the market and state (dictatorship) means the one who should regulate now exerts influence and dictates matters of the other two, which opens space for literal interpretations of laws and lack of personal ambiguity in specific cases may either lead to civil unrest and a case which always comes from it, where the state meshes itself with the law and declares itself the law (totalitarianism), and suppresses whatever it feels like threatens it through the use of police force and the military, again, using assets which were previously meant to protect the people to serve the interests of the state itself, instead (again, another case of the state juxtaposing itself over all others). TL;DR: All over the world, all economic models were tried. Capitalism, when kept to its core roots, has sustained much shorter, less devastating crisis of identity than all other models, which leads to the quintissential saying that \"of all its peers, capitalism failed the least\". EDIT: My first gilded comment in five years of Reddit. Thank you so much, kind stranger.",
"Capitalism replaced mercantilism, which replaced some older economic models. There are three basic reasons for why it triumphed: 1) It is a very intuitive system, to the point where capitalistic trends leak through into all other systems. 2) It works. 3) It leads to greater economic prosperity than other economic models, which leads to economic dominance by those who adopt capitalism.",
"I could well be wrong, and I don't disagree with the premise, but I'm guessing the main reason is that you've been reading sources from Capitalist countries.",
"It kind of isn't. The most powerful country in the world, the US, is capitalist, but that doesn't necessarily mean it is the defacto best. There is no such thing as a purely capitalist system, just as there is no purely command based system. All systems are mixed,such as in how the US the government regulates certain industries, or in China how people have access to currency to act according to their wants. No system is \"best\" but politicians, and others might try to convince you a certain system is better than others. The truth is that every nation has different needs and values, they're system will reflect that.",
"It's currently on top, having won (through better results) a long fight against Communism. This doesn't make it a permanent standard, though, just the current winner. Both of these systems fought to replace Feudalism, which worked well back when land and muscle power, rather than machinery, were the keys to economic production. Capitalism won because it works much better than Communism (which relies on people to be much more altruistic than they really are, and therefore was both corrupted and less effective than hoped). Some economists think capitalism will be replaced again in a forthcoming age of abundance -- a \"post-scarcity era\" when \"who gets the stuff\" is no longer the key question -- but that's just a hypothesis right now.",
"I'll give it a shot from the \"Long Arm of History\" perspective. My answer cribs heavily from \"The Dictator's Handbook: Why Bad Behavior Is Almost Always Good Politics\". Which everyone really ought to read. Economic systems ultimately issue forth from political systems: money is a form of power, so the two are eternally linked. Here's the basic thrust of the DHB: 1. You get power not by getting everyone to like you, but to get just enough of the right people to like you. In a dictatorship, this means bribing the existing army to stand aside while you stage a coup; in the US, you use the Electoral College. 2. Keeping power is different from getting it; in order to stick around, you have to pay off a select few (in money if you're a dictator, in policy if you're in a democracy) while keeping the number of people you have to pay off low. (This is why Donald Trump is firing a bunch of people and not having them replaced, and also why he prizes loyalty so much: loyal, stupid people are cheaper to pay off. It's also why layoffs happen after a merger--it's not just about costs.) 3. Since these rules of power are immutable, more democracy is always preferable to less, because democrats have to pay their bribes with policies and services, since cash bribes are less effective. (If I have 1000 USD to pay off two guys, I pay them. If I have to pay off a hundred guys with the same money, I buy a thousand-dollar good or service they can all share.) So how does this make democracy tend to lead to capitalism? Because more democracy means more powerful, influential people asking for a piece of the pie. But none of them are saints; the rules of power still apply. The worker's paradise will never exist because everyone is (to some extent) a Donald Trump waiting to happen. We'll all favor our friends and family if given a chance. We all want to have more than we need. Capitalism works the same way democracy works, and for the same reason. Democracy pits large groups of people who want stuff against each other. The size of the groups cancel out the more ambitious, crazy-assed selfishness (most of the time). In like fashion, capitalism allows people to pursue greed (like they're gonna do anyway), and when it works properly, the most extreme profiteers will get put in check by people whose interests oppose theirs. Companies can buy off a senator or two, and get around capitalism's competitive restrictions. But eventually, Google gets mad at Verizon, and we all get to have net neutrality while they fight over money.",
"During the period of feudalism in Europe, merchants and bankers built up economic power for themselves over hundreds of years. This started out in trading hubs like Venice, which had a lot of contact with the Islamic world where practices like investment were common. When the feudal system was replaced with the nation-state, most of the people who participated in the process of writing the constitutions came from this capitalist class. The rules were written to prevent democracy in the economy, so that these capitalists could maintain their economic power. Capitalism and the nation-state did not evolve independently in the rest of the world, but were mostly imposed on them by European powers who dominated world politics at the time. This is why if you look at maps of Africa and the Middle East, a lot of these countries have borders that are straight lines. The nation-state has become such a fundamental concept of human understanding that even anti-capitalists did not think to come up with alternatives. Marxist-Leninist projects like the Soviet Union were based on the idea of seizing state power, so rather than abolishing capitalism, they merely recreated capitalist structures in an even more oppressive form.",
"I initially read this as \"Cannibalism\" and thought I was about to read a very different thread.",
"Why capitalism is gud, by johnny age 5 It won because it is gud and communism is bad btw. The end",
"Because the CIA is the enforcement arm of big business, \"gangsters for capitalism,\" as Smedley Butler said about the military in the 1930's, and they overthrow populist leaders such as John F. Kennedy, Patrice Lumumba, Mohammed Mosaddeq and Jacobo Árbenz.",
"It's the only one grounded in reality. All other economic models are based on idealism. They seek to force man to transcend his selfish nature. However, it never works, because *someone* has to be in charge of the other systems, and because all men are selfish, corruption runs rampant and inefficiency reins supreme. Capitalism takes man's innate selfishness and uses it to better society: if Bob is only selling bread because it makes him rich, why should you care about the motivation, so long as your table is full every night? The profit incentive means that people take risks, invest time, labor, and money, and participate in the sale of goods or services, all so that they can get more money. They get rich, and you get goods or services; everyone wins. It's the standard because it works, and because it's grounded in reality. Nobody will work just to put bread on another man's table, but people will jump through hoops to get a little more on theirs.",
"Beware- trade (of whatever degree of free-ness) does not equal capitalism. Capitalism is the private ownership of the means of production (as opposed to communism- where the state owns it all). This means that returns on that capital, through profit accrued through trading the output of that capital, accumulates to the individual that owns the capital, and thus individuals can become wealthy. The obvious alternative through the 20th century was communism where profit was returned to the state for redistribution. As to why it's so popular now- what would you prefer? A lifetime of hard work returning the benefits directly to you, or the same lifetime's Labour trickling down to you after redistribution by the state? Simply put, capitalism is a better offer than any alternative. Bit like democracy, trousers with 2 legs and food that tastes nice. [Footnote- I mention trade up top because capitalism and free trade are often used interchangably. Trade is the most important thing we as a species do, because it creates value for both sides of the exchange with no external inputs. Communist countries trade too (Even North Korea, when we let them), but the effectiveness of their means of production often means goods cost more than their worth in the market (the final arbiter of price, and no, price controls don't work- see Venezuela), or their quality control is poor, again often do do with price controls or markets that do not operate freely (contentious statement, but often true).]"
],
"score": [
492,
193,
60,
33,
29,
17,
12,
12,
12,
10,
9,
6,
4,
3,
3,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k8vVEbCquMw",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decentralized_planning_(economics)"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5t0p67 | why are churches exempt from paying taxes? | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ddj8qfc",
"ddj8f0m",
"ddj8ej9",
"ddj8c9m",
"ddjpoca",
"ddj8ax6",
"ddjlj65",
"ddj8f9a",
"ddj9cdo",
"ddk4o00"
],
"text": [
"Tax exempt status is allowed for nonprofit organizations that are operated exclusively for religious, educational, scientific or other charitable purpose. There are a few more rules, but those are the two big requirements: (1) nonprofit and (2) religious, education, scientific, or charitable. As you can see, churches don't get special treatment over other nonprofits. However, you might still ask why \"religious\" organizations are included at all. One reason is that it helps maintain separation of church and state. As the Supreme Court noted in one of its earliest decisions regarding a national bank, the power to tax is the power to destroy. By not taxing churches, the state removes itself from interfering in church business and also makes sure the state doesn't start relying on church taxes for its operation. Another reason is that historically churches were important charitable and social centers. That's still true for many churches today, but it was even more apparent when the tax laws were first being made.",
"Churches are exempt because they are non-profit organizations. The money they collect goes to paying for staff (preacher, secretary, cleaners), maintenance of the building/property, improvements to the building/property, and the various ministries that they participate in (food pantries open to the public, soup kitchens, helping the poor with bills, building wells in Africa, etc). There is no owner and are no stockholders making profit off of the money they collect and services they provide.",
"The government gives an [large variety of organizations tax exemption]( URL_0 ), churches are just one type. For example: * Other charities (with the added bonus of donations to the group reduce the donor's taxes, too) this includes almost anything with a loose tie to education * Industry trade groups and unions * Sports leagues * Social clubs * political organizations (both campaign groups and advocacy organizations) * co-operative corporations (REI doesn't pay income taxes either) * Credit Unions * Unions * Pensions * Veterans groups Churches are just one type of these groups, that also perform actions to benefit their members (remember social clubs and sports leagues are on the list too) and the broader community (like organizing schools or hospitals).",
"There is no surer way to end freedom of religion than to tax it. If your place of worship has to pay a fee to stay in service, that means you as a mass have to pay to support your religion. If you can't pay, you can't worship. Not by religious doctrine, but by government mandate. You *have* to pay a certain amount of money. Keep in mind governments tend to care for things that bring in more taxes, so bigger churches and bigger religions would be favored in developmental plans to prevent disruption of government income. This could be something as small as redirecting a highway so it goes through a neighborhood instead of a church or as large as adjusting policy to benefit one church more than another. The only requirement is that the government doesn't discriminate between religions. I may be completely wrong, but it seems to me that it can still discriminate between churches of the same religion. [What I read to learn this just now]( URL_0 )",
"The federal tax code makes organizations that meet certain criteria tax exempt. \"Being a religious organization\" is enough to qualify under current law, but let's just pretend that it wasn't for a minute. Even if it weren't, churches would pretty much all still meet the criteria (see below!) and thus qualify for tax exempt status. So the only way of *excluding* churches from tax-exempt status would be discrimination on the basis of religion. That's unconstitutional under the First Amendment. Also, at this very moment, there are churches that *don't* qualify for tax-exempt status because they violate other rules for tax-exempt status. I'm not talking about the *highly* debatable notion that churches risk their tax status be engaging in political activities. Set that aside for the moment. No, I'm talking about rules that prevent the benefits of any nonprofit, tax-exempt organization from \"redounding to a particular person or persons,\" i.e., using a tax-exempt organization as your own personal slush fund. The most egregious example would be someone routing their earned and presumably taxable income through a tax-exempt entity that then pays all their living expenses \"charitably\". That's called \"tax evasion,\" and turns out to be an *excellent* way of *going to jail*. Now most churches don't have *that* problem, if for no other reason than the IRS tends to catch on to that kind of dodge pretty quickly. But there are *definitely* ways that churches--innocently or otherwise--can get into trouble here that have *nothing* to do with religion.",
"It's part of the separation of church and state. The way it is supposed to work, the Churches agree to stay mostly out of politics, and the lawmakers agree to stay out of Church business, including taxing them. Of course, Churches, for the most part, have heavy philanthropic works, like running schools and hospitals, so it isn't like the tax break isn't earned.",
"Why should (the vast majority of) Churches have to pay taxes anyway? The members pay income tax, the church pays the same taxes on their land as everyone else, and then when the Church pays out money to staff, they pay income tax on it again. If a Church has a major imbalance between money coming in and money going to staff, charity, missions work, etc, then they need to be investigated and if they're spending money in a way that doesn't reflect their religious nonprofit status, then that status should be revoked. The vast majority of churches are not like that and forcing them to pay tax absolutely would force some congregations to lose their property because they are barely making ends meet already; members would (rightfully, to an extent) view this as the church being forced underground and persecuted.",
"Because charities in general are exempt from paying taxes. It's one way that the government encourages philanthropy, givers get to deduct what they give and charities don't have to pay tax on it. Churches are a type of charity. The IRS has a [nice web page]( URL_0 ) explaining the rules for 501(c)(3) exemption from taxation.",
"The power to tax, is the power to control. Any tax by it's nature requires inspection, validation, measurement, tax collectors, auditors, compliance officers, accountants, certifications, etc. Compliance is enforced by punishment. The Constitution was designed to protect people from Government, there has to be places where it cannot reach. (Ideally)",
"The real question is why are the NFL and NASCAR, etc. considered non profit and are tax exempt? A church that is run the proper way is the truest definition of a non profit. Sporting leagues are not non profit (my opinion) because they make billions from advertising. Not like the rich pay taxes anyway but we have a huge deficit to cover here in the good ol' USA."
],
"score": [
487,
51,
16,
14,
12,
6,
6,
4,
3,
3
],
"text_urls": [
[],
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/501(c\\)_organization"
],
[
"http://www.latimes.com/la-oew-lynn-stanley23-2008sep23-story.html"
],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/charitable-organizations/exemption-requirements-section-501-c-3-organizations"
],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
|
5t0r10 | How pizza delivery became a thing, when no other restaurants really offered hot food deliveries like that. | Culture | explainlikeimfive | {
"a_id": [
"ddjar6t",
"ddk7btt",
"ddjfv47",
"ddjzuh4",
"ddka17i",
"ddja6tp",
"ddjc965",
"ddj8kve",
"ddj8tio",
"ddk33i7",
"ddk28zr"
],
"text": [
"According to the story, the first pizza delivered was to Queen Margherita in Italy in the late 1800's. (Who still has a pizza named after her, the one with tomato, basil, and mozzarella cheese.) Previous to this pizza was considered peasant food. According to the story, she woke up one day and said she was bored with the fancy, expensive food she's always eating and wanted something different. The most renowned pizza chef in the area made the pizza, now called a Margherita pizza, with the colors of the Italian flag and had it delivered to her. The queen declared it delicious, and as is frequently the case everyone wanted to try what the queen had tried and loved: Freshly made pizza delivered to her door. Source: URL_0",
"I have a book about New Haven pizza- New Haven is considered by many as the birthplace of American pizza. Pizza was seemingly always delivered since it came to America in the early 20th century. Here are some excerpts: \"...pizza was largely popularized starting in the 1910s when it was sold on the street and delivered to the factories and the Market Exchange, an important regional farmer's market.\" One of the most famous pizza places/owners is even credited as the inventor of the pizza box to facilitate delivery. About Frank Pepe's: \"(Pepe) continued to deliver pies...but he employed a new method to package them, the pizza box. The National Folding Box Co., a local firm, began making them, creating the oldest record of a pizza box in the world.\" So again, to reiterate what I stated above- Pizza seems to have started in America as a food that was typically delivered. The tradition was just copied and continued from these original locations.",
"Pizza's characteristics mean it's quite hard to make well at home (mainly, you need time to develop the dough, and a hotter oven than most homes have). Yet pizza is also well suited to being delivered: - Single object, no complexity - No liquid components to spill, unlike curry - Doesn't degrade much in quality for a while after it's done, even when put into a package, unlike breaded fried foods - Takes only minutes to make once you've set up the right kitchen",
"I wish I had a concrete source to provide you with, but in searching the internet for the history of pizza delivery I did come across a few connections that may be helpful: Pizza as a food took off in American following WWII, when soldiers returning from overseas found themselves wanting that delicious pizza they ate while in Italy. During this time, car culture also began to pick up, with more people having access to a car, which is important to note for the whole \"delivery\" part. Moving forward into the middle of the century: work/life shifts that found both men and women in the workplace and spending more time traveling to get to their jobs found people with less time to cook dinner and greater interest in dining out or getting take out dinner. Around this time somebody also figured out the better design for the pizza box, which made it easier to transport. One other important thing for you factor in in regards to why more restaurants don't deliver is demand and profitability, etc. If you live in an area that isn't densely populated, it may not be worth the time for a business to offer delivery if each delivery takes the person 45 minutes one direction for order number 1 and another 30 minutes another direction to drop off order number 2. edit: clarity",
"Three factors: the nature of pizza production, the physical and financial infrastructure available for that production in the United States after World War II, and the portable nature of pizza itself. First, production: a pizza parlor needs only two pieces of specialized equipment, a heavy stand mixer for the dough and an oven that will hold temperatures over 700F. If you are handy, you can build the oven yourself with brick and pipe. So long as you aren't trying to open a full-service restaurant with lots of seating and a varied menu, the only expensive piece of equipment you have to acquire is that stand mixer. Second, infrastructure: after World War II, the US government had a lot of surplus items they were selling cheap: jeeps, canteens, army boots,... and huge Hobart stand mixers. The Hobart mixers were big enough to mix a battalion's bread, and they were going cheap. A veteran could get a small business loan from the GI bill, buy his mixer, rent a small storefront, build his oven, and boom, he was in the restaurant business. It's a restaurant that can make a lot of pizza efficiently, but it can't make much else. You aren't going to get a lot of sit-down trade. People want to take what you make to eat someplace else. This brings us to the third item: pizza is a perfectly portable food. It doesn't need a knife and fork. It can be reheated multiple times without a discernable loss in quality. By varying the toppings of vegetables and meat, it can easily be a single-dish meal that makes the entire family happy. As pizza parlors spread from urban centers, owners realized there was a limit to the walk-in traffic they could expect. They knew from their urban experience many customers were taking the pizza home. How could they replicate that trade in the suburbs? By offering a new service: pizza delivered to the customer's house. Edit: something I forgot, which added steam to the spread of pizza delivery in the 1950's, particularly in the midwest: narcotics. Suppose you are an Italian organized crime boss in Chicago or Kansas City and you want to distribute narcotics in Lincoln, Nebraska. You can't just send a couple of Sicilian nephews to hang out on a street corner. Two Italian guys just stopping to buy gas in Lincoln would attract attention in the 1950's. People would notice. If the same two guys open a pizza parlor, however, no one cares. They can hire compromised people down on their luck as delivery men. They will learn soon enough who can move and consume their product. They have the perfect cover business: all cash, deliveries going all over the city, and open late. I don't know how much this happened in the East, and I don't think it happened at all out West, but I know this happened around KC and Chicago a lot.",
"What leads pizza to be something people get delivered instead of make at home? 1. Frozen pizzas until 10 years ago tasted like shit. 2. In a larger city you usually have to compromise on living arrangements. You may not have an oven at all, or perhaps a smaller counter top oven. It can be faster for one person to take a small vehicle out than for 5 people to individually make their way to the store. If you have a ton of orders backing up you aren't able to make the next order (where would you put it), so in general it is best to get as many deliveries out as possible. 3. The nature of pizza (usually people would order 1-2 pizzas), makes it easy to deliver. You can stack up 5 deliveries on top of each other and they stay warm. There isn't a ton of diversity in the packaging so you don't have shifting problems. The technology on the bags is actually really advanced. 4. To make a supreme pizza you're looking at buying 3/4 too much toppings, because that is how they sell them. You can't buy a 1/4 of a green pepper (usually). The pizza store actually makes money by buying a bunch more, whereas a person at home would have to go through all the toppings or waste them.",
"I think a forgotten reason is that pizza, wings and Chinese food stay hot and fresh in a way that McD's doesnt.",
"Becuase it's cheap and feeds a lot, like Chinese food, and even some sandwich places deliver, like Jimmy Johns. When people want nicer food, they usually go out to eat, and since there is a delivery fee, most people don't want to spend even more on expensive food. The food will also likely be in styrofoam food boxes, so not a quality arrangement. Services like Grubhub don't make a lot of money with nicer restaurants, it's lower class restaurants that can't afford drivers is where they do a lot of business.",
"Many food services offer delivery, particularly in cities. At the time of the pizza delivery boom most Mom & Pop grocery stores would deliver food to your house if needed (because you were a member of the local community), chinese food delivered, most delis would deliver, even McDonald's delivered during this era.",
"Pizza delivery driver here. As others have stated pizza is still fine if you keep it in the bags for a long time. Pro tip if you have your pizza being delivered a long way away ask them not to cut the pizza. It stays better not cut. It also tastes fine after sitting on the oven at the restaurant for a while. We do this to keep them warm while we wait for people to pick them up. It keeps its taste too doesn't get soggy. I deliver other meals for my pizza place and those tend to get kinda nasty after about 20 minutes so we try to get those delivered first. Mozzarella sticks and pasta can get gross if you let them sit.",
"Pizza has a huge markup, a low amount of required equipment and holds at tempature better than most things. The high markup and low startup costs lead to lots of pizza places around with enough income to attempt methods ti generate more sales. Since pizza is still good after sitting in an insulated bag for 45 minutes delivery was successful. There are other foods that work well ti be delivered but none of them have the combination of mark up and appeal that pizza has."
],
"score": [
2263,
387,
316,
223,
161,
114,
43,
27,
17,
17,
5
],
"text_urls": [
[
"http://www.foodandwine.com/fwx/food/political-story-first-pizza-delivery"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
} | [
"url"
] | [
"url"
] |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.